National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Lake Mead National Recreation Area

Nevada

C o t t o n w o o d C o v e a n d K a t h e r i n e L a n d i n g

d r a f t d e v e l o p m e n t c o n c e p t p l a n s e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS / 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

COTTONWOOD COVE AND KATHERINE LANDING 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

Clark County, Nevada 

Mohave County, Arizona 

March 2013 
2 

this page intentionally blank
iii 

DRAFT 

DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS / 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

COTTONWOOD COVE AND KATHERINE LANDING, 

LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA 

MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing are two of the major developed areas on Lake Mohave within 

the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The purpose of the development concept plans for these two 

areas is to reevaluate the implementation strategies that were identified in the 1986 Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area General Management Plan / Development Concept Plans / Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and to incorporate the concepts and carrying capacities that were approved in the 2003 Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area Lake Management Plan / Final Environmental Impact Statement. Each 

development concept plan provides an integrated plan for development with site-specific guidance for 

the extent, type, and location of facilities and services that is consistent with the management direction 

and intent established in the 1986 and 2003 plans. 

This Draft Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing Development Concept Plans/ Environmental Impact 

Statement presents three alternatives for managing the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

developed areas. It also analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. “Alternative 1: No 

Action, Continue Current Management Trends” reflects current management direction and serves as a 

baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. Existing facilities would be retained with minimal 

changes. “Alternative 2: Implement Previous Planning Proposals” would implement previous planning 

proposals that separate day use and marina facilities, maintain the type of overnight facilities, and provide 

flood mitigation. “Alternative 3: Enhance Visitor Experience and Park Operations (Preferred 

Alternative) would enhance day-use opportunities, upgrade and expand the type of overnight facilities, 

and provide flood mitigation. 

The impacts of implementing the various alternatives were analyzed under five broad topic areas: natural 

resources; cultural resources; visitor use and experience; the socioeconomic environment; and Park 

operations. The key impacts of implementing these alternatives are summarized in table 5 and detailed in 

chapter 4. 

This document has been distributed to other agencies and interested organizations and individuals for 

their review and comment (see “How to Comment on This Document,” page iv). The public comment 

period for this document will last for 60 days after the Environmental Protection Agency’s notice of 

availability has been published in the Federal Register. 
iv 

How to comment on this document 

Comments on this draft development concept plans / environmental impact statement (DCPs/EIS) are 

welcome and will be accepted during the 60-day public review and comment period. During the comment 

period, a series of public meetings will be scheduled to provide opportunities to meet with members of 

the NPS planning team to discuss the plans. Comments may be submitted using the several methods noted 

below. 

We prefer that readers submit comments online (through the park planning website identified above) so the 

comments become incorporated in the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment System. An 

electronic public comment form is provided through this website. 

Please submit comments 

online: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/lake 

or 

by mail: Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

ATTN: Draft DCPs/EIS, National Park Service 

601 Nevada Way 

Boulder City, NV 89005 

or 

hand delivery: at public meetings to be announced in the local media following the release 

of this draft development concept plans / environmental impact statement. 

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information 

in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment — including your personal identifying 

information — may be publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold 

your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do 

so. 
v 

SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND 

The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared 

draft development concept plans and a draft 

environmental impact statement for the 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

developed areas on Lake Mohave within Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area (NRA). The 

purpose of the development concept plans is to 

reevaluate the implementation strategies for these 

two areas that were identified in the 1986 Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area General 

Management Plan / Development Concept Plans / 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (GMP) and 

to incorporate the concepts and carrying 

capacities that were approved in the 2003 Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area Lake Management 

Plan / Final Environmental Impact Statement

(LMP). Each development concept plan provides 

an integrated plan for development with sitespecific guidance for the extent, type, and location 

of facilities and services that is consistent with the 

management direction and intent established in 

the general management plan and lake 

management plan. 

The general management plan addressed the need 

to provide recreational opportunities while 

preserving and protecting natural and cultural 

resources. It established land-based management 

zones and included development concept plans 

for Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing that 

identified limits on the development, established 

the number and type of facilities, and addressed 

flood hazards. The general management plan’s 

vision for both areas was to accommodate 

increasing use, enhance the visitor experience, 

and mitigate flood hazards. The lake management 

plan established water-based management zones 

and provided further guidance for the long-term 

protection of park resources while allowing a 

range of recreational opportunities to support 

visitor needs. A number of the management 

actions identified in both approved plans require 

more site-specific development planning. There 

are also a number of management issues that have 

not been adequately addressed or resolved in the 

previous planning efforts and that require a more 

detailed examination of development and 

operational needs. 

The primary issues affecting the management of 

the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

developed areas are as follows: 

 providing flood mitigation 

 enhancing shoreline-based day-use 

opportunities and facilities to meet a growing 

demand 

 improving the safety and ease of access, 

providing better organized and more 

convenient parking, and providing the 

authorized number of parking spaces 

 improving NPS campgrounds to function 

effectively to meet visitor needs while 

protecting the cultural landscape 

 providing adequate visitor information and 

education programs and determining if 

commercial services and NPS educational and 

interpretive services be provided in a joint 

facility enhancing operational facilities to 

function effectively and efficiently, meeting 

the needs of both park staff and visitors 

 identifying which concession facilities or 

services are still necessary and appropriate at 

these sites for public use and enjoyment of the 

park 

This Draft Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing Development Concept Plans / 

Environmental Impact Statement (DCPs/EIS) 

presents and analyzes three alternatives for 

managing the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing developed areas on Lake Mohave. 

“Alternative 1: No Action, Continue Current 

Management Trends” represents the continuation 

of existing conditions, operations, and 

management practices within each developed 

area. The action alternatives (“Alternative 2: 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals” and 

“Alternative 3: Enhance Visitor Experience and 

Park Operations [Preferred Alternative]”) were 

developed to satisfy the purpose and need for the 

project, achieve the project objectives, and meet 

relevant NPS policies and legal requirements. 

Alternative 3 is the agencies’ preferred alternative 

for each of the developed areas. 
SUMMARY

vi 

PURPOSE AND 

NEED FOR THE PLANS 

The Draft Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing Development Concept Plans / 

Environmental Impact Statement reevaluates the 

implementation strategies for the Cottonwood 

Cove and Katherine Landing developed areas that 

were identified in the general management plan 

and incorporate the concepts and carrying 

capacity identified in the lake management plan. 

Each development concept plan provides sitespecific guidance for the extent, type, and location 

of facilities and services that is consistent with the 

management direction and intent established in 

both plans. The management zoning designations 

and overall strategies for managing each 

developed area are consistent with the previous 

plans, although specific actions (e.g., facility 

locations, roadway circulation) could differ from 

those recommended in those plans. 

OBJECTIVES IN TAKING ACTION 

The following objectives were developed based on 

the purpose and need for this project and were 

used in the development of the action alternatives: 

 enhance visitor and staff safety 

 enhance the recreational experience 

 protect and enhance the natural, scenic, and 

cultural resources of the areas 

 provide necessary and appropriate facilities 

and services for visitors 

ISSUES 

The NPS staff, general public, developed area 

concessioners, and representatives from other 

agencies, organizations, and businesses identified 

a number of issues and concerns during scoping 

for this planning effort. The following issues were 

raised through scoping: 

 flood mitigation 

 no-boat / shoreline users 

 traffic circulation, parking, and launch ramps 

 overnight visitor facilities 

 visitor orientation, interpretation, and 

education 

 National Park Service and concessioner 

support facilities 

 other commercial visitor facilities 

IMPACT TOPICS 

The National Park Service has prepared these 

development concept plans in accordance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, the Council of Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ’s) Regulations for Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1993), and the 

NPS Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact and Decision Making (NPS 

2000). Impact topics allow comparison of the 

environmental consequences of implementing 

each of the alternatives. The impact topics in these 

concept plans were identified based on 

substantive issues expressed by the public or other 

agencies during scoping, federal laws, and other 

legal requirements, CEQ guidelines, NPS 

Management Policies 2006, and staff subjectmatter expertise. 

The NPS planning team selected the following 

impact topics for analysis based on the potential 

for each topic to be affected by the alternatives: 

 native plant communities and soils 

 wildlife 

 threatened, endangered, and special status 

species 

 floodplains 

 archeological resources 

 historic structures 

 cultural landscape 

 ethnographic resources 

 visitor use, experience, and safety 
Summary 

vii 

 park operations 

 socioeconomic environment 

The following impact topics were considered but 

dismissed from further analysis because they 

would not be affected, or the potential for impacts 

under all the alternatives would be negligible or 

minor: 

 natural soundscapes 

 lightscapes 

 scenic resources 

 air quality and climate change 

 water quality 

 ecologically critical areas, wild and scenic 

rivers, or other unique natural areas 

 wetlands 

 threatened and endangered species not 

addressed in these plans 

 nontribal ethnographic resources 

 museum collections 

 environmental justice 

 paleontological resources 

 prime and unique farmlands 

 Indian trust resources 

 conflicts with land use plans 

 energy requirements and conservation 

potential 

 natural or depletable resource requirements 

and conservation potential 

 urban quality and design of the built 

environment 

 wilderness 

ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR 

ANALYSIS FOR COTTONWOOD 

COVE DEVELOPED AREA 

The alternatives presented in these development 

concept plans were developed by the NPS 

planning team of the Cottonwood Cove 

developed area. The NPS management policies, 

the national recreation area’s mission statement 

and goals, relevant laws and regulations, and 

public input all helped to direct and shape the 

alternatives. 

Summary of Alternative 1: No Action, 

Continue Current Management Trends 

The no-action alternative reflects current 

management of the developed area and serves as a 

baseline for comparison with the other 

alternatives. This alternative would essentially 

maintain existing conditions at Cottonwood 

Cove. The existing visitor, National Park Service, 

and concession support facilities would be 

maintained with minimal changes. 

Summary of Alternative 2: 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals 

Alternative 2 would maintain many of the existing 

facilities and continue to implement some of the 

specific actions identified in the general 

management plan and the lake management plan 

that have not yet been completed. Flood hazards 

would be addressed through structural 

protection, relocation of some facilities, and use of 

a flood warning system. 

A new visitor contact / ranger station would be 

constructed near the launch ramp. The existing 

ranger station would be converted for use as a 

campground office. Overnight visitor facilities 

would be retained in their current locations. The 

existing motel could be expanded. A new day-use 

area (picnic and no-boat area) would be 

developed in Ski Cove. The main access road 

would remain two lanes through the developed 

area. Parking capacity would be increased and the 

marina expansion would be allowed to the 

carrying capacity authorized in the lake 

management plan. The National Park Service and 

concessioner housing and maintenance areas 

would be relocated to the bluff south of the access 

road. 
SUMMARY

viii 

Summary of Alternative 3: 

Enhance Visitor Experience and Park 

Operations (Preferred) 

Alternative 3 would focus on enhancing and 

dispersing day use along the lakeshore. The site 

just north of the motel would be redeveloped for a 

combined visitor/commercial services center that 

would consolidate store and restaurant functions 

in one location. Visitor information and 

exhibit/interpretive space would also be provided, 

but are not expected to occupy a substantial 

percentage of space. The existing picnic area 

would be configured for group and individual 

sites with additional site amenities (e.g., shade 

structures, tables, grills). A new day-use area 

(picnic and no-boat area) would be developed in 

Ski Cove, with a designated trail access to 

Cottontail Cove. The lower campground would 

be converted to a day-use picnic area during the 

summer season and continue to operate as a 

campground during the winter season. 

The existing motel could be expanded. The trailer 

village would be removed and the area would be 

redeveloped for overnight accommodations (i.e., 

recreational vehicle park, cabin units, and park 

models with individual bathrooms) managed by 

the concessioner. The upper campground would 

be redeveloped for concessioner and NPS 

volunteer housing, with a portion of the 

campground — perhaps one loop — retained for 

visitor tent/car camping. A new launch / ready 

lane extending from the launch ramp to the upper 

campground would be constructed. Parking 

capacity would be increased and the marina 

expansion would be allowed to the carrying 

capacity authorized in the lake management plan. 

A new paved loop road through the developed 

area would provide an alternate route to the motel 

and visitor contact / commercial services facility, 

with a spur to the Ski Cove day-use area. Flood 

hazards would be addressed through structural 

protection, relocation of some facilities, and use of 

a flood warning system. 

A new law enforcement / emergency services 

center that would accommodate a ranger station, 

fire station, and helipad would be developed at the 

site of the existing ranger station. The NPS 

housing and maintenance functions would be 

retained in their current locations and 

rehabilitated as needed. The existing ranger 

station and nearby helipad would be retained. In 

the long term, however, the National Park Service 

would explore options for a consolidated law 

enforcement / emergency services facility in the 

general vicinity of the ranger station or in the 

housing area. Relocation of concession housing to 

a portion of the redeveloped upper campground 

area would consolidate concession housing that is 

currently scattered throughout the developed area 

and allow concession maintenance to be 

expanded into the existing adjacent concession 

housing area. 

ALTERNATIVES SELECTED 

FOR ANALYSIS FOR KATHERINE 

LANDING DEVELOPED AREA 

The alternatives presented in these development 

concept plans were developed by the NPS 

planning team of the Katherine Landing 

developed area. The NPS management policies, 

the national recreation area’s mission statement 

and goals, relevant laws and regulations, and 

public input all helped to direct and shape the 

alternatives. 

Summary of Alternative 1: No Action, 

Continue Current Management Trends 

The no-action alternative reflects current 

management of the developed area and serves as a 

baseline for comparison with the other 

alternatives. Existing facilities within Princess 

Cove, Cabinsite Point, and North and South 

Arizona Telephone Cove would be retained in 

their current locations with minimal changes. 

Summary of Alternative 2: 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals 

Alternative 2 would maintain many of the existing 

facilities and would implement previous planning 

proposals identified in the general management 

plan and the lake management plan that have not 

yet been completed. Flood hazards would be 

addressed through structural protection, 

relocation of some facilities, and use of a flood 

warning system. Overnight visitor facilities would 

be retained in their current locations and may be 

improved but not expanded. The motel would be 

renovated and the campground would be 

minimally rehabilitated (for Americans with 

Disabilities Act access). The trailer village would 

remain, or, over time, portions would be 
Summary 

ix 

converted to a short-term recreational vehicle 

park. Commercial services (excluding the marina) 

would be expanded on their current sites. The 

marina is currently at the carrying capacity 

authorized in the lake management plan. The 

parking capacity authorized in the lake 

management plan would be maintained; however, 

parking would be developed closer to the 

lakeshore and the furthest parking area would be 

removed. Concessioner housing and maintenance 

areas would be retained in their current locations. 

NPS maintenance would be relocated to a new 

area on a bluff northwest of the developed area 

near the current water treatment plant. 

Summary of Alternative 3: 

Enhance Visitor Experience and Park 

Operations (Preferred Alternative) 

Under alternative 3 the store and restaurant 

would be rehabilitated or replaced. Some visitor 

information and exhibit/interpretive space would 

be incorporated into the redesign. The motel 

would be removed and the site redeveloped for 

greatly expanded visitor parking near the lake 

with added shade/picnic facilities. The trailer 

village and short-term recreational vehicle and 

NPS campgrounds would be redeveloped for 

concessioner managed overnight facilities that 

would accommodate larger vehicles (larger sites 

with hookups), visitor tent/car camping, and 

additional types of overnight facilities (for 

instance, “cabins” or “park model” type units). 

Concession housing by the shoreline would be 

removed while the concession housing in the joint 

NPS/concession housing area would remain in its 

current location. A loop in the upper campground 

would be redeveloped for NPS volunteer housing. 

The NPS maintenance area would remain in the 

same location. NPS offices and operations (i.e., 

law enforcement, emergency services, 

interpretation offices) would also be consolidated 

in this area. The NPS housing at Katherine 

Landing is sufficient to meet existing needs. As 

such, NPS housing would remain in its current 

location. 

ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR 

ANALYSIS FOR KATHERINE LANDING 

VICINITY (PRINCESS COVE, CABINSITE 

POINT, NORTH AND SOUTH ARIZONA 

TELEPHONE COVE) 

The boat launching and parking capacities at 

Princess Cove, Cabinsite Point, and North 

Arizona Telephone Cove would be adjusted to 

maintain the capacities authorized in the lake 

management plan for the southern portion of 

Lake Mohave. The facilities at Princess Cove 

would be retained; however, parking capacity 

currently exceeds the capacity identified in the 

lake management plan. The unpaved overflow 

parking area would be closed to parking. 

Cabinsite Point would be closed to motorized 

boat launching and the no-boat area enlarged. A 

new paved access road on higher ground between 

North and South Arizona Telephone Coves would 

be constructed. To improve ease of launch, a new 

concrete two-lane launch ramp would be 

established. 

The facilities at Princess Cove would be retained. 

The existing paved parking area and existing 

unpaved overflow would remain. However, in the 

event that launch capacity at Katherine Landing is 

reduced because of the design of flood control 

channels, the park may consider paving and 

formalizing more of the overflow area. 

The Cabinsite Point road access would be 

retained, boat launching would continue to be 

allowed, the no-boat area would be retained, and 

backcountry camping may be allowed at some of 

the former cabin sites to be developed by a 

partner. 

The existing access roads to North and South 

Arizona Telephone Coves would be paved as 

would the parking area in North Arizona 

Telephone Cove. A picnic area would be 

developed near the shoreline at North Arizona 

Telephone Cove. The National Park Service 
SUMMARY

x 

would continue to allow boat launching at North 

Arizona Telephone Cove under “backcountry 

lake access site” conditions. However, note that if 

the launch capacity at Katherine Landing is 

eventually reduced because of the design of flood 

control channels, the park might consider 

improving the launch at North Arizona Telephone 

Cove or at Cabinsite Point, to align with 

established capacity levels. In this event, potential 

improvements may include paving and extending 

existing launches or increasing the number of 

launch lanes. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Under alternative 1, adverse impacts to natural 

resources from facility maintenance and increased 

visitor use would be minor. There would continue 

to be a potential long-term moderate to major 

adverse impact on human life and property in the 

floodplains and a long-term moderate adverse 

impact on floodplain values because of the 

presence of facilities in the floodplain. No new 

impacts on cultural resources, park operations, or 

socioeconomic environment would occur. 

Alternative 1 would have moderate to major 

adverse long-term effects on the visitor 

experience to Lake Mohave due to continuing 

issues (such as visitor conflicts and inadequate 

overnight accommodations) that negatively affect 

the experience of a significant percentage of 

visitors. 

Alternative 2 would result in long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts to native plant 

communities and soils from facility construction 

and associated visitor use. Local beneficial effects 

would also result from the selective removal of 

existing nonnative invasive species and 

restoration of some currently developed sites. 

Adverse impacts to wildlife would be minor. 

Alternative 2 would be likely to adversely affect 

the desert tortoise, banded Gila monster, and 

Western burrowing owls although impacts would 

be localized. The flood hazard to people and 

property in the floodplains would be greatly 

reduced at both developed areas, although there 

would be a minor to moderate adverse impact on 

floodplain values because of construction of 

additional flood control structures that divert and 

channel flood flows. Overall impacts on visitor 

experience would be beneficial with some adverse 

impacts during construction activities. Negligible 

to minor impacts would occur to the 

socioeconomic environment. 

Alternative 3 would have largely the same effects 

as described for alternative 2. 

NEXT STEPS AND 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANS 

After the distribution of these development 

concept plans, there is a 60-day public review and 

comment period. After this comment period, the 

NPS planning team will evaluate comments from 

other federal agencies, tribes, organizations, 

businesses, and individuals regarding the draft 

plan and incorporate appropriate changes into a 

Final Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

Development Concept Plans / Environmental 

Impact Statement. The final plans will include 

letters from governmental agencies and tribes, any 

substantive comments on the draft document, and 

NPS responses to those comments. 

There will be a 30-day no-action period following 

distribution of the Final Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing Development Concept 

Plans/Environmental Impact Statement. A record 

of decision may be prepared that would document 

the National Park Service-selected alternative, 

which would become the new management plan 

for the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

development areas to be implemented over 

2025 years. Once a record of decision is signed 

by the NPS Pacific West regional director, the 

plans would then be implemented as funding and 

staffing allows. 

It is important to note that not all of the actions in 

the alternative would necessarily be implemented 

immediately. The implementation of the approved 

plans, no matter which alternative might be 

selected, would depend on future National Park 

Service, state, and partner funding levels; staff to 

implement the plan; servicewide priorities; and 

partnership time and effort. Full implementation 

of the plan could be many years in the future.
xi 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 

AND NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS

INTRODUCTION 3

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND OF DEVELOPED AREAS 3

PURPOSE AND NEED 6

OBJECTIVES IN TAKING ACTION 6

PLANNING ISSUES 7

Flood Mitigation 7

Non-boating Public / Shoreline Users 7

Traffic Circulation, Parking, and Launch Ramps 7

Overnight Visitor Facilities 8

Visitor Orientation, Interpretation, and Education 8

National Park Service and Concessioner Support Facilities 8

Other Commercial Visitor Facilities 9

IMPACT TOPICS 9

Natural Resources 9

Cultural Resources 10

Visitor Use, Experience, and Safety 11

Park Operations 12

Socioeconomic Environment 12

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 12

Natural Soundscapes 12

Lightscapes 12

Scenic Resources 13

Air Quality and Climate Change 13

Water Quality 13

Ecologically Critical Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or Other Unique Natural Areas 14

Wetlands 14

Threatened and Endangered Species Not Addressed in these Development Concept Plans 14

Nontribal Ethnographic Resources 15

Museum Collections 15

Environmental Justice 15

Paleontological Resources 15

Prime and Unique Farmlands 15

Indian Trust Resources 16

Conflicts with Land Use Plans 16

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 16

Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential 16

Urban Quality and Design of the Built Environment 16

Wilderness 16
CONTENTS

xii 

PLANNING DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE 16

Applicable Laws and Policies 16

Relationship with Other Plans 18

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

INTRODUCTION 23

The Purpose of Alternatives 23

Introduction to the Range of Alternatives 23

COTTONWOOD COVE ALTERNATIVES 24

Narrative Description of Alternatives 24

Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 27

Elements Considered but Dismissed 36

KATHERINE LANDING ALTERNATIVES 36

Narrative Description of Alternatives 36

Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 39

Elements Considered but Dismissed 49

KATHERINE LANDING VICINITY 

ALTERNATIVES (PRINCESS COVE, 

CABINSITE POINT, AND NORTH 

AND SOUTH ARIZONA TELEPHONE COVE) 49

Narrative Description of Alternatives 49

ESTIMATED COSTS 50

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 55 

CONSISTENCY OF THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 55 

MITIGATION MEASURES 57

Vegetation and Soils 57

Special Status Species 57

Water and Air Quality 58

Visitor Experience and Safety 58

Visual Quality 58

Cultural Resources 58

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 59

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION 85

NATURAL RESOURCES 85
Contents 

xiii 

Native Plant Communities and Soils 85

Wildlife 86

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 87

Floodplains 88

CULTURAL RESOURCES 90

Cultural Context 90

Archeological Resources 92

Historic Structures 94

Cultural Landscapes 94

Ethnographic Resources 98

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 98

Visitation Statistics 98

Visitor Access and Circulation 98

Visitor Recreation and Activities 101

Visitor Facilities, Services, and Amenities 101

Visitor Safety 102

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 102

Regional Land Use 102

Population 103

Regional Economic Status and Forecast 103

Other Park Concessioners 105

Current Impacts of Visitor Spending 105

PARK OPERATIONS 105

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION 109

METHODOLOGY 109

Types of Effects 109

Intensity of Effects 109

Context 110

Duration of Effects 110

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 110

CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS 111

Natural Resources  Native Plant Communities and Soils 111

Natural Resources – Wildlife 112

Natural Resources – Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 113

Natural Resources – Floodplains 113

Cultural Resources – General 114

Cultural Resources – Archeological Resources 115

Cultural Resources – Historic Structures 115
CONTENTS

xiv 

Cultural Resources – Cultural Landscapes 115

Cultural Resources – Ethnographic Resources 116

Visitor Use, Experience, and Safety 116

Socioeconomic Environment 117

Park Operations 117

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: 

NO ACTION, CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT TRENDS 117

Natural Resources 117

Cultural Resources 122

Visitor Use, Experience, and Safety 123

Socioeconomic Environment 125

Park Operations 126

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 2: 

IMPLEMENT PREVIOUS PLANNING PROPOSALS 126

Natural Resources 126

Cultural Resources 133

Visitor Use, Experience, and Safety 138

Socioeconomic Environment 140

Park Operations 143

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: 

ENHANCE VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND 

PARK OPERATIONS (PREFERRED) 145

Natural Resources 145

Cultural Resources 151

Visitor Use, Experience, and Safety 157

Socioeconomic Environment 159

Park Operations 162

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 163

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 164

Relationship of Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 164

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 169

AGENCY CONSULTATION 169

American Indian Tribes 169

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 170

Nevada and Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer 170

Arizona and Nevada State Natural Resources Agencies 170

INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION 171

CONSULTATION LETTERS AND RESPONSES 172
Contents 

xv 

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 181

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION MEASURES 

AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR FEDERALLY 

LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 185

APPENDIX C: FLOODPLAIN STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 188

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 193

REFERENCES AND WORKS CONSULTED 194

PLANNING TEAM 198

INDEX 204

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Lake Mead National Recreation Area 4

Figure 2. Location of Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing Developed Areas in Lake Mead National Recreation Area 5

Figure 3. Map for Alternative 1: No Action, Continue 

Current Management Trends at Cottonwood Cove 65

Figure 4. Map for Alternative 2: Implement 

Previous Planning Proposals at Cottonwood Cove 67

Figure 5. Map for Alternative 3: Preferred 

Alternative at Cottonwood Cove 69

Figure 6. Map for Alternative 1: No Action, 

Continue Current Management Trends at Katherine Landing 71

Figure 7. Map for Alternative 2: Implement 

Previous Planning Proposals at Katherine Landing 73

Figure 8. Map for Alternative 3: 

Preferred Alternative at Katherine Landing 75

Figure 9. Map for Alternative 1: No Action, Continue 

Current Management Trends at Katherine Landing Vicinity 77

Figure 10. Map for Alternative 2: Implement Previous 

Planning Proposals at Katherine Landing Vicinity 79

Figure 11. Map for Alternative 3: Preferred 

Alternative at Katherine Landing Vicinity 81

Figure 12. Lake Mohave District – Annual Visitation 

to the Lake Mohave District of Lake Mead National Recreation Area 99

Figure 13. Lake Mead National Recreation Area – Annual Visitation 

to Lake Mead National Recreation Area, including the Lake Mohave District 99
CONTENTS

xvi 

Figure 14. Lake Mohave District – Monthly Visitation to 

the Lake Mohave District of Lake Mead National Recreation Area 100

Figure 15. Lake Mead National Recreation Area – Monthly Visitation 

to Lake Mead National Recreation Area, including the Lake Mohave District 100 

TABLES 

Table 1. Cottonwood Cove Alternatives Comparison 31

Table 2. Katherine Landing Alternatives Comparison 42

Table 3. Katherine Landing Vicinity Alternatives Comparison 51

Table 4. Cost Estimates 54

Table 5. Summary of Environmental Impacts 61

Table 6. Summary of Peak Runoff (Cottonwood Cove) 89

Table 7. Summary of Peak Runoff (Katherine Landing) 89

Table 8. List of Classified Structures in the Vicinity of 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing Developed 

Areas, Lake Mead National Recreation Area 95

Table 9. Cottonwood Cove Developed Area Historic District Buildings and Sites 97

Table 10. Population Data for Communities Surrounding Lake Mohave 104

Table 11. Employment by Industry in Clark County, Nevada 104

Table 12. Employment by Industry in Mohave County, Arizona 104

Table 13. Visitor Spending-related Economic Impacts of Alternative 1 126

Table 14. Construction-related Economic Impacts of Alternative 2 141

Table 15. Visitor Spending-related Economic Impacts of Alternative 2 142

Table 16. Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative 2 143

Table 17. Construction-related Economic Impacts of Alternative 3 160

Table 18. Visitor Spending-related Economic Impacts of Alternative 3 161

Table 19. Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative 3 162

Table C-1. Summary of Peak Runoff – Cottonwood Cove 190

Table C-2. Summary of Peak Runoff – Katherine Landing 190
P u r p o s e o f a n d

N e e d f o r t h e P l a n
Back of Divider needs to be an even page 
3 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 

AND NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter begins by providing descriptions and 

background information on the Cottonwood 

Cove and Katherine Landing developed areas in 

the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NRA) 

to explain what and where the areas are and why 

the National Park Service has prepared this Draft 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

Development Concept Plans / Environmental 

Impact Statement (DCPs/EIS). This chapter also 

explains the process used to develop these plans, 

as well as the purpose of and need for 

development concept plans and the actions 

proposed herein. 

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 

OF DEVELOPED AREAS 

The Lake Mead National Recreation Area is 

located in southeastern Nevada and northwestern 

Arizona (see figure 1). The national recreation 

area encompasses approximately 1.5 million acres 

and includes both Lake Mead, formed by Hoover 

Dam, and Lake Mohave, formed by Davis Dam. 

Both are reservoirs created by the dams that 

impound the Colorado River and serve as the 

primary water resources in the region. The water 

levels of both lakes are controlled by the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation for the purposes of 

irrigation, drinking water, and power generation 

for communities in Arizona, Nevada, and 

Southern California. Lake Mohave experiences 

seasonal fluctuations of about 15 feet (ft), typically 

experiencing higher water in the early summer 

months and lower water in the fall months. 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing are two 

of the major developed areas on Lake Mohave 

(see figure 2). Cottonwood Cove is located on the 

Nevada shore of the lake, approximately 22 miles 

north of Davis Dam. The developed area is 

accessible by a 15 mile road that runs east of 

Searchlight to lake Mohave. The first 7 miles of 

that road is maintained by Clark County. 

Katherine Landing is located near the southern 

end of the lake in Arizona, approximately 

1.5 miles north of the Davis Dam. This developed 

area is accessed by Nevada Highway 163 off of 

U.S. Highway 95 and by Arizona Highway 68 off 

of U.S. Highway 93. 

The majority of development lies within 

Katherine Wash, but also extends to the north, 

encompassing South and North Telephone Cove, 

Cabinsite Point, and Princess Cove. Both 

developed areas accommodate a wide variety of 

recreational activities and provide public launch 

facilities and commercial marina services as well 

as other public use and support facilities. 

The Lake Mead National Recreation Area is 

managed under the direction of the 1986 Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area General 

Management Plan (GMP) and the 2003 Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area Lake Management Plan 

(LMP). The general management plan addresses 

the need to provide recreational opportunities 

while preserving and protecting the recreation 

area’s natural and cultural resources. The plan 

established land-based management zones and 

included development concept plans for 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing that 

identify limits on the development, establish the 

number and type of facilities, and address flood 

hazards. The plan’s vision for both areas is to 

accommodate a variety of uses, enhance the 

visitor experience, and mitigate flood hazards. 

The key management direction identified 

included the redesign of parking and circulation 

to improve ease of access and capacity; maximum 

limits on expansion of existing or development of 

new concession facilities pending an economic 

feasibility study; and alleviation of flood hazards 

through channeling the 100-year flood flows, 

relocating some facilities, and implementing flood 

warning systems. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS

4 

FIGURE 1. LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Okm 

I 

Om! 

Mojave 

NPRES 

so 

I I z 

50 < mt': .... l>l> 

0-:J:" 

b 

Grand 

CanyonParashant 

NM 

Figure 1: Regional Map 

LAKE MEAD NATIOf.IAL RECREATION AREA 

Unhed Sli!IJ!s Deparlment of the tmerioi I National Parle Ser~ke 

osc · .-u u 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose and Need for the Development Concept Plans 

5 

FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF COTTONWOOD COVE AND KATHERINE LANDING 

DEVELOPED AREAS IN LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

~ 

" 

0 " 

U:OJAWI lrAtiOMAl f' 

A 

\, 

•/ .. , 

; 

J "' .-.) ·-" 

. ~ 

·-

• 

ure 2: Vicinity Map 

LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

United States Oepartm~nt of the Interior/ National f'arlc sirvke 

01C • ffB ll 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS

6 

The lake management plan further refined the 

management of Lakes Mead and Mohave, the 

associated shoreline, and developed areas around 

the lakes to ensure the protection of park 

resources while allowing a range of recreational 

opportunities to support visitor needs. At 

Cottonwood Cove, the lake management plan 

authorized an increase in boating capacity and 

called for the separation of public and commercial 

marina operations. It was proposed to relocate the 

picnic area, public marina, and fuel sales to Ski 

Cove located immediately south of the existing 

marina, while the rental boat operation, motel, 

restaurant, and store would remain in their 

existing locations. The traffic circulation and 

parking would be designed to provide for the 

increased boating access and relocation of 

facilities. Implementation of these actions was 

based on a future site-specific development plan. 

At Katherine Landing, the plan maintains existing 

boating capacities and provides for the separation 

of recreational activities. Physical separation of 

recreational activities would be provided and 

some areas would be managed for specific 

activities only. 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

Management direction established in the general 

management plan and the lake management plan 

provides the basis and guidance for the current 

planning effort. The purpose of the development 

concept plans for Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing is to reevaluate the 

implementation strategies for these two areas that 

were identified in the general management plan 

and to incorporate the concepts and carrying 

capacity identified in the lake management plan. 

Each development concept plan provides sitespecific guidance for the extent, type, and location 

of facilities and services that is consistent with the 

management direction and intent established in 

the plans. The management zoning designations 

and overall strategies for managing each 

developed area are consistent with the previous 

plans, although specific actions (e.g., facility 

locations, roadway circulation) could differ from 

those recommended in those plans. 

A number of the management actions identified in 

both approved plans required more site-specific 

development planning prior to implementation, 

including a parking and traffic circulation analysis, 

structural flood protection designs, site 

assessments to evaluate facility locations, and an 

economic feasibility study of concession 

operations. This specific site planning will assist in 

identifying possible facility improvement, 

relocation, and expansion. In addition, other 

facility needs have arisen or conditions have 

changed since completion of the previous plans. 

Mission 66 was a federally sponsored program to 

improve infrastructure and recreational 

opportunities in national parks. In 2006, 

Cottonwood Cove was determined to be eligible 

for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places for its Mission 66-era cultural resources. 

Katherine Landing may potentially be eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register for 

Mission 66-era resources. Consequently, 

development planning needs to take these 

National Register eligible resources into 

consideration. With the growth in communities 

outside of the park near both developed areas, 

there is also a need to reevaluate which 

concession operated services and support 

facilities are still necessary and appropriate at 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing and 

which services should be accommodated outside 

of the park. 

OBJECTIVES IN TAKING ACTION 

The following objectives were developed based on 

the purpose and need for this project and were 

used in the development of the action alternatives 

(alternatives 2 and 3): 

 Enhance visitor and staff safety — provide 

flood hazard mitigation, emergency services, 

and clear, safe, and efficient vehicular 

circulation. 

 Enhance the recreational experience — 

provide for a range of visitor experiences and 

opportunities, including educational and 

interpretive opportunities that encourage the 

preservation of park resources and foster 

increased visitor understanding, appreciation, 

enjoyment, and stewardship.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose and Need for the Development Concept Plans 

7 

 Protect and enhance the natural, scenic, and 

cultural resources of the areas — one of the 

key elements in maintaining a quality 

recreational setting is protecting the resources 

that make that recreational visit enjoyable. 

 Provide necessary and appropriate facilities 

and services for visitors — determine which 

facilities or services are necessary and 

appropriate at these sites for the continued 

public use and enjoyment of the park, given 

changing visitor preferences and recent 

development in the surrounding area. What 

identified needs can be met outside recreation 

area boundaries? What is the economic 

feasibility of concession facilities determined 

to be needed within the recreation area? 

PLANNING ISSUES 

Scoping is designed to be an early, open public 

process to determine the scope and significance of 

issues to be addressed in an environmental 

document for a proposed action. The NPS staff, 

the general public, developed area concessioners, 

and representatives from other agencies, 

organizations, and businesses identified a number 

of issues and concerns during scoping for this 

planning effort. Comments were solicited at 

public scoping meetings, through planning 

newsletters, and on the park’s web site (see 

“Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination”). 

The following seven major issues and concerns 

are addressed by these development concept 

plans. 

Flood Mitigation

The Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

developed areas are high hazard areas for flash 

floods. Consequently, flood mitigation is of 

paramount importance to public safety and 

protection of property in floodplains. Existing 

flood mitigation consists of a combination of 

diversion dikes and ditches that provide various 

levels of flood protection, ranging anywhere from 

approximately 10- to 100-year flows but that do 

not convey probable maximum flood (pmf) flows. 

Furthermore, the National Park Service currently 

expends considerable effort and resources in 

maintaining and removing debris from existing 

flood channels, cleaning culverts plugged with 

sediment, and removing sediment from parking 

areas during even relatively minor storm events. 

Non-boating Public / Shoreline Users

The recreation area is experiencing increasing use 

by the non-boating public, who are seeking 

day-use opportunities to enjoy the area. This 

segment of the public has expressed concerns 

about there being an overemphasis on 

accommodating boaters in terms of shoreline use 

and facilities. They have expressed desire for more 

shoreline-based day-use opportunities and 

facilities, such as increased shoreline access, trails, 

picnic areas, restrooms, and shade structures. 

At Cottonwood Cove, marina facilities, launch 

ramp, picnic area, and lower campground are all 

closely positioned at the mouth of Cottonwood 

Wash, resulting in safety concerns, congested 

conditions, and conflicts between user groups. 

Day-use picnickers often spread out into the 

lower campground sites. Unmet needs for day-use 

parking results in cars occupying the pull-through 

trailer spaces. Swimmers are in close proximity to 

boat traffic. Over time, growing numbers of day 

users and expansion of the marina to authorized 

capacity levels would further aggravate the extent 

and frequency of crowded conditions. 

Traffic Circulation, 

Parking, and Launch Ramps

Currently traffic circulation patterns and the 

amount and location of parking contribute to 

traffic congestion and safety problems. Road 

width and site distances along the main access 

road into Katherine Landing pose safety issues for 

bicyclists or maintenance personnel working 

along the road. At both developed areas, long boat 

launching lines back up traffic along the access 

roads. Launch lines can require up to an hour’s 

wait or longer. Visitors traveling to other 

destinations have no way to safely or conveniently 

bypass the boat launch traffic. 

Parking areas near the launch ramps are limited. 

During the summer, the campgrounds are used 

for overflow parking. Visitors vying for close-in 

parking results in cars occupying the pull-trough 

trailer space and vehicles parked long-term in 

short-term parking spaces. The farther the 

distance to boat trailer parking areas, the longer it 

takes to launch or retrieve boats, resulting in 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS

8 

longer wait times and traffic lines and more 

congestion near the launch ramp and immediate 

harbor area. 

Consideration needs to be given to improving the 

safety and ease of access, providing better 

organized and more convenient parking, and 

providing the authorized number of pull-through 

and single spaces. What can be done to make it 

easier and quicker to launch and retrieve boats? 

Overnight Visitor Facilities

Overnight visitor facilities include NPS-managed 

campgrounds and commercially managed 

recreational vehicle and trailer sites and motels. 

The layout and design of the NPS campgrounds 

do not function effectively and are not in keeping 

with contemporary design standards and visitor 

needs. Roads and sites do not adequately 

accommodate large recreational vehicles or meet 

accessibility standards. There are no utility 

hookups available. At both Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing, there is the additional 

concern of how to provide a more functional 

campground while protecting the cultural 

resources eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. 

With the growth of communities outside of the 

recreation area, debate has arisen as to whether 

the long-term trailer village sites and the motel at 

Katherine Landing are still necessary and 

appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the 

park. Are these uses appropriate? Could needs be 

better met outside area boundaries? 

Visitor Orientation, 

Interpretation, and Education 

The recreation’s area information and education 

programs encourage visitors’ understanding of the 

park and its resources and provide park visitors 

with information they need to have a safe and 

enjoyable park experience. In general, orientation 

/ information sign and boater education 

information waysides are insufficient and a lack of 

adequate facilities exist to support these visitor 

services. 

At Cottonwood Cove, there is no visitor contact 

station. The ranger station is actually used as an 

office facility and not for visitor contact. 

Furthermore, no interpretive staff is regularly 

assigned to Cottonwood Cove. At Katherine 

Landing, the combined ranger and interpretation 

office building at Katherine Landing also 

functions as a visitor contact station. There is 

limited space in the building to provide visitor 

services. The existing location is not near the lake 

and associated visitor facilities, which are the 

major destinations for most visitors. Therefore, 

only a small percentage of park visitors actually 

stop at the contact station. There is no provision 

for providing educational programs, including 

school programs, indoors out of the high 

temperatures in the summer. The picnic / 

amphitheater area used for these programs is too 

small for larger groups and the facilities are in 

poor condition. Concession facilities are a focal 

point of visitor activity. Can commercial services 

and NPS educational and interpretive services be 

provided in a joint facility? 

National Park Service 

and Concessioner Support Facilities

The National Park Service has various facilities 

that support the operation and maintenance of 

each developed area. These include office space 

and storage for law enforcement and 

interpretation staff, maintenance buildings and 

yards, housing for employees, trailer sites for 

volunteers, boat dock or slips, and water and 

wastewater systems. Many of the facilities were 

not designed for their current use levels, are in 

poor condition, not optimally located, or lack 

adequate space for storage, office space, parking, 

and other functions. While there is not sufficient 

housing for NPS employees at Cottonwood Cove, 

there is sufficient housing at Katherine Landing. 

However, older housing units are in poor 

condition and have required significant 

maintenance attention. Recreational vehicle sites 

with utility hookups for volunteers are lacking. 

Deficiencies in housing options affect the NPS 

and concessioners ability to attract qualified staff 

and volunteers. 

At Katherine Landing, particularly, park 

operations are scattered in multiple locations and 

buildings. For instance, law enforcement and 

emergency services are spread out between the 

ranger station near the north campground, 

booking station near the government dock, first 

aid station near the launch ramp, and the fire 

station near the NPS housing area. Office and 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose and Need for the Development Concept Plans 

9 

storage space for interpretive staff is a similar 

situation. Lack of adequate space and dispersed 

facilities contributes to an inefficient operation. 

This issue centers on whether the existing 

operational facilities are functioning effectively 

and efficiently, meeting the needs of both park 

staff and visitors. Can replacement, rehabilitated, 

or relocated support facilities enhance operational 

efficiencies? 

Other Commercial Visitor Facilities

Concession-operated facilities at the developed 

areas provide numerous other services to visitors, 

such as marinas, houseboat and small boat rentals, 

dry boat storage, and retail including food service, 

gasoline, and related supplies. Commercial 

support facilities are provided for employee 

housing and maintenance. Some of the facilities 

are in poor condition or lack adequate space for 

storage, work areas, parking, and other functions. 

With the growth of communities outside of the 

park, particularly in the vicinity of Katherine 

Landing, debate has arisen as to whether certain 

facilities and services are still necessary and 

appropriate for the public use and enjoyment of 

the park. 

There is a need to evaluate the following three 

questions: Which facilities or services are still 

necessary and appropriate at these sites for public 

use and enjoyment of the park? Can identified 

needs be met outside park boundaries without 

compromising visitor experience and resource 

protection? What is the economic feasibility of 

concession facilities determined to be needed 

within the recreation area? 

IMPACT TOPICS 

Impact topics allow comparison of the 

environmental consequences of implementing 

each of the alternatives. The impact topics in these 

development concept plans were identified based 

on substantive issues expressed by the public or 

other agencies during scoping, federal laws and 

other legal requirements, Council of 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, NPS 

Management Policies 2006, and staff subjectmatter expertise. The planning team selected the 

following impact topics for analysis based on the 

potential for each topic to be affected by the 

alternatives. 

Natural Resources 

Native Plant Communities and Soils. The NPS 

Organic Act of 1916 (United States Code [USC] 

Title16, Chapter 1) and NPS management policies

both require the National Park Service to protect 

and conserve native plants, vegetative 

communities, and geologic resources, including 

soils that could be affected by visitors, 

development, and management actions. Actions in 

the alternatives could beneficially or adversely 

affect these resources. Although most of the 

proposed actions would occur within previously 

disturbed sites within the development areas, 

some actions would result in new ground 

disturbance and impacts on native vegetation 

communities and soils. The spread of nonnative 

species also is a major concern in the recreation 

area. The replacement of invasive exotic 

vegetation (e.g., oleanders, palms) with native 

species equivalents to historically planted species 

would benefit native plant communities. 

Wildlife. As with the above resources, the NPS 

Organic Act and Management Policies 2006 both 

require the National Park Service to protect and 

conserve native animal populations that could be 

affected by visitors, development, and 

management actions. The relocation or 

development of new facilities and construction of 

flood control structures could affect additional 

undeveloped land, disturbing wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. Aquatic species could be indirectly 

impacted from construction and improved 

shoreline access that contribute to erosion, runoff, 

or refuse that could affect lake water quality. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status 

Species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(ESA), as amended, requires an examination of 

impacts to all federally listed threatened or 

endangered plant and animal species. The NPS 

management policies repeat this requirement and 

add the further stipulation that the analysis 

examine impacts to state listed endangered, 

threatened, or rare species, and federal species 

proposed for listing. Wildlife habitat in the 

developed areas is generally not favorable for rare, 

sensitive, and listed species that do not inhabit 

previously disturbed areas, and/or are intolerant 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS

10 

of human disturbance. However, the following 

species have been recorded or there is suitable or 

critical habitat in the general vicinity of the 

developed areas and could be affected: desert 

tortoise (federally threatened), razorback sucker 

(federally endangered), bonytail chub (federally 

endangered), southwestern willow flycatcher 

(federally endangered), western burrowing owl 

(Nevada state protected species), and banded Gila 

monster (Nevada state protected species). 

Floodplains. Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain 

Management,” and Director’s Order 77-2, 

Floodplain Management, require the examination 

of the impacts to floodplains. It is NPS policy to 

recognize and manage for the preservation of 

floodplain values, to minimize potentially 

hazardous conditions associated with flooding, 

and to comply with the NPS Organic Act and 

executive order related to the management of 

activities in flood-prone areas. Portions of both 

developed areas are located within high hazard 

flash floodplains. The alternatives in this plan 

address flood mitigation to reduce hazards to 

human life and property. The lower washes have 

been extensively altered by existing development 

and use and natural floodplain functions and 

values (e.g., soils, vegetation, geomorphology) 

have already been negatively impacted and 

substantially altered. Because of the development 

within these washes, protection of people and 

property is considered to be of the highest 

priority. Further alterations to the floodplains 

under the alternatives would have negligible or 

minor additional adverse effects to natural 

floodplain values and are not evaluated further in 

these development concept plans. 

Cultural Resources 

Law, regulation, or policy sources relevant to the 

impact analysis of cultural resources are Section 

106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470 et sequ.); 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 36, 

Part 68: Secretary of the Interior's Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties, effective 

September 29, 1983, as amended; NPS-28: 

Cultural Resource Management Guidelines; 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 USC 

1996); Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act; NPS management policies; and 

the National Environmental Policy Act, as 

amended. 

Archeological Resources. Regulations 

implementing the Archeological Resources 

Protection Act define archeological resources to 

be any material remains of human life or activities 

that are at least 100 years of age, and that are of 

archeological interest. Of archeological interest 

means capable of providing scientific or 

humanistic understandings of past human 

behavior, cultural adaptation, and related topics 

through the application of scientific or scholarly 

techniques such as controlled observation, 

contextual measurement, controlled collection, 

analysis, interpretation, and explanation (NPS 

1998). 

In the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

developed areas, prehistoric archeological 

resources most likely would include petroglyphs, 

rock shelters, lithic testing sites, rock alignments, 

stone circles, geoglyphs/intaglios (linear designs 

scratched into the desert pavement), and 

surface/subsurface archeological remains. 

Historic resources could include disturbed areas 

and refuse relating to mining and ranching 

activities. 

Ground disturbance associated with proposed 

actions, such as for new flood control structures 

and relocation of some facilities to presently 

undeveloped sites could disturb currently 

unidentified archeological resources. This is 

particularly true for areas outside of the 

developed areas. Thus, this topic is retained for 

further analysis. 

Historic Structures. Historic structures served 

and may continue to serve some form of human 

activity and are generally immovable. They 

include buildings and monuments, canals, bridges, 

roads, defensive works, etc. (NPS 1998). The 

Cottonwood Cove developed area includes a 

Mission 66-era historic district that has been 

determined eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places. The Katherine Landing 

developed area includes a Mission 66-era 

designed landscape that is potentially eligible for 

the National Register. These designed landscapes 

contain buildings, structures, and associated 

features that could be affected by the alternatives. 

In addition, other historic structures such as mine 

shafts, the ruins of mining and ranch structures, 

and historic roads could be in the project areas 

outside the developed areas and coves adjacent to 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose and Need for the Development Concept Plans 

11 

Katherine Landing. Therefore, the historic 

structures are retained for further analysis. 

Cultural Landscapes. Cultural landscapes are 

complex resources that range from large rural 

tracts covering several thousand acres to formal 

gardens of less than an acre. Natural features such 

as landforms, soils, and vegetation are not only 

part of the cultural landscape, but they also 

provide the framework within which it evolves. In 

the broadest sense a cultural landscape is a 

reflection of human adaptation and use of natural 

resources. It is often expressed in the ways the 

land is organized and divided, and also through 

such factors as settlement patterns, land use, 

circulation, and the built environment. The 

character of a cultural landscape is defined both 

by physical materials such as roads, structures, 

and vegetation patterns and by cultural attributes 

such as values and traditions. Each of the 

developed areas has Mission 66 characterdefining features such as herringbone pattern 

campgrounds, motel accommodations, designed 

landscape plantings, etc. In addition, many 

archeological and ethnographic resources (see 

below) could be interpreted as cultural landscapes 

with character-defining features such as 

petroglyphs, trail systems, and viewsheds/vistas. 

Landscape features such as these could be 

affected by the alternatives, so this topic is 

retained. 

Ethnographic Resources. An ethnographic 

resource is defined by the National Park Service as 

any site, structure, object, landscape, or natural 

resource feature assigned traditional legendary, 

religious, subsistence, or other significance in the 

cultural system of a group traditionally associated 

with it (NPS 1998). Ethnographic (Ruppert 1976) 

and archeological (McClellan, Phillips, and 

Belshaw 1980) overviews and assessments of Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area recognized only 

Native American groups as traditionally affiliated 

peoples of the area. Thirty years of consultation 

have identified the Chemehuevi, Paiute, Hopi, 

Zuni, and the dispersed Yuman tribes (Mojave, 

Hualapai, Havasupai, Yavapai, Maricopa, AkChin, Quechan, and Pai Pai) as having and 

continuing to have cultural ties to the park. 

In prehistoric periods, the Yuman tribes—and 

possibly their predecessors—followed traditional 

trails throughout the lower Colorado region as 

part of ceremonial pilgrimages. These trails were 

marked by a system of petroglyphs, trail shrines, 

rock alignments, geoglyphs, and vistas (Ezzo and 

Altschul 1993). Hundreds of petroglyphs have 

been documented in Grapevine Canyon and 

around the base of Spirit Mountain approximately 

15 miles south of Cottonwood Cove. Others have 

been recorded adjacent to and south of Katherine 

Landing (Peterson, L., pers. comm., February 24, 

2011), adjacent to Lake of Las Vegas (northwest of 

Boulder City, Nevada (Peterson, J., pers. comm., 

February 24, 2011), and near Tule Springs, Clark 

County, Nevada (BLM 2010). Taken collectively, 

these geographic features constitute an extensive 

ceremonial network extending throughout much 

of the region (Ezzo and Altschul 1993). 

Some of these features have been more 

thoroughly documented and have been 

determined to be traditional cultural properties. 

These include the Spirit Mountain and Goldstrike 

Canyon / Sugarloaf Mountain traditional cultural 

properties. These locations, especially the Spirit 

Mountain traditional cultural property, continue 

to be used for ceremonial purposes by 

contemporary Yuman tribes1

 and possibly other 

tribes. Undocumented elements of the ceremonial 

network could be in project areas outside of the 

developed areas. Therefore, this topic is retained 

for further analysis. If such features are 

encountered, tribal consultations should take 

place to determine their ethnographic significance 

and to determine appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

Visitor Use, Experience, and Safety 

Both developed areas accommodate a wide variety 

of recreational activities and provide public 

launch facilities and commercial marina services 

as well as other public use and support facilities. A 

primary focus of the development planning effort 

is to improve the visitor experience and to address 

issues related to shoreline access and crowding, 

overnight accommodations, and traffic flow and 

congestion. Actions being proposed in the 

alternatives, such as the development of shoreline 

and overnight facilities, would affect visitor use 

and experience. The alternatives also would affect 

 

1 This statement is based on extensive conversations with 

Felton Bricker (Mojave tribe) and Loretta Jackson (Hualapai 

tribe) with former Lake Mead Cultural Resource Specialist 

Leslie Peterson between 19921994. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS

12 

interpretive and educational opportunities, which 

would affect the visitor experience as well. 

Safety for National Park Service and concessioner 

employees and the public would be affected by the 

alternatives. The alternatives would affect the 

provision of emergency services and information 

visitors need to have a safe park experience. The 

alternatives also address several other safety 

concerns such as crowding, congestion, and traffic 

circulation. Therefore, safety is considered in the 

analysis of impacts. The minimization of 

potentially hazardous conditions to human life 

and property associated with flooding are covered 

under the impact topic, “Floodplains.” 

Park Operations 

Park operations, including maintenance, law 

enforcement, emergency services, and 

interpretation and education would be affected by 

proposed facility improvement, location, and 

expansion. The separation or consolidation of 

facilities, provision of new or improved facilities, 

and transfer of campground management to the 

concessioner would affect park staff 

responsibilities and operational effectiveness and 

efficiency. This topic covers such things as NPS 

staffing, maintenance and operation activities, 

operational efficiencies, and response times. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

The socioeconomic environment impact topics 

include concession operations within the 

recreation area as well as effects on the local and 

regional economy. Proposed actions affecting 

visitor facilities and services and concessioner 

support facilities would affect concession 

operations as well as potentially the local and 

regional economy. Socioeconomic impact topics 

include: 

Construction-related Economic Impacts.

Actionsproposed in the no action and action 

alternatives wouldhave impacts on site-specific, 

local, and regional economic output and 

employment resulting from construction projects 

associated with each alternative. 

Visitor Spending-related Economic Impacts.

Actions proposed in the no action and two action 

alternatives would have impacts on site-specific, 

local, and regional economic output and 

employment resulting from changes to visitor 

spending associated with each alternative. 

Therefore, this topic is retained. 

Impacts on Other Park Concessions and Local 

Businesses. Actions proposed in the no action 

and action alternatives would have the potential of 

impacting marina and other concession 

operations because the proposed action could 

influence the number and duration visits to the 

developed areas. Therefore, this impact topics is 

retained. 

IMPACT TOPICS 

DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

Also included is a discussion of some impact 

topics that are commonly addressed in 

environmental impact statements, but that are 

dismissed from detailed analysis in the plans. 

Potential impact topics were dismissed from 

further analysis because they would not be 

affected, or the potential for impacts under all the 

alternatives would be negligible or minor. The 

topics are listed below with an explanation of why 

they were dismissed from further analysis. 

Natural Soundscapes 

The NPS management policies require the agency 

to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the 

natural soundscapes of park units. Directors 

Order 47: Soundscape Preservation and Noise 

Management (NPS 2000) defines appropriate and 

inappropriate sound. As visitors move away from 

developed areas, they are more able to enjoy the 

natural sounds of water, wind, and wildlife. 

Actions proposed under the alternatives would 

primarily occur in or adjacent to areas that are 

already developed and higher levels of visitor use 

occur, where minor or short-term additions to 

background noise levels are not as noticeable and 

visitors are already exposed to noise from 

vehicles, motors, and visitors. For this reason, 

natural soundscapes have been dismissed as an 

impact topic in this document. 

Lightscapes 

The NPS management policies state that the 

National Park Service will preserve, to the greatest 

extent possible, the natural lightscapes of parks, 

including natural darkness. The agency strives to 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose and Need for the Development Concept Plans 

13 

minimize the intrusion of artificial light into the 

night scene by limiting the use of artificial outdoor 

lighting to basic safety requirements, shielding the 

lights when possible, and using minimal impact 

lighting techniques. The actions proposed in the 

alternatives could result in new locations of some 

facilities, some of which could necessitate 

nighttime lighting. However, the effects of this 

lighting would be local and minimized by the 

mitigation techniques described above. It is 

expected that any new development would have a 

negligible impact on the night sky. Therefore, 

lightscapes are dismissed from further analysis as 

an impact topic. 

Scenic Resources 

The enabling legislation of the Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area specifically addresses 

the preservation of the scenic features of the area. 

The National Park Service manages the natural 

resources of the area, including highly valued 

associated characteristics such as scenic views, to 

maintain them in an unimpaired condition for 

future generations (NPS Management Policies 

2006). 

The area’s scenic vistas are an important visual 

resource, and striking backdrops for recreational 

activities include deep canyons, dry washes, sheer 

cliffs, distant mountain ranges, the lakes, colorful 

soils and rock formations, and mosaics of 

different vegetation. The general management 

plan identified outstanding view corridors within 

the Lake Mead National Recreation Area that 

provide spectacular views of significant natural 

features. The alternatives would not place new 

facilities within any outstanding view corridor. 

Consistent with the general management plan, 

new or rehabilitated structures would be located 

within the existing developed areas in the vicinity 

of other man-made structures. The design of the 

buildings and related structures shall, to the extent 

possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, 

shielded or downward lighting, landscaping, and 

native vegetation that would blend them into the 

natural setting and surrounding buildings. 

Consequently, outstanding view corridors would 

not be impacted. Any impacts on the visual quality 

or view of the developed areas are expected to be 

minor. Therefore, this impact topic was dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Air Quality and Climate Change 

Section 118 of the 1963 Clean Air Act (42 USC 

7401 et sequ.) requires a park to meet all federal, 

state, and local air pollution standards. The Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area is designated a 

Class II Air Quality Area under the Clean Air Act, 

as amended. The act states that the federal land 

manager has an affirmative responsibility to 

protect recreation area air quality-related values 

(including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water 

quality, cultural resources, and visitor health) 

from adverse pollution impacts. Air quality 

impacts have occurred in the recreation area due 

primarily to external sources. Construction 

activities necessary under the alternatives would 

have short-term, negligible impact on the airshed 

due to releases of pollutants from construction 

vehicle emissions and construction related 

impacts from the disturbance of soils. Dust 

abatement efforts would be implemented to 

control fugitive dust emissions during 

construction and impacts would be local. Use 

levels may increase with implementation of the 

alternatives, but the increase is not expected to be 

substantial and the emissions from additional 

vehicles would be negligible compared to current 

levels. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide 

would be emitted from the use of heavy 

equipment, trucks, and other vehicles. These 

emissions would be small and would not 

contribute to climate change. In the long term, 

project actions associated with the alternatives 

such as circulation and parking facility 

improvements would reduce vehicle emissions to 

the extent that they reduce queuing and 

unnecessary engine idling. This would be 

considered a long-term, beneficial impact on air 

quality. In all of the alternatives, the National Park 

Service would continue to protect and conserve 

air quality as required under the NPS Organic Act 

and management policies. Therefore, air quality is 

not analyzed in detail. 

Water Quality 

Lake Mohave’s waters support the area’s natural 

ecosystems and are important for recreational 

activities, such as boating, fishing, and swimming. 

The Clean Water Act, and supporting criteria and 

standards promulgated by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the Nevada 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP), and the Arizona Department of 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS

14 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) have been used at 

the Lake Mead National Recreation Area to 

protect the beneficial uses of water quality, 

including human health, health of the aquatic 

ecosystem, and recreational use. In supporting 

federal and state regulations, the NPS 

management policies states that the National Park 

Service will “take all necessary actions to maintain 

or restore the quality of surface waters and 

groundwater within the recreation area consistent 

with the Clean Water Act and all other applicable 

federal, state, and local laws and regulations.” 

The water quality of Lake Mohave has 

consistently met established standards for full 

body contact (e.g., swimming) and state drinking 

water quality standards. The primary water 

concern for the recreation area is reduction of 

quality due to chemical and biological pollutants 

in lake water, including petrochemicals and 

bacteria associated with human waste. Turbidity 

(water cloudiness) and sedimentation have not 

been major concerns thus far. In recent years, 

sanitation facilities for recreational lake users have 

been improved with the construction of 

additional shoreline restroom facilities as well as 

floating toilets in high use areas. 

Under the alternatives, any ground-disturbing 

activity (e.g., maintenance, construction, visitor 

use) that results in removal of vegetation and the 

exposure of soils or an increase in impervious 

surfaces could result in increased surface water 

runoff and erosion. These impacts could lead to 

increased turbidity, sedimentation, or pollution 

reaching Lake Mohave. The natural hydrology of 

the park is defined by local heavy thunderstorms 

causing rapid runoff and flash flooding, which 

erodes and deposits sediments in washes that are 

dry between storm events. Any increase in 

sediments or turbidity of lake waters would be 

local and minimal when compared to natural 

hydrological events. The use of best management 

practices or other mitigation during construction 

and operations, such as berms or silt fencing, 

would reduce runoff and erosion. Impacts on 

water quality, if detectable, would be local, short 

term, and within or below water quality standards 

and/or historical ambient or desired water quality 

conditions because of the small portion of the lake 

affected, the naturally high sediment loads carried 

during storm events, the use of mitigation 

measures, and the short-term nature of 

construction activities. Therefore, this impact 

topic was dismissed from further analysis. 

Ecologically Critical Areas, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, or Other Unique Natural Areas 

No areas within the project area are designated as 

ecologically critical areas, nor are there any 

existing or potential wild and scenic rivers within 

the project area. The Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area is an important natural area, but 

the alternatives would not threaten the associated 

qualities and resources that make the recreation 

area unique. Therefore, this topic was dismissed 

from further analysis as an impact topic. 

Wetlands 

Wetlands are protected and managed in 

accordance with Executive Order 11990, 

“Protection of Wetlands,” NPS Director’s Order 

77-1: Wetland Protection, and its accompanying 

handbook. This guidance requires the National 

Park Service to protect and enhance natural 

wetland values, and requires the examination of 

impacts to wetlands. No actions are proposed in 

the development concept plans that would affect 

wetlands or springs. Therefore, wetlands are not 

analyzed as an impact topic. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Not Addressed in these 

Development Concept Plans 

The following species have been dismissed from 

further analysis in these development concept 

plans. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

was removed from the federal list of threatened 

and endangered species on August 9, 2007. 

Threatened status was reinstated for desert 

nesting bald eagles, which does not include 

population locations inside the recreation area. 

Bald eagles are winter visitors to the recreation 

area and have been sighted in large trees or cliffs 

along the shoreline of both lakes. There has been 

only one confirmed pair of nesting eagles in the 

recreation area, in Black Canyon north of Willow 

Beach. Development proposed under the 

alternatives near the lake would be within or 

immediately adjacent to the existing developed 

high visitor use areas, large trees of cliffs areas 

would not be affected, and ample shoreline would 

still be available for eagles to disperse. Fish 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose and Need for the Development Concept Plans 

15 

populations that provide food for wintering eagles 

are not expected to be affected. Therefore, the 

alternatives are not expected to affect bald eagles. 

The federally endangered Yuma clapper rail 

(Rallus longirostris yumanensis) is a wading bird 

that inhabits fresh water and brackish marshes 

and is associated with dense emergent riparian 

vegetation. No confirmed sightings have occurred 

within the recreation area. However, potential 

habitat for this species exists in the southern 

portion of the park near Davis Dam. None of the 

alternatives propose development or visitor use in 

or near potential habitat for this species. 

Therefore, no affect to this species is expected. 

There are no federally listed threatened or 

endangered plant species in the recreation area. A 

number of sensitive plant species, the first three of 

which are identified by Nevada as state critically 

endangered species, sticky buckwheat (Eriogonum 

viscidulum), three-sided milkvetch (Astragalus 

geyeri var. triquetrus), Las Vegas bearpoppy 

(Arctomecon californica), and sticky ringstem 

(Anulocaulis leiosolenus) occur in the northern 

portion of the recreation area along Lake Mead, 

but have not been recorded near Lake Mohave. 

They occur on gypsum soils or sand dunes. No 

impacts on these species would occur. 

Nontribal Ethnographic Resources 

Nontribal groups of Mormons settled in the area 

to use the Colorado River for agriculture and 

transportation of goods in maintaining Mormon 

settlement and the spread of their religion 

throughout the West. However, their use of the 

area was sporadic and short-lived, so nontribal 

ethnographic resources are dismissed from 

further analysis. 

Museum Collections 

None of the alternatives would affect the 

protection, preservation, and curation of museum 

objects and materials. There are no museum 

collection facilities in the project areas. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, “General Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-income Populations” (FR 

1994), requires all federal agencies to incorporate 

environmental justice into their missions by 

identifying and addressing disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of their programs and policies on 

minorities and low-income populations and 

communities. The alternatives would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on 

minorities or low-income populations or 

communities as defined in EPA’s Environmental 

Justice Guidance (EPA 1998). 

Paleontological Resources 

The Lake Mead National Recreation Area and 

surrounding lands contain paleontological 

resources. There are no known or recorded 

paleontological resources within the areas of 

potential effect for the alternatives. Most of the 

proposed facilities and associated ground 

disturbance under any of the alternatives would 

occur within the existing previously disturbed 

developed areas. Some proposed work, primarily 

the flood control structure above Cottonwood 

Cove, would disturb some currently intact desert 

wash and intervening ridge lands. Because most 

work would occur within previously disturbed 

areas, the alternatives are not expected to affect 

paleontological resources; however, appropriate 

steps would be taken to protect any 

paleontological resources that are inadvertently 

discovered during construction. Should currently 

unidentified paleontological resources be 

discovered during project implementation, work 

in that location would stop until the resources are 

properly evaluated and avoided if necessary. This 

impact topic was dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 USC 4201 

et sequ.) and the U.S. Department of the Interior 

(Environmental Statement Memorandum No. 

ESM94- 7) require an evaluation of impacts to 

prime or unique agricultural lands. Prime or 

unique farmland is defined as soil that particularly 

produces general crops such as common fruits, 

vegetables, and nuts. None of the soils in the 

recreation area are classified as prime or unique 

farmlands. 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS

16 

Indian Trust Resources 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any 

anticipated impacts on Indian trust resources 

from a proposed project or action by U.S. 

Department of the Interior agencies be explicitly 

addressed in environmental documents. The 

federal Indian trust responsibility is a legally 

enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the 

United Sates to protect tribal lands, assets, 

resources, and treaty rights, and it represents a 

duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with 

respect to American Indian and Alaska Native 

tribes. The lands comprising the park are not held 

in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for the 

benefit of Indians because of their status as 

Indians. 

Conflicts with Land Use Plans 

There are no potential conflicts between the 

alternatives and land use plans, policies, or 

controls (including state, local, or Native 

American) for the project areas. 

Energy Requirements 

and Conservation Potential 

The National Park Service would pursue 

sustainable practices whenever possible in all 

decisions regarding national park operations, 

facilities management, and development in the 

recreation area. Whenever possible, the National 

Park Service would use energy conservation 

technologies and renewable energy sources. Thus, 

it is expected that none of the alternatives would 

result in an appreciable change in energy 

consumption. Any impacts would be negligible 

and this topic was dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Natural or Depletable Resource 

Requirements and Conservation Potential 

None of the alternatives being considered would 

result in the extraction of resources from the park. 

Relatively small quantities of depletable resources 

would be used in the construction of new facilities 

in the alternatives, but the impact on these 

resources would be expected to be negligible. 

Under all of the alternatives, ecological principles 

would be applied to ensure that the park’s natural 

resources were maintained and not impaired. 

Urban Quality and 

Design of the Built Environment 

The quality of urban areas is not a concern in this 

plan. At both developed areas, park compatible 

design would be taken into consideration for 

structures built under all of the action alternatives. 

Emphasis would be placed on designs and 

materials and colors that blend in and do not 

detract from the natural and built environment. 

Therefore, adverse impacts would be expected to 

be negligible and this topic was dismissed from 

further consideration. 

Wilderness 

No actions proposed in the development concept 

plans would occur within or adjacent to 

wilderness and there would be no effect on 

wilderness resources or values. Therefore, this 

topic was dismissed from further analysis. 

PLANNING DIRECTION 

AND GUIDANCE 

Management of the Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area is guided by a number of laws and 

policies, some of which are applicable specifically 

to the recreation topics, and many others that are 

applicable to all units of the national park system. 

There are also a number of other current plans 

that affect management of the recreation area. 

These laws, policies, and other plans form the 

foundation and provided direction for the 

formulation of all of the development concept 

plan alternatives for Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing described in this document. 

Applicable Laws and Policies 

The Lake Mead National Recreation Area was 

established in 1964 (Public Law [PL] 88-639) “for 

the general purposes of public recreation, benefit, 

and use, and in a manner that will reserve, 

develop, and enhance, so far as practicable, the 

recreation potential, and in a manner that will 

preserve the scenic, historic, scientific, and other 

important features of the area, consistent with 

applicable reservations and limitations relating to 

such area and with other authorized uses of the 

lands and properties within such area.” The 

Secretary of the Interior was authorized under the 

law to provide for general recreational use. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose and Need for the Development Concept Plans 

17 

General recreational use was defined within 

section 4(b) of this legislation and included 

bathing, boating, camping, and picnicking. 

Some laws and executive orders are applicable 

solely or primarily to units of the National Park 

Service. These include the Organic Act of 1916 

creating the National Park Service, the General 

Authorities Act of 1970, and the act known as the 

Redwood Act amendment of March 27, 1978, 

relating to the management of the national park 

system. Others have much broader application, 

such as the Endangered Species Act, the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and Executive Order 

11988. Those most directly related to the 

development concept plans’ planning process are 

identified as follows. 

NPS Organic Act (16 USC 1). This act provides 

the fundamental management direction for all 

units of the national park system to: promote and 

regulate the use of the federal areas known as 

national parks, monuments, and reservations...by 

such means and measures as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of said parks, monuments, 

and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the 

scenery and the natural and historic objects and 

the wildlife therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner and by 

such means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations. 

NPS General Authorities Act (16 USC 1a-1 

et sequ.). This act affirms that while all NPS units 

remain “distinct in character,” they are “united 

through their interrelated purposes and resource 

into one national park system as cumulative 

expressions of a single national heritage.” The act 

makes it clear that the NPS Organic Act and other 

protective mandates apply equally to all units of 

the system. Further, amendments state that NPS 

management of park units should not 

“derogat[e]...the purposes and values for which 

these various areas have been established.” 

Redwoods Act, as amended 1978. This act 

reasserted the systemwide standard of protection 

prescribed by the U.S. Congress in the original 

Organic Act. It states, “Congress further reaffirms, 

declares, and directs the promotion and 

regulation of the various areas of the national park 

system. . . shall be consistent with and founded in 

the purpose established by the first section of the 

Act of August 25, 1916, to the common benefit of 

all the people of the United States. The 

authorization of activities shall be construed and 

the protection, management, and administration 

of these areas shall be conducted in light of the 

high public value and integrity of the national park 

system and shall not be exercised in derogation of 

the values and purposes for which these various 

areas have been established except as may have 

been or shall be directly and specifically provided 

by Congress.” 

NPS Management Polices 2006. These policies

identify and explain NPS policies for all units 

under its stewardship. The alternatives considered 

in this document incorporate and comply with the 

provisions of these mandates and policies. 

NPS Concessions Management Improvement 

Act of 1998 (PL 105- 391). This is the legislation 

under which the National Park Service is to 

manage concession operations within units of the 

national park system. This act requires the 

National Park Service to provide a reasonable 

opportunity for profit to authorized concession 

operations. This act also provides for protection 

of concessioner investment and states that, “A 

concessioner shall have a leasehold surrender 

interest in each capital improvement constructed 

by a concessioner under a concessions contract, 

consisting solely of a right to compensation for the 

capital improvement.” Leasehold surrender 

interest “shall not be extinguished by the 

expiration or other termination of a concessions 

contract and may not be taken for public use 

except on payment of just compensation.” 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 

act was enacted in 1969 and requires agencies to 

fully consider the environmental costs and 

benefits of their proposed actions before they 

make any decision to undertake those actions. 

The act and subsequent regulations enacted by the 

Council of Environmental Quality establish two 

mechanisms to achieve this stated intent: (1) a 

requirement that all agencies make a careful, 

complete, and analytic study of the impacts of any 

proposal that has the potential to affect the 

environment, and alternatives to that proposal 

well before any decisions are made; and (2) the 

mandate that agencies be diligent in involving any 

interested or affected members of the public in the 

NEPA process. The National Park Service 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS

18 

establishes agency policy and procedural 

requirements for compliance with this act in 

Directors Order/Reference Manual 12:

Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact 

Analysis, and Decision-Making. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

(16 USC 1531-1543). This act requires federal 

agencies to ensure that management activities 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency 

do not jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed endangered or threatened species, or result 

in the destruction or adverse modification of 

habitat that is critical to the conservation of the 

species. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended (16 USC 470). This act requires federal 

agencies to consider the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties that are either 

listed in or eligible to be listed in the National 

Register. The National Register includes districts, 

sites, buildings, structures, and objects important 

for their significance in American history, 

architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. 

The goal of the Section 106 review process is to 

seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any 

adverse effects to historic properties that are listed 

in or eligible for listing in the National Register. 

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain 

Management” (May 28, 1980). This order was 

issued “to avoid to the extent possible the long 

and short-term adverse impacts associated with 

the occupancy and modification of floodplains 

and to avoid direct or indirect support of 

floodplain development wherever there is a 

practicable alternative.” The order requires 

federal agencies to develop agency specific 

guidance, provide leadership and take action to 

(1) reduce the risk of flood loss; (2) minimize the 

impact of floods on human safety, health and 

welfare; and (3) restore and preserve the natural 

and beneficial values served by floodplains. In 

compliance with Executive Order 11988, it is NPS 

policy to preserve floodplain values and minimize 

potentially hazardous conditions associated with 

flooding. The National Park Service established 

procedures for implementing floodplain 

protection and management actions in units of the 

national park system as required by Executive 

Order 11988 and Director’s Order 77-2 in 

Procedural Manual 77-2: Floodplain Management. 

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management 

Act of 1998. This act provides for the sale of 

certain federal lands in Clark County and the 

acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. 

The purpose of the act is as follows: to promote 

orderly development in the Las Vegas valley and 

to lessen the impact of urban growth on the Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area, Red Rock 

Canyon National Conservation Area, and the 

Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. 

The proceeds from public land sales are specified 

for 

 capital improvement projects at Lake Mead, 

Red Rock Canyon, the Desert National 

Wildlife Refuge, and other federally managed 

recreational areas 

 development of a multispecies habitat 

conservation plan in Clark County 

 development of parks, trails, and natural areas 

in Clark County 

 conservation and environmental education 

initiatives on federal land 

 acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands 

 restoration and conservation of Lake Tahoe 

As land is sold, the agencies nominate projects 

fitting these purposes for approval by the 

Secretary of the Interior. 

Relationship with Other Plans 

1986 General Management Plan. The recreation 

area operates under the management goals and 

objectives set forth in the general management 

plan (NPS 1986). The plan emphasizes long-term 

protection of park resources while 

accommodating increasing visitor use. It allows 

for increasing use through a combination of 

providing new developed areas, improved access 

points, and acceptable levels of expansion in 

existing developed areas. It establishes land-based 

management zones and strategies for meeting the 

goals and general purposes of the recreation area. 

The plan included development concept plans for 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing that 

identified limits on the development, established 

the number and type of facilities, and addressed 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose and Need for the Development Concept Plans 

19 

flood hazards. The general management plan is 

the foundation for this current planning effort and 

provided guidance for the preparation of the 

development concept plans for Cottonwood Cove 

and Katherine Landing. Any proposals in these 

development concept plans must be consistent 

with and supported by the general management 

plan. 

2003 Lake Management Plan. The lake 

management plan tiers from the general 

management plan. It provides additional and 

more specific guidance for the long-term 

management of Lake Mead and Lake Mohave, the 

associated shoreline, and the development areas 

within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

to ensure the protection of park resources while 

allowing a range of recreational opportunities. 

The plan provides for an increase in boating 

capacity targeted at areas where growth can be 

accommodated within the physical, 

environmental, and social carrying capacity of the 

lakes. It identifies facility improvements, 

capacities, locations, and expansions for the 

developments that control access on Lake 

Mohave, with facility development based on the 

lake’s carrying capacity. The plan calls for the 

continued operation of the three existing marinas 

on Lake Mohave, with authorized expansion of 

the marina and associated parking at Cottonwood 

Cove and maintenance of the existing marina and 

associated parking capacities at Katherine 

Landing. The plan also maintained the existing 

public launch ramp capacities at both areas. 

All the alternatives considered in these 

development concept plans are consistent with 

and contribute to fulfilling the management intent 

and direction established in the lake management 

plan to the extent practicable. The identified 

recreational opportunities and types and 

capacities of commercial marina services and 

public launch ramps were used to guide the 

development of the alternatives presented in these 

plans. 

2001 Strategic Plan. The 1993 Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area Statement for 

Management (NPS 1993) and the 1998 Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area Strategic Plan (NPS 

1998) established goals relating to resource 

protection, public enjoyment, and visitor 

satisfaction. The 2001 Strategic Plan (NPS 2001b) 

has reaffirmed these goals. 

2003 Commercial Services Plan and 

Concessions Contracts. The commercial services 

plan for the recreation area provides guidelines 

for assessing the changing conditions and 

increasing pressures of visitor needs and adopting 

a strategy that balances visitor needs with the 

purposes and values of the recreation area. The 

Commercial Services Plan evaluates the existing 

management strategy and ensures that, under the 

proposed alternatives, a range of visitor services 

would be provided, and that natural and cultural 

resources would be protected. Concession 

contracts are agreement(s) between the Secretary 

of the Interior, or authorized delegates, and a 

concessioner, whereby the concessioner is 

required and authorized to provide certain 

necessary and appropriate visitor 

accommodations, facilities, or services within a 

park unit under administration of the secretary. 

The secretary authorizes concession operations 

by both contracts and permits. 

Concession contracts are issued via competitive 

bid, and prospectuses will be released for new 

contracts for park concession operations at 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing. 

Execution of new concession contracts will 

implement and authorize concession projects 

approved in the record of decision for the 

development concept plans, as feasible. 

The concessions contracts between the National 

Park Service and commercial marina operators 

also recognize that the establishment and 

maintenance of concessioner facilities and 

services “involve a substantial investment of 

capital and the assumption of the risk of operating 

loss, and it is therefore proper, in consideration of 

the obligations assumed hereunder and as an 

inducement to capital, that the concessioner be 

given assurance of security of such investment and 

of a reasonable opportunity to make a fair profit.” 

In addition, the concessions contract specifically 

states, “it is the intention of the parties that any 

acts, policies, or decisions of the Secretary under 

this contract will be consistent with reasonable 

protection to the concessioner against loss of its 

investment and against substantial increase in 

costs, hazards, and difficulties of its operations.” 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS

20 

Lake Mead NRA Exotic Plant Management 

Plan. The goal of this plan is to protect and 

maintain native plant communities by preventing 

and removing exotic plants using an integrated 

approach that maximizes the effectiveness of the 

action while minimizing undesirable impacts. The 

plan provides a comprehensive exotic plant 

management plan that would serve to direct 

exotic plant management activities undertaken by 

the National Park Service and cooperators over 

the next 20 years. The plan prescribes specific 

integrated pest management strategies and actions 

to address prevention of new exotic plant 

invasions, early detection and eradication of 

incipient exotic plant populations, and 

containment and control of established 

populations. 

Clark County Multiple Species Habitat 

Conservation Plan (MSHCP). This plan was 

approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) in 2000. The Clark County Multiple 

Species Habitat Conservation Plan was prepared 

pursuant to Section 10 (a) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, in support of an 

application for an incidental take permit for 

species listed under the act (CCDCP 2000). This 

plan identifies those actions necessary to meet the 

conservation goals and objectives of the plan for 

78 species covered under the permit, including 

one species listed as endangered (Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, Empidonax traillii extimus), one 

species listed as threatened (desert tortoise, 

Gopherus agassizii), and two candidate species for 

federal listing (relict leopard frog, Rana onca, and 

yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus). The 

planning area includes designated critical habitat 

for the desert tortoise and proposed designated 

critical habitat for the flycatcher. This plan also 

identified 103 evaluation and 51 watch-list species 

that may be considered for inclusion under the 

permit for future phases of the plan. All unlisted 

covered species are addressed in the Multiple 

Species Habitat Conservation Plan as if they were 

listed, meaning that the conservation measures in 

the plan for those species would satisfy permit 

issuance criteria under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 

Endangered Species Act if the species was listed 

during the term of the permit. A total of 

232 species are addressed. Implementation of the 

conservation measures in the plan is a cooperative 

effort among many cooperators, including but not 

limited to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest 

Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. 

Department of Defense, Nevada Department of 

Wildlife, Nevada Department of Forestry, and 

other federal and state land managers and 

regulators. This plan includes species and habitats 

that occur in the Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area that might be impacted by the alternatives in 

these development concept plans. 

Lower Colorado River Multiple Species Habitat 

Conservation Plan (LCR-MSHCP). This long-term 

effort aims to conserve and work toward the 

recovery of state and federally listed species, and 

protect and maintain wildlife habitat along the 

Lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to the 

southern international boundary with Mexico 

through the implementation of a habitat 

conservation plan. 

The purposes of the Lower Colorado River 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan are to 

conserve habitat and work toward the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species, as well as 

reduce the likelihood of additional species being 

listed; accommodate present water diversions and 

power production and optimize opportunities for 

future water and power development, to the 

extent consistent with the law; and provide the 

basis for incidental take authorizations. The NPS 

actions covered in this plan include riparian 

habitat restoration, fishery management, and 

boating access. 
A l t e r n a t i v e s
22 

Back of Divider, page needs to be EVEN. 
23 

CHAPTER 2: 

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the range of alternatives for 

management and site planning. The alternatives 

are organized by area: Cottonwood Cove, 

Katherine Landing, and the Katherine Landing 

Vicinity, which includes four small visitor areas 

north of Katherine Landing — Princess Cove, 

Cabinsite Point, and North and South Arizona 

Telephone Cove. 

Alternatives are described through a combination 

of text and graphics. Descriptive materials for 

each alternative include the following: 

 An overview — a brief narrative overview 

summarizing the alternative concept and 

highlighting key actions. 

 A conceptual site plan — a conceptual site 

plan graphically depicting proposed locations 

and general sizes for visitor and support 

services and facilities. The site plan also 

illustrates major changes to circulation. 

 An alternatives comparison table — a table 

describing the alternatives in more detail, 

explaining each alternative’s approach to 

selected management topics and proposed 

new (or rehabilitated) facilities. 

 An environmental consequences summary — 

another table summarizing the key differences 

in environmental impacts which would result 

from implementing the alternatives. 

This chapter also 

 describes the process used to develop 

alternatives and select the agency’s preferred 

alternative 

 lists elements of draft alternatives that were 

eventually eliminated from consideration and 

summarizes the rationale for dismissal 

 identifies the environmentally preferable 

alternative as defined by Section 101 of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Furthermore, this chapter includes preliminary 

cost estimates for capital development. This 

information was developed for comparative 

purposes only and should not be used for 

budgetary purposes. 

The Purpose of Alternatives 

An alternative is a proposal that offers a choice 

between one or more things, only one of which 

will be chosen. It provides the opportunity for 

carefully considering the consequences of a range 

of choices and making the best possible decision. 

The National Park Service employs this principle 

in its planning. Alternatives development and 

analysis is at the heart of the NPS planning 

process. 

In this context, an alternative is a distinct set of 

proposed management strategies and actions, 

including facilities and services. The National 

Environmental Policy Act and NPS policies 

require park managers to consider a full range of 

reasonable alternatives, including a no-action 

alternative, before choosing a preferred 

alternative. Alternatives enable the agency to test 

out different approaches to resolving issues. They 

provide a basis for comparing advantages and 

environmental consequences in order to 

determine the course of action that is most 

prudent and beneficial. 

Introduction to the Range of Alternatives 

The National Park Service developed the 

alternatives through a collaborative process over a 

period of time. Planning team members based the 

alternatives upon a thorough investigation of site 

conditions. The alternatives offer site-specific 

proposals for the type, extent, and location of 

facilities and services consistent with established 

plans. However, they reflect differing approaches 

to resolving identified issues, which are discussed 

in chapter 1 of this document.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

24 

There are three alternative approaches to 

management and site planning that are presented 

by area. Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, 

does not meet the purpose and need for the 

project or reflect further implementation of 

previous planning proposals, but provides a basis 

for comparison with action alternatives. In 

planning, an examination of the no-action 

alternative is useful to determine why certain 

changes may or may not be needed or advisable. 

Alternative 2 closely reflects management 

decisions and proposals from the general 

management plan and the lake management plan. 

Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, is 

consistent with established management 

decisions; however, this alternative revisits 

proposals from established plans that have not yet 

been enacted in light of new information. All of 

the alternatives are described in the following 

sections. 

The Preferred Alternative. The “preferred” 

alternative is the alternative which the National 

Park Service believes would best fulfill its 

statutory mission and responsibilities, giving 

consideration to economic, environmental, 

technical, and other factors. The National Park 

Service has identified alternative 3 as the preferred 

alternative. 

Process for defining the preferred alternative — 

Initially, the National Park Service selected the 

“draft preferred” alternative during a three-day 

interdisciplinary workshop. Workshop 

participants used the Choosing By Advantages 

(CBA) method to select the draft preferred 

alternative. This method is a systematic method 

for evaluating a range of alternatives to arrive at a 

carefully considered and well-informed decision. 

This method evaluates and compares the 

advantages provided by the specific management 

actions and facilities proposed under each 

alternative according to a set of evaluation criteria, 

or “factors.” In using this approach, the National 

Park Service seeks to determine which alternative 

offers the greatest advantage overall. 

Evaluation factors — Workshop participants used 

four evaluation factors. These factors were 

derived from identified planning issues and from 

the impact topics considered in these concept 

plans. The four evaluation factors are as follows: 

1. Resource Condition — protect and enhance 

natural and cultural resource conditions 

2. Visitor Experience — provide for a range of 

quality visitor experiences and opportunities. 

Provide appropriate visitor facilities and 

services and maintain a quality recreational 

setting 

3. Visitor and Staff Safety — provide safe visits 

and safe living/working conditions for staff 

4. Park and Concessioner Operations — 

improve the efficiency, reliability, and 

sustainability of park operations 

The evaluation also considered projected costs 

and information regarding financial viability. 

COTTONWOOD COVE ALTERNATIVES

Narrative Description of Alternatives 

Alternative 1: No Action, Continue Current 

Management Trends. The no-action alternative 

reflects a continuation of current management 

trends. Under the no-action alternative, all 

Consistency with Established Plans

As discussed in chapter 1, management 

direction established in the 1986 Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area General 

Management Plan and the 2003 Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area Lake Management 

Plan provides the basis for the current 

planning effort. Therefore, the following 

parameters are considered to be “givens” 

that define the scope and thus the range of 

alternatives: 

 The alternatives are consistent with the 

general management plan’s vision for 

both areas, which is to accommodate 

increasing use, enhance the visitor 

experience, and mitigate flood hazards. 

 Marina, public boat launch, and parking 

facilities at each developed area are 

consistent with the carrying capacity and 

zoning identified in the lake 

management plan. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative 

25 

current facilities would remain in place, with only 

minimal changes. See figure 3 at the end of this 

chapter for a map. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

operate the upper and lower campgrounds, and 

would not establish any new facilities for day use. 

The ranger station and NPS housing and 

maintenance areas would be retained in their 

current locations. 

The concessioner would continue to operate the 

existing commercial services. This includes the 

25-unit motel by the lakeshore, the marina 

(approximately 235 slips), the existing store and 

café (which occupy separate, temporary structures 

and the large long-term trailer village), and the 

small short-term recreational vehicle (RV) area. 

The existing flood control ditches and dikes 

would not be upgraded. 

Alternative 2: Implement Previous Planning 

Proposals. The overarching concept for this 

alternative is to implement actions proposed in 

two previous plans, the general management plan 

and the lake management plan. These park plans 

authorized an increase in boating capacity, 

provided for a separation of shoreline public use 

areas and commercial marina facilities, and 

incorporated flood protection measures to convey 

and channelize flood flows through the developed 

area. See figure 4 at the end of this chapter for a 

map. 

In this alternative, a new modest visitor contact 

station would be built close to the boat launch, 

increasing the NPS presence in this busy area. In 

addition to visitor contact, this would also serve 

NPS administrative purposes, including law 

enforcement. 

Day-use activities such as picnicking and beach 

access would be moved away from Cottonwood 

Cove, which is heavily used by boaters, and 

relocated to Ski Cove. New picnic areas on the 

gentle slopes above Ski Cove would be configured 

to accommodate individual and group sites, 

featuring a number of shade shelters and 

tables/grills. The Ski Cove beach would become a 

designated no-boat area. Restrooms would also be 

provided in this area. A new paved spur road 

would provide access to this newly developed area 

and a small parking area would be developed 

above Ski Cove. 

In this alternative, the current ranger station, 

which is primarily administrative in nature, would 

be adapted to house a campground office. 

Otherwise, both existing campgrounds would be 

retained with minimal changes. 

The capacity of some commercial visitor amenities 

— the motel, restaurant, and dry storage — could 

be increased. If desired, the concessioner could 

double the capacity of the motel by adding a 

second story. The existing long-term trailer village 

would remain in place or be converted to shortterm RV sites over time, as discussed in the 

general management plan. 

In accordance with the lake management plan, the 

concessioner would be permitted to expand the 

marina to approximately 484 slips. Marina 

expansion is proposed in part to help offset the 

loss of revenue from a trailer village that would be 

reduced in size, or possibly phased out altogether. 

The permitted marina expansion is one reason 

that the increase in parking would be warranted. 

The main access road would remain with two 

lanes. Throughout the developed area, some 

informal parking areas would be paved and 

striped, and additional parking areas developed. 

This should enhance convenience for visitors, 

particularly for boaters launching out of 

Cottonwood Cove. Per the lake management plan, 

parking capacity in the developed area would be 

expanded to approximately 322 double parking 

spaces (dps) (to accommodate boat launchers) 

and 500 single parking spaces (sps) (for other 

visitors, including beachgoers and those who rent 

boats). This addition of new parking close to the 

water should reduce congestion and improve 

convenience for visitors, particularly for boaters 

launching out of Cottonwood Cove. 

The NPS housing and maintenance areas and 

concessioner housing would be rebuilt in new 

locations outside of the floodplain. These 

functions would be relocated to a new site on a 

bluff south of the main entrance road. Berms 

would be constructed to visually screen this area 

from view of the access road. An existing gravel 

road provides access to this area; this road would 

be extensively upgraded. The existing NPS 

housing area would be reused for parking. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

26 

Comprehensive redesign of flood control 

measures would provide a new level of security 

for residents (e.g., park and concession 

employees) and park visitors, including overnight 

guests. Preliminary design for the flood control 

structures has been completed (HDR 2004a, 

2004b). The conceptual designs include new 

channels and dikes to intercept and divert a 

majority of flood flows north of the developed 

area, and to convey additional pmf flows through 

the developed area. 

Alternative 3: Preferred, Enhance Visitor 

Experience and Park Operations. Under 

alternative 3, opportunities for shoreline day use 

would be enhanced by improving the quality of 

existing facilities in Cottonwood Cove and by 

distributing day use. Existing picnic and no-boat 

areas in Cottonwood Cove would remain in place. 

The existing picnic area would be outfitted with 

additional shade shelters and picnic tables. New 

shoreline use areas for beach access and 

picnicking would be developed in Ski Cove, and a 

new designated trail built between Ski Cove and 

Cottontail Cove. These improvements would 

provide beachgoers with new destinations that are 

removed from heavily used Cottonwood Cove. 

The Ski Cove beach would be a dedicated no-boat 

area. Above the beach, a new picnic area featuring 

shade shelters and tables/grills would be carefully 

designed to serve both individuals and groups. Ski 

Cove would be served by a new paved road spur 

and a small parking area. The beach at Cottontail 

Cove would remain open to boats. See figure 5 at 

the end of this chapter for a map. 

The concessioner would operate all overnight 

accommodations, including the existing motel, 

camping options, and a new redesigned RV park 

on the site of the current trailer village. 

The upper campground would be extensively 

rehabilitated. A portion — perhaps one loop — 

would be retained with minimal changes, to cater 

to tent campers seeking a “less developed” 

camping experience. This solution would allow 

for some retention of historic landscape patterns, 

protecting the Mission 66 character. A portion of 

the upper campground would be redesigned to 

support NPS volunteer use, featuring large RV 

sites with hookups. Perhaps 10 to 12 such RV 

volunteer spaces would be established. 

Concessioner housing would also be relocated to 

the upper campground area, with existing 

concessioner employee dormitories moved to this 

new location. 

The lower campground — already a favorite place 

for picnicking during summer months — would 

seasonally be used as a picnic area; but retained 

for camping during winter months. 

Within the life of the new concession contract, the 

area currently occupied by the long-term use 

trailer village would be redeveloped for premier 

short-term use accommodations. Long-term 

trailer sites, as they presently exist, with private 

trailers left on site for the sole and exclusive use of 

the owners and their guests would be phased out. 

The area would primarily become a new RV park; 

however, the concessioner would be permitted to 

provide concession owned accommodations 

rented on a per night bases, such as cabin units, 

“park models” with individual bathrooms, or 

similar accommodations as part of the mix. Park 

models are generally considered recreational 

vehicles because they are transportable. However, 

they are often intended for long-term placement 

in one location. Typical use is for a vacation 

cabin. Park models have been identified as 

appropriate for concession operations because of 

the recreational use patterns associated with these 

types of units. Further, since they are property of 

the concessioner, they can be removed from the 

recreation area when they reach their maximum 

useful life. 

This new area would provide an expanded 

number of RV sites. The quality of these sites 

would be greatly increased over current 

conditions. They would be designed to 

accommodate large contemporary recreational 

vehicles, with pull-through parking and other 

amenities. Design of the RV park would not 

reflect tight spacing and linear arrangement of 

many commercial style RV parks. Instead, units 

would be widely spaced to allow greater 

separation and sense of privacy. Overall, the 

design may be analogous to the new RV 

campground at Willow Beach. The gently sloping 

site could also be contoured to provide 

recreational vehicle and cabin guests with views to 

the lake. New or enhanced utilities and other 

infrastructure would be constructed to support 

this new use. For example, individual restrooms in 

park models or cabin units would require 

enhanced water and wastewater systems. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative 

27 

The existing motel would remain. The 

concessioner would be allowed to expand the 

motel capacity, but this expansion would be 

achieved through placement of an additional 

structure behind the existing building rather than 

a second story. The concessioner may explore the 

possibility of adding meeting or multipurpose 

space, so that the motel would better 

accommodate conferences or other events. 

The site just north of the motel would be 

redeveloped for a combined visitor/commercial 

services center. This facility would consolidate 

store and restaurant functions in one location. 

Visitor information and exhibit/interpretive space 

would also be provided, but are not expected to 

occupy a substantial percentage of space. This 

visitor/commercial services center and other new 

structures would be designed to coordinate with 

each other and the existing motel, and to 

harmonize with the surroundings through 

appropriate use of siting, materials, and other 

design elements. For example, this facility could 

be sited to physically align with the motel. 

Buildings along the waterfront would exhibit a 

unified, consistent design character. The area 

between these buildings and the lakeshore would 

be redesigned for pedestrians, with outdoor 

seating and shade. 

As in alternative 2, the marina would be allowed to 

expand, per direction in the lake management 

plan. The concessioner could also adjust the ratio 

of small to larger slips, provided that it continues 

to offer a number of smaller slips, ensuring that 

the marina continues to serve a variety of boaters. 

The main access road would be widened 

throughout the developed area by adding a new 

launch/ready lane down to the launch ramp. Some 

informal parking areas would be paved and 

striped and additional parking areas developed 

closer to the lake to accommodate the expanded 

marina and motel and shoreline day use. These 

improvements should reduce congestion and 

alleviate long wait times for boat launchers and 

other visitors. A new road would be added along 

the southern edge of the developed area, forming 

a paved loop with the existing access road. This 

loop would function in combination with the new 

launch-ready lane to improve ease of circulation. 

It would connect with the new spur leading to Ski 

Cove. These actions would be implemented once 

the trailer village is phased out. 

The existing ranger station would be retained. The 

NPS housing and maintenance areas would be 

expanded within the existing areas. However, in 

the long term, the National Park Service would 

explore options for a consolidated law 

enforcement/emergency services facility in the 

general vicinity of the ranger station or in the 

vicinity of the housing area. The concessioner 

maintenance area would remain in its current 

location, and could potentially expand into the 

area currently occupied by concessioner 

employee dormitories. 

As in alternative 2, comprehensive redesign of 

flood control would provide increased safety over 

current conditions. 

Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 

Pedestrian Connections. New pedestrian 

connections to areas of interest (for instance, 

along the shoreline, to and from remote parking 

areas, visitor service areas, and remote beach 

areas). In addition, the park would investigate 

options for providing designated trail access to the 

beach immediately north of Cottonwood Cove, to 

reduce resource damage associated with multiple 

trailing. 

Flash Flood Mitigation Measures.

Overall — Implement structural and nonstructural 

flood mitigation measures to protect the public. 

Improvements were designed to protect public 

recreation facilities and also protect the health 

and safety of visitors and employees in overnight 

areas. Recommendations were designed to 

remove all developed areas with overnight 

occupancy from inundation during the 500-year 

maximum flood. In general, flood mitigation 

measures would consist of the following 

components: 

 constructing a diversion dike and channel 

system in Ranger Wash upstream of the 

developed area to intercept and redirect a 

majority of flood flows into a parallel wash 

north of the developed area 

 reinforcing and extending existing diversion 

dikes 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

28 

 constructing approximately 9,300 ft of 

concrete-lined channels (up to 52 ft wide at 

the top) 

 constructing a flood deflector wall and 

concrete swale outlet at the lake 

 adding low-flow road crossings and realigning 

road segments to accommodate flood 

channels 

 maintaining the existing Early Warning 

Detection System (EWDS), posting flood 

warning signs, and developing an evacuation 

plan 

 relocating miscellaneous utilities and 

restoring surfaces 

The following text summarizes mitigation 

measures for specific areas. All dimensions are 

approximate based on preliminary design 

estimates (HDR 2004a, 2004b). Design of flood 

control channels and other measures would be 

refined in future design development. 

Lower campground channel — Proposed flood 

mitigation improvements in the lower 

campground area would increase the capacity of 

an existing flood control channel. The proposed 

improvements consist of 

 installing gabions on the existing (earthen) 

diversion dike at far west end of campground 

 constructing approximately 1,500 ft of 

concrete-lined channel with a concrete cutoff wall at the entrance 

 adding erosion protection at both the channel 

entrance and outfall 

 restoring surface and campsite 

Lower access road wash — The Lower Access Road 

Wash extends from the lake to the confluence 

with the Dry Boat Storage Wash, approximately 

50 ft west of the Dry Boat Storage Access road. 

Proposed flood mitigation improvements in this 

area would increase the capacity of the existing 

channel and provide a direct flow path across the 

lower parking lot to the lake. The proposed 

improvements consist of 

 constructing approximately 2,400 ft of 

concrete-lined channel with a deflection wall 

at the downstream end 

 adding a low-water crossing / concrete swale 

across the lower parking lot (near the launch 

ramp) 

 adding a low-water crossing where the 

channel crosses the upper boat storage access 

road 

 adding erosion protection at the parking lot 

swale outfall 

 restoring surfaces along the channel length 

Note: conceptual dimensions of the proposed 

Lower Access Road concrete channel include a 

depth of 61⁄2 ft and a bottom width of 25 ft, with 

2:1 side slopes resulting in a top width of 52 ft. As 

the channel approaches the lower parking lot, the 

design concept reduces the channel depth to 

allow large flood flows (e.g., 100 year and pmf 

flow) to fan out across the parking area. 

Upper access road channel — The proposed channel 

for the Upper Access Road Wash extends from 

the Dry Boat Storage Access road to 

approximately 1,500 ft west of the ranger station. 

Proposed improvements in this area create a 

channel along the north side of the access road to 

convey flows. A portion of the Upper Access Road 

basin would continue to be conveyed in the 

existing channel along the south side of the main 

campground, which eventually enters the Lower 

Access Road Channel. Proposed flood mitigation 

improvements consist of 

 modifying the existing dike 1,500 ft west of 

the ranger station 

 constructing approximately 3,400 ft of 

concrete-lined channel 

 relocating approximately 900 ft of the main 

access road (shifting it south to accommodate 

the proposed concrete channel) 

 adding low-water crossings at the tank access 

road and at the current NPS housing area 

access road 
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative 

29 

Note: conceptual dimensions of the proposed 

concrete channel include a depth of 61⁄2 ft and a 

bottom width of 20 ft, with 2:1 side slopes 

resulting in a top width of 46 ft. 

Dry boat storage channel — The Dry Boat Storage 

Wash conveys flows from the Ranger Wash basin 

as an existing diversion dike is located above the 

NPS housing area that directs flow to the Dry Boat 

Storage Channel. As described below, a vast 

majority of the tributary area would be diverted 

out of this wash with the Ranger Wash diversion. 

Proposed flood mitigation improvements consist 

of 

 extending the existing diversion dike above 

the NPS housing area 

 constructing approximately 2,000 ft of 

concrete-lined channel 

 relocating approximately 300 ft of the upper 

boat storage yard gravel access road (shifting 

it north to accommodate the proposed 

concrete channel) 

Note: conceptual dimensions of the proposed 

concrete channel include a depth of 5 ft and a 

bottom width of 8 ft, with 2:1 side slopes resulting 

in a top width of 28 ft. 

Ranger wash diversion — Currently, the 1.6 square 

mile ranger basin drains to the Dry Boat Storage 

Channel. Analysis indicates that this basin alone 

contributes approximately 8,400 cfs to the 

developed area of Cottonwood Cove during the 

pmf event. The proposed Ranger Wash diversion 

system is located approximately 1/2 mile upstream 

from the existing diversion dike above the NPS 

housing area. The diversion system would consist 

of two diversion dikes and two channels, 

including 

 a trapezoidal dike (20 ft high × 500 ft long) 

with a diversion channel (200 ft long) 

constructed by a 40 ft cut through a wash side 

wall 

 a trapezoidal dike (20 ft high × 500 ft long) 

with a 700 ft long diversion channel 

constructed by a 60 ft cut through a wash side 

wall 

Early warning detection system — Nonstructural flood 

control mitigation would consist of maintaining 

the existing Early Warning Detection System, 

placement of flood warning signs, and 

development of an evacuation plan. Among other 

measures, this would include 

 replacement warning sirens 

 new rain gauges 

 a new stream gauge 

 upgrades to radio equipment (e.g., repeaters, 

rain gauge radio transmitters) 

 new software systems 

Sustainable design and character — In alternatives 2 

and 3, new design and construction within the 

project area would reflect the principles of 

sustainability. Sustainability is a concept that 

“recognizes that human civilization is an integral 

part of the natural world and that nature must be 

preserved and perpetuated if the human 

community is to sustain itself” (NPS 1994). A 

sustainable development exemplifies the cohesive 

integration of buildings, landscape, and the 

natural environment. At Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing, new design would employ 

appropriate strategies for reducing the 

environmental impact of new buildings and other 

facilities. Strategies may include highly efficient 

mechanical and electrical systems; recycled or 

locally produced materials; onsite generation of 

renewable energy; and shielded or downward 

outdoor lighting. 

The approach to plantings would also reflect 

sustainability principles. As facilities are 

rehabilitated, replaced, or redesigned, the 

National Park Service would replace invasive 

nonnative vegetation with native species that are 

well suited to the arid climate and that will not 

pose a threat to the park’s natural resources. 

Where practical, palms, oleanders, and other 

exotic species formerly planted in developed areas 

would be replaced with native equivalents. 

Tamarisk and other exotic plants also would be 

replaced in connection with shoreline 

redevelopment projects at Ski Cove, Cottonwood 

Cove, or Katherine Landing. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

30 

The design of new facilities would also respect 

scenery as an important visual resource. Wherever 

possible, new buildings, structures, pavements, 

site furnishings, and other improvements should 

employ consistent use of materials, colors, 

textures, and screening to coordinate each other 

and harmonize with the natural setting. New and 

rehabilitated facilities would also accommodate 

people of all abilities in accordance with federal 

guidelines and regulations. New facilities would 

be designed to minimize impacts on dark skies. 

For example, building entries, pathways and 

ramps, accessible parking, and other 

improvements would adhere to the Architectural 

Barriers Act Accessibility Standards for Federal 

Facilities and the Accessibility Guidelines for 

Outdoor Developed Areas. 

The Cottonwood Cove alternatives are compared 

in table 1. 
TABLE 1. COTTONWOOD COVE ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2: 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Summary of Biggest Ideas

 Retain existing facilities (e.g., motel, 

campgrounds, marina, trailer village) with minimal changes

 New day-use areas (picnic and no-boat 

areas) in Ski Cove; new spur road to access Ski Cove 

 Trailer village sites would remain or be 

converted to short-term sites over time 

 Motel expansion, addition of second floor 

would double capacity 

 Increase parking capacity and allow marina 

expansion as per the lake management plan 

 Housing and maintenance areas relocated 

to bluff south of access road 

 Minimal rehabilitation to campgrounds

 New day-use a

areas) in Ski CoCottontail CoveCottonwood C

 Trailer village p

concession conpremier overnigpark or cabin uconcessioner 

 Motel expands

capacity and inhosting meetin

 Upper campgro

concessioner aVolunteer loop vehicles with hwith no change(tent/car) 

 Maintain chara

extent possible 

 Use lower cam

during the sumcampground fo

 New paved loo

route to motel 

 Increase parkin

expansion as p

Visitor Orientation and Interpretation

 New (modest) visitor contact/ranger station 

near launch 

 Enhance amphitheater setting

 Combined com

contact facility and café. Primacommercial serwould also incoand/or interpreNote that the etemporary stru

 Explore potent

provide orienta

 Integrate new e

new entrance s
TABLE 1. COTTONWOOD COVE ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

32 

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2: 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Road 164

No-boat Areas  Existing no-boat areas at beaches north of 

the launch ramp and in front of the motel

 Relocate no-boat areas to beach at Ski Cove  Retain existing 

launch ramp an

 New no-boat a New fishing pie

north of launch from the no-bo

Flash Flood Mitigation  Maintain existing flood control ditches and 

earthen dikes 

 Maintain the Early Warning Detection 

System 

 Construct engineered system of diversion 

dikes and concrete channels to convey the 500-year flood 

 Maintain the Early Warning Detection 

System, install flood warning signs, and develop evacuation plan 

 Construct engi

dikes and conc500-year flood 

 Maintain the Ea

System, install develop evacua

Picnic Area  Maintain existing picnic facilities (8 tables 

per 1 shade shelter, 2 restrooms)

 Relocate picnic area to Ski Cove, with 

additional shelters and tables/grills; configure for group and individual sites

 Enhance existin

and individual sand tables/grills 

 Expand day use

Cove; configursites 

 Outdoor dining

part of enhancconnection witservices/visitor 

Pedestrian Connections 

 Limited trail opportunities are available for 

area visitors

 New pedestrian connections to areas of 

interest, especially along the lakefront in the developed areas 

 New pedestrian 

interest in the d

 New lakefront 

would stretch fto new fishing (new designateCottontail Cove

Launch Area  Retain existing launch ramp (15-lane 

capacity) 

 Retain existing courtesy dock

 Retain existing launch ramp (15-lane 

capacity 

 Retain existing courtesy dock

 Retain existing 

capacity) 

 Consider provid

space for visitoaccommodated issues (e.g., extor add an addit
TABLE 1. COTTONWOOD COVE ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2: 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Upper Campground  Maintain existing upper campground 

(100 sites) 

NOTE: Restrooms have recently been replaced 

and/or renovated, and old, ditch irrigation system has been replaced by more efficient drip irrigation. 

 Maintain existing upper campground (100 

sites) 

 Adaptively reuse ranger station for 

campground office

 Concessioner w

campground o

 Extensively reha Upgrade a port

(larger vehicle d1012 spaces, 

 Retain a portio

modifications f

 Maintain Missio

possible 

 Redevelop a po

concessioner h

 All overnight vi

concession ope

Lower Campground  Maintain existing lower campground 

(42 individual and 2 group sites) 

NOTE: Restrooms have recently been replaced 

and/or renovated, and old, ditch irrigation system has been replaced by more efficient drip irrigation.

 Maintain existing lower campground 

(42 individual and 2 group sites)

 Use lower cam

during summer campground fo

 All overnight vi

concession ope

Marina Services  Retain existing marina (approximately 

300 slips) 

 Existing fuel/rental dock  Existing dry storage  Existing convenience store  Existing ice house  Existing restaurant  Existing fuel pumps (land) near ramp

 Retain existing marina (expansion to 

484 slips) 

 Existing fuel/rental dock  Expand dry storage  Existing convenience store  Existing ice house  Expand restaurant  Relocate fuel pumps across from ranger 

station

 Retain existing 

484 slips) 

 Existing fuel/re Existing dry sto Combined com

contact facility concession admspace, NPS con

 Maintain fuel p

Overnight Accommodations 

 Existing motel (24-25 units)  Existing short-term RV sites (approximately 

70 sites) 

 Long-term trailer village sites (223)

 Expand existing motel. Additional story 

would double capacity 

 Existing short-term RV sites (retain number 

of RV sites at 70, or expand number as trailer village sites are converted to short term) 

 Retain or convert long-term trailer sites to 

short term

 Expand existing 

would double cdesign to make conferences, re(e.g., add meetcourtyard)
TABLE 1. COTTONWOOD COVE ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

34 

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2: 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

 Additional prem

cabins or RV pacurrent trailer vDornbusch Asssites at 70; and [number may inon demand]). Mset by site cons

Circulation/Access  Maintain the main 2-lane paved access 

spine

 Construct new paved access spur road to 

Ski Cove area 

 Pending flood control design, realign access 

road (900 linear feet [lf]) and Dry Storage Road (300 lf) to accommodate flood mitigation 

NOTE: Estimates of lf from HDR, Inc. (HDR 

2004a).

 New launch/rea

to launch ramp 

 Construct new 

providing alternwith spur to Sk

 Pending flood c

road (900 lf) anto accommoda

NOTE: Estimates 

Parking  Maintain existing parking capacity at 731 

spaces (paved and unpaved): 

 Total paved/unpaved dps: 301  Total paved sps: 129 

NOTE: Estimates of existing parking capacity 

are derived from aerial counts of existing stalls. 

 Increase parking capacity as per the lake 

management plan (322 dps and 500 sps): 

 Additional parking: Formalize unpaved 

parking areas behind the store and west of launch ramp area; add new parking at Ski Cove, near the ranger station, and potentially the existing NPS housing area (which would be removed)

 Increase parkin

management p

 Additional park

parking areas bportions of the trailer village to marina parkingSki Cove. As a areas where fe

Law Enforcement and Emergency Services 

 Existing ranger station (administration)  Existing fire station (in maintenance yard)  Existing helipad (near NPS housing)

 New modest ranger/visitor contact station 

by boat launch 

 Adapt existing ranger station (primarily 

administrative in nature) to campground office

 Existing helipad

station would blocations (somefairly close to o

 In the long term

would explore consolidated laservices center existing ranger 
TABLE 1. COTTONWOOD COVE ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2: 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Concession and NPS Housing 

 Existing concession housing is scattered 

throughout the developed area in three separate locations (dry storage area and trailer village) 

 Existing NPS housing is near NPS 

maintenance yard

 Relocate National Park Service and 

concessioner housing to high bluff south of entrance road but maintain as separate areas 

 NPS housing w

location; rehabstructures 

 Relocate conce

campground aconcession houscattered throu

Maintenance (NPS and Concessioner) 

 Existing concessioner maintenance area  Existing NPS maintenance area

 Allow concessioner maintenance area to 

expand into the area currently occupied by concessioner employee dormitories. Relocate and incorporate dormitories into larger concession housing area 

 Relocate NPS maintenance area to high 

bluff south of road

 Allow concessio

expand into the concessioner eRelocate and inlarger concessio

 Retain existing 

NOTE: There wa

area but eremain in limited.

Overhead Lines  Certain utilities are carried by way of 

overhead wires

 If feasible, remove overhead wires and bury 

utilities underground

 If feasible, rem

utilities underg
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

36 

Elements Considered but Dismissed 

During the alternatives development process, 

certain elements initially considered as part of the 

range of alternatives were dismissed from further 

consideration. The following list summarizes 

these elements for Cottonwood Cove and offers a 

brief summary of the rationale for dismissal. 

Relocation of Marina to Ski and Cottontail 

Coves. Rationale for dismissing this element 

includes the following: 

 Separating certain functions and uses — in 

particular, separating the store/restaurant and 

launch ramp from the marina — would 

negatively impact concession operations and 

visitor experience. 

 Extensive facility infrastructure would be 

required to support a functional marina in this 

new location — for instance, roads, sizable 

parking area, fuel service, utilities, and new 

support buildings. This extensive 

development would be expensive to build, 

operate, and maintain, and would result in 

impacts on natural resources (likely terrestrial 

and aquatic). 

 Limited space is available for parking and 

other support within Ski or Cottontail Coves, 

so a marina would probably be infeasible. 

Motel Function Relocated from Lakeshore or 

Removed Altogether. Rationale for dismissing 

this element includes the following: 

 The existing motel by the lakeshore is an 

appropriate and successful component of the 

current visitor experience. 

 The motel is profitable in its current location. 

Conversion of Lower Campground to Yearround Picnic Area. Rationale for dismissing this 

element includes the following: 

 Conversion would result in cultural resource 

impacts. The cultural landscape is associated 

with the Mission 66 period of NPS 

development and is eligible to the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

Removing camping near the lakeshore at 

Cottonwood Cove would negatively impact the 

visitor experience. The demand for day use of this 

area is in the summer, when camping is in lesser 

demand; so applying a different management 

approach (i.e., splitting camping / day use) by 

season seems to be a better solution. 

New Law Enforcement / Emergency Service 

Facility on Current Site of NPS Housing.

Rationale for dismissing this element includes the 

following: 

 There would be impacts on cultural resources 

impacts because conversion to this type 

facility would require removing or 

transforming contributing historic structures 

from a property eligible in the National 

Register. 

 There is limited space in this area for this 

function. 

KATHERINE LANDING ALTERNATIVES 

Narrative Description of Alternatives 

Alternative 1: No Action, Continue Current 

Management Trends. The no-action alternative 

reflects a continuation of current management 

trends. Under the no-action alternative, all 

current visitor and support facilities would remain 

in place, with only minimal changes. See figure 6 at 

the end of this chapter for a map. 

The existing ranger station would be retained in 

its current location. As a result, it would continue 

to receive minimal visitation. The National Park 

Service would continue to operate the 

campground. The campground would not be 

redesigned; sites would remain small, and better 

suited to tent/car camping than to the increasing 

number of campers who arrive in large 

recreational vehicles. Occupancy would likely 

remain low. 

The National Park Service would also retain 

existing picnic facilities, which are located near to 

the abandoned beach. Many years ago this beach 

was closed to swimming. No new facilities for day 

use would be established at Katherine Landing. 

The existing amphitheater — currently in poor 

condition — would be retained. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

37 

The marina would remain the current size. The 

concessioner would continue to offer overnight 

accommodations including approximately 

28 short-term RV sites and the existing 50-room 

motel. Because no major changes are proposed, 

motel vacancy rates would remain low. The longterm trailer village would be retained. 

Primary access to Katherine Landing would 

remain by way of the existing paved road. For 

most of its length this road is two lanes, but it 

widens to three lanes between the intersection 

with Cabinsite Road and the launch ramp. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

maintain the existing system of ditches and 

channels. 

Alternative 2: Implement Previous Planning 

Proposals. Similar to Cottonwood Cove, the 

overarching concept for alternative 2 is to 

implement actions proposed in the general 

management plan and the lake management plan. 

At Katherine Landing, these plans provided for a 

separation of shoreline public use areas and 

commercial marina facilities, and incorporated 

flood protection measures to convey and 

channelize flood flows through the developed 

area. The lake management plan also established 

boating capacity on the southern portion of Lake 

Mohave at current levels; and therefore capped 

the marina at its current size (824 slips) and set 

limits on parking. In accordance with this 

direction, this alternative maintains the current 

total number of parking spaces across the 

developed area, although it does propose changes 

in the location of parking. See figure 7 at the end 

of this chapter for a map. 

The general management plan proposed 

construction of a new ranger station close to the 

launch ramp. Alternative 2 addresses this proposal 

by removing the current ranger station and 

relocating law enforcement and visitor contact 

functions to a site south of the launch ramp. This 

area is currently occupied by the NPS information 

station (or first aid station). Therefore, this 

proposal would mean repurposing (and probably 

expanding) this information station and nearby 

parking. Although the new ranger station would 

increase NPS presence along the lakeshore, 

visitation may remain limited due to its location 

south of the launch ramp, separated from the 

store and restaurant. This has been the case with 

the current information station. 

The site on which the current ranger station 

stands would be converted to waysides, as 

proposed in the general management plan. 

Additional waysides would be constructed at the 

intersection of Katherine Landing and Cabinsite 

roads. Potentially, waysides in this location could 

highlight recreational opportunities that are 

available at sites to the north of Katherine Landing 

— Princess Cove, Cabinsite Point, and North and 

South Arizona Telephone Cove. 

Existing picnic facilities and the nearby 

amphitheater would be removed and the site 

redeveloped for parking. This change would 

greatly increase the quantity of parking near to the 

lakeshore, thereby improving convenience for 

visitors — most of whom visit Katherine Landing 

to take advantage of the lake. In order to maintain 

current parking levels across the developed area, 

parking lot C, which is located nearly a mile from 

the lakeshore, would be removed and the site 

restored. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

operate the campground, which would be 

minimally modified. New improvements would 

enhance accessibility, including designing a 

percentage of sites to be universally accessible. A 

new amphitheater/outdoor program area would 

be established in a central location within the 

campground. 

In accordance with the lake management plan, the 

marina would remain at its current size. 

Katherine Landing would continue to offer 

overnight lodging. The motel would be renovated 

— or alternately, rehabilitated for a new adaptive 

use. The general management plan proposed 

doubling the capacity of the motel. However, a 

recent study of financial viability for concessions 

operations (conducted in connection with this 

plan) indicated that motel occupancy rates are 

very low and motel expansion is not warranted. 

Therefore, this alternative retains the motel at its 

current size (50 units). 

The store and restaurant would be expanded on 

their current sites. This should allow the 

concessioner to store and offer for sale more 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

38 

products, and may also address overcrowding 

during peak periods. 

The long-term trailer village would remain or be 

converted to short-term RV sites over time. 

This alternative also proposes changes to support 

facilities. Temporary structures in the 

concessioner housing area would be replaced by 

permanent buildings. The NPS maintenance area 

and fire station would be relocated away from 

South Katherine Wash to a bluff northwest of the 

developed area, near the water treatment plant. 

The administrative road leading to the treatment 

plant would be extensively improved to support 

this increase in use. 

In the developed area, the Katherine Landing 

access road would be retained without major 

changes. 

Alternative 3: Preferred, Enhance Visitor 

Experience and Park Operations. Alternative 3 

proposes important changes to facilities in 

response to changing visitor preferences and to 

changing circumstances in the surrounding area. 

New types of overnight accommodations would 

take the place of outdated forms. Visitor services 

would be improved. Circulation would be 

redesigned to alleviate congestion and promote 

smoother traffic flow for visitors and for staff. See 

figure 8 at the end of this chapter for a map. 

Under alternative 3, the store and restaurant 

would be rehabilitated or replaced. Some visitor 

information and exhibit/interpretive space would 

be incorporated into the redesign. As at 

Cottonwood Cove, inviting outdoor spaces would 

also be included, and interpretive signs may also 

be installed. Outdoor gathering areas could also 

double for interpretive programs. The park would 

explore options for concession staff — rather than 

NPS personnel — to provide interpretation and 

orientation services if it is financially feasible. 

The existing ranger station, which is located far 

from the lakeshore, would be rehabilitated to 

house office space for an expanded and 

redesigned campground (described in the 

following information). 

As in alternative 2, the current picnic and 

amphitheater area would be converted to paved 

parking close to the lakeshore, and lot C would be 

removed or greatly reduced to maintain available 

parking within the developed area at current 

levels. 

A new picnic area would be constructed near the 

lakeshore. This picnic area would be designed so 

that visitors are physically separated from the 

water. 

The marina would remain the current size. As at 

Cottonwood Cove, the concessioner would be 

permitted to adjust the ratio of small (less than 

23 ft) to large (greater than 23 ft) slips, provided 

that the marina continues to offer a number of 

smaller slips, and thus serves a variety of boaters. 

Use of the Katherine Landing motel has dropped. 

Now, motel occupancy remains low on all but 

peak weekends. This trend is related to a variety of 

factors, including the recent economic downturn, 

cost of lodging, the condition of the motel, and a 

general decline in park visitation. Another factor 

is that tourism to nearby Laughlin has 

dramatically expanded in the years since 

Katherine Landing was designed and built. 

Currently, Laughlin provides approximately 

5,000 units of overnight lodging (hotel or 

hotel/casino rooms). This alternative responds to 

these circumstances by removing the motel 

function from Katherine Landing. The site would 

be redeveloped for parking. 

As at Cottonwood Cove, the trailer village would 

be removed. Long-term trailer sites, as they 

presently exist, with private trailers left on site for 

the sole and exclusive use of the owners and their 

guests would be phased out. The majority of that 

site would be incorporated within an expanded 

and redesigned campground. As at Cottonwood 

Cove, the concessioner would manage all 

campground operations. Some portion of the 

campground would retain its current 

configuration for tent/car camping. But a large 

percentage of the area would be redeveloped for 

RV sites designed to accommodate views to the 

lake. Featuring pull-through parking, hookups, 

and other amenities, these sites would 

accommodate the large recreational vehicles that 

are increasingly popular in the recreation area. As 

at Cottonwood Cove, RV sites would be spaced to 

allow a degree of separation and privacy. Design 

may be analogous to the new RV campground at 

Willow Beach. Campground redesign would 
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

39 

adhere to applicable standards and guidelines of 

accessibility. The implementation would be 

completed as it is financially feasible. 

Under this alternative, the National Park Service 

would permit the concessioner to offer other 

types of accommodations within the campground 

— for example cabins, “park models” with 

individual bathrooms, or similar units. The exact 

mix of accommodations is yet to be determined. A 

recent financial feasibility study suggested that a 

mix of these accommodation types could prove 

financially viable, but recommended a 

conservative approach to development. The study 

suggested starting with a modest number of units 

and gradually building additional units as market 

conditions could support. The National Park 

Service would allow site development within 

physical constraints and may establish an 

acceptable maximum number (or range) of units. 

Currently, National Park Service volunteer sites 

are scattered throughout Katherine Landing. 

Under this alternative they would be 

consolidated. Campground loop D would be 

established as a new volunteer loop. This would 

involve redesigning that loop for large RV sites 

and adding a new laundry/shower facility. Because 

of the extensive volunteer program in this portion 

of the park, approximately 25 volunteer sites 

would be developed. 

The NPS maintenance area would remain on the 

current site. Consolidated NPS offices also would 

be built in this vicinity. The existing joint 

NPS/concession housing area would remain in its 

current location. Residential units may be 

renovated or replaced as appropriate. Concession 

housing by the shoreline would be removed and 

restored, but concession housing in the joint 

NPS/concession housing area would remain. The 

lakeshore concession maintenance area would be 

retained. 

From the entrance station to the Cabinsite Road 

intersection, the Katherine Landing access road 

would be widened to three lanes, effectively 

extending the right-turn lane for Cabinsite Road. 

This change should help alleviate congestion on 

busy days and facilitate smooth flow of traffic to 

the launch ramp and areas north of Katherine 

Landing. As in alternative 2, waysides would be 

erected at the intersection of Cabinsite and 

Katherine Landing roads. 

The existing road leading to the NPS maintenance 

area would be upgraded and extended to form a 

new administrative loop road. This paved loop 

would serve the consolidated NPS offices, 

maintenance area, and volunteer loop. 

Throughout the developed area, additional 

options for enhancing internal circulation would 

be explored, to better serve visitors as well as 

administrative and emergency functions. 

Circulation for pedestrians and cyclists would also 

be expanded, including a bike path to Katherine 

Landing via the Katherine access road from 

Highway 68. The National Park Service would 

establish formal trailheads with designated 

parking and informational signs for both the 

Fishermen’s Trail and the Lakeview Trail. 

Removing concessioner housing from the 

lakeshore area would support this action. 

As in alternative 2, comprehensive redesign of 

flood control would provide a new level of 

security for residents (e.g., park and concession 

employees) and park visitors, including overnight 

guests. 

Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 

Flash Flood Mitigation Measures. 

Overall — Implement structural and nonstructural 

flood mitigation measures to protect the public. 

Improvements were designed to protect public 

recreation facilities and also protect the health 

and safety of visitors and employees in overnight 

areas. These recommendations were designed to 

remove all developed areas with overnight 

occupancy from inundation during the 500-year 

flood. In general, flood mitigation measures would 

consist of the following components: 

 rehabilitating the existing diversion dike 

(upstream of the developed area) that directs 

flows from North Katherine Wash around the 

developed area into South Telephone Cove 

Wash 

 raising, extending, and rehabilitating the 

existing diversion dike that directs flows from 

North Katherine Wash into South Katherine 

Wash 

 building new diversion dikes 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

40 

 using the existing borrow pit as a sediment 

basin, with a low level outlet and an overflow 

spillway 

 constructing approximately 5,700 ft of 

concrete-lined channels (up to 65 ft in width 

at the top) 

 providing erosion protection at channel 

outfalls 

 providing concrete-lined low-flow road 

crossings 

 installing an Early Warning Detection System 

at Katherine Landing; placing flood warning 

signs and developing an evacuation plan for 

Katherine Landing and North and South 

Arizona Telephone Coves 

 completing miscellaneous utility relocations 

and surface restoration 

The following sections summarize mitigation 

measures for specific areas. All dimensions are 

approximate based on preliminary design 

estimates (HDR 2004a, 2004b). Preliminary design 

for the flood control structures has been 

completed (HDR 2004a, 2004b). The conceptual 

designs include new channels and dikes to 

intercept and divert a majority of flood flows 

north of the developed area, and to convey 

additional pmf flows through the developed area. 

Dry Boat Storage Wash — Proposed flood mitigation 

improvements in this area would increase the 

capacity of an existing channel. The proposed 

improvements consist of 

 constructing approximately 650 ft of 

concrete-lined channel with a concrete cutoff wall at the entrance 

 adding erosion protection at both the channel 

entrance and outfall 

 adding low-flow concrete-lined crossings at 

the road and the boat storage access 

 restoring surfaces 

Note: conceptual dimensions of the concrete 

channel include a depth of 6 ft and a bottom width 

of 12 ft with 2:1 side slopes resulting in a top width 

of 36 ft. 

South Katherine Wash — Proposed flood mitigation 

improvements would increase the capacity of the 

existing channel and provide a better outlet. The 

proposed improvements consist of the following: 

 using the existing borrow pit as a sediment 

basin with a low-level outlet and an overflow 

spillway (the borrow pit would require 

additional excavation and be enclosed on the 

west side and a box culvert would meter out 

100-year flows and the spillway would address 

bigger floods) 

 constructing approximately 5,050 ft of 

concrete-lined channel (extending from the 

borrow pit to the outlet at the lake) with a 

concrete cut-off wall at the entrance 

 adding erosion protection at both the channel 

entrance and outfall 

 adding low-flow concrete-lined crossings at 

the water tank access and the borrow pit 

access 

 adding a concrete swale section (or alternate 

solution) at the outlet road area 

 restoring surfaces 

Note: conceptual dimensions of the concrete 

channel include a depth varying between 8 ft 

The launch ramp would remain at 8 lanes. 

However, because the design of flood 

control may continue to evolve, there exists a 

possibility that the redesign of the main 

channel may overlap a portion of the launch 

ramp and reduce the number of available 

lanes. Launching at Katherine Landing is 

very popular, so a reduction in launch 

capacity would adversely impact visitors. In 

this event, the National Park Service may 

explore options for increasing launch 

capacity elsewhere — for instance by 

improving the launch ramp and parking at 

Cabinsite Point or North Arizona Telephone 

Cove. These actions would only be 

implemented consistent with capacity levels 

established by the lake management plan. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

41 

and10 ft and a bottom width of 25 ft, with 2:1 side 

slopes resulting in a top width of 57 ft and 65 ft, 

respectively.

South Katherine Wash Outlet — HDR, Inc. proposed 

alternate design solutions for the outlet, and these 

solutions would be reevaluated during future 

design development. The alternate solutions are as 

follows: 

1. A concrete v-shaped swale overlapping the 

southern lanes of the boat launch. This swale 

would be approximately 450 ft in length, with 

side slopes at 10:1 and 20:1. At a grade of 

0.4%, this swale can convey the 100-year 

flood. (Note: these dimensions are 

approximate and preliminarily indicate that 

trailer traffic can adequately cross this swale; 

however, this geometry should be verified 

with further design development); or 

2. A U-shaped channel and box culvert, with 

low-water crossing on the road currently 

leading to the concessioner’s maintenance 

area (instead of the v-shaped swale). 

North Katherine Wash — Flood flows are conveyed 

towards Lake Mohave on the north side of the 

access road. Proposed flood mitigation 

improvements would provide a better outlet for 

the flows. The proposed flood mitigation 

improvements consist of 

 constructing a gabion-lined diversion dike to 

convey flow across the access road to South 

Katherine Wash 

 adding a low-water crossing at access road 

with a double 6 ft × 6 ft box to convey lower 

frequency storms 

 raising the existing dike east of the south 

campground and adding gabion protection 

 relocating the parking lot entrance 

 restoring surfaces 

The new dike would be located upstream of the 

north campground and would divert flows from 

North Katherine Wash, leaving only local 

drainage though the current concessioner trailer 

village and the north campground areas. 

South Telephone Cove Wash — Flood flows are 

diverted from North Katherine Wash towards 

South Telephone Cove Wash by an existing 

diversion dike. Proposed flood mitigation 

improvements would provide a better outlet for 

the flows. The proposed improvements consist of 

 rehabilitating the existing diversion dike 

 adding a low-water crossing at the county 

road with downstream protection 

 restoring surfaces 

Early Warning Detection System — Nonstructural 

flood mitigation would consist of installing an 

Early Warning Detection System at Katherine 

Landing. Flood mitigation would also include 

placement of flood warning signs and 

development of an evacuation plan for Katherine 

Landing and North and South Arizona Telephone 

Coves. 

Sustainable design and character — See “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 2 and 3” section in this 

chapter for Cottonwood Cove. 

The Katherine Landing alternatives are compared 

in table 2. 
42 

TABLE 2. KATHERINE LANDING ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Biggest Ideas  All current facilities (e.g., motel, campgrounds, 

marina, trailer village) would remain, with only minimal changes 

 HDR, Inc.’s flood control recommendations 

would not be implemented

 HDR, Inc.’s flood control recommendations 

would be implemented 

 Trailer village would remain or over time be 

converted to short-term RV sites 

 Commercial services (but not the marina) 

would be expanded on their current sites 

 NPS maintenance would be relocated to a new 

area on a bluff northwest of the developed area 

 Maintain/renovate motel or adaptive reuse of 

motel structure for other use 

 Campground would be minimally rehabilitated 

(for Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] access, etc.) 

 Increased parking near lake; current satellite 

lot (C) would be removed

 HDR, Inc.’s flood 

would be implem

 Rehabilitate or re

restaurant. Integrorientation/exhibgathering areas 

 Motel removed; s

expanded visitor other forms of ovbelow) 

 Trailer village pha

concession contraredeveloped as pcampground that and would accom(larger sites with hookups, etc.). Socampground wouconfiguration for may be part of thaccommodations 

 Consolidated NPS 

enforcement/emeoffices, etc.) in thmaintenance area 

 Retain NPS maint

Flash Flood Mitigation

 Maintain existing earthen diversion dikes and 

channels 

 Maintain existing reinforced (gabion) channel 

in places along South Katherine Wash (immediately south of developed area)

 Construct engineered system of diversion 

dikes, channels, and detention basin to convey pmf flows through North and South Katherine Washes

 Install Early Warning Detection System for 

Katherine Landing

 Place flood warning signs and develop an 

evacuation plan for Katherine Landing and North and South Arizona Telephone Coves

 Construction of flash flood mitigation would 

be phased in, beginning with the highest priority projects

 Same as alternati
TABLE 2. KATHERINE LANDING ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Visitor Orientation and Interpretation

 Maintain existing ranger station with visitor 

contact (in current location far from the lakeshore) 

 Maintain existing information station by 

launch ramp (it is often unmanned) 

 Maintain existing entrance station  Enhance/replace existing waysides (launch 

area)

 Convert existing ranger station / visitor contact 

to waysides 

 New modest ranger/visitor contact station by 

launch (would probably mean rehabilitating the existing information station) 

 Maintain existing entrance station  New informational wayside at junction with 

SR 68 

 Establish new wayside at Cabinsite Road 

junction 

 Relocate amphitheater to campground area 

(between campground and new RV park) 

 Rehabilitate or re

restaurant. Integrcontact/exhibit splakeshore pedestrwaysides and outareas. Explore poprovide orientatio

 Explore potential 

interagency regiooutside park 

 New informationa

SR 68 

 Establish new wa

junction 

 Convert existing r

to visitor services RV/cabin campgrof the campgroun

 Replace temporar

with permanent swith other satellit

Picnic Area  Maintain existing picnic area and facilities 

(large group shelter adjacent to the abandoned beach area, which is overgrown)

 Remove existing picnic area. Implement 

measures to discourage water access in this area

 Establish new pic

waterfront (but dseparated from thaccess) 

 Outdoor dining/g

of combined comcontact facility 

 Integrate new pic

accessible fishing for additional accnear the northern (abandoned beac

Trails / Connections

 Maintain existing trail system, consisting of 

two informal but well-used trails for accessing the water (Fisherman’s and Lakeview Trails); interpretive use focuses on Lakeview Trail

 Same as alternative 1, maintain existing trail 

system, consisting of two informal but wellused trails for accessing the water (Fisherman’s and Lakeview Trails); interpretive use focuses on Lakeview Trail

 Expand and enha Establish formal t

Fisherman’s and L

 New Lakeshore T If suitable trail co

establish additionlake in Katherine 
TABLE 2. KATHERINE LANDING ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED) 

44 

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Landing to Prince

 Ensure safe vehic

part of road upgr

Launch Ramp Area

 Maintain existing launch ramp (eight-lane 

potential) 

 Existing courtesy dock (92 ft)

 Maintain 8-lane potential, if main flood 

channel outlet will allow; extend existing launch ramp for low-water launching (Note: probably not feasible) 

 Consider extending courtesy dock (to 

approximately 120 ft) 

NOTE: If there is a reduction in launch lanes (e.g., 

if channel cuts off southernmost lanes), coordinate changes in launch capacity with sites to the north (for instance, by improving launch at Cabinsite Point or North Arizona Telephone, or expanding parking at Princess Cove) to align with the lake management plan capacity levels.

 Retain existing lau

potential if main allow 

 Consider expandi

visitors (e.g., extebe accommodateissues 

NOTE: If there is a re

if channel cuts coordinate chsites to the noimproving lauNorth Arizona parking at Prinlake managem

Marina and Commercial Services

 Maintain existing marina (824 slips)  Retain existing convenience store 

(3,162 square feet [sq ft]) 

 Retain existing restaurant  Retain existing land-based fuel pumps

 Maintain existing marina (824 slips)  Expand convenience store capacity (up to 

double) 

 Expand restaurant capacity (up to double)  Retain existing land-based fuel pumps  Remove island with ice station

 Maintain existing  Permit concession

from smaller (<2slips, provided thnumber of smalleaccessible to a wi

 New shaded pede

waterfront 

 Rehabilitate or re

Integrate some nspace in redesigngathering/dining 

 Maintain land bas
TABLE 2. KATHERINE LANDING ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Overnight Accommodations

 Maintain existing motel (50 units)  Retain existing short-term RV park 

(approximately 28 sites) 

 Maintain existing long-term trailer village sites

 Renovate motel but do not increase capacity, 

or adaptive reuse of motel structure 

 Expand existing short-term RV park into trailer 

village area, with eventual goal of converting entire trailer village to short-term use 

NOTE: Although the financial analysis contract 

analyzed a range of different combinations and numbers of sites (RV /cabins/park models), the exact mix of accommodation types are to be determined.

 Motel function w Overnight accom

park [pull-througpark models, or sinto expanded caconcession manalarge portion of texact mix of accodetermined 

NOTE: Although the 

analyzed a ranand numbers models), the etypes are to bovernight accosite constraint

Campground  Maintain existing campground (171 sites), with 

slight changes 

 Increase number of volunteer sites 

NOTE: pedestrian connections to access road have 

recently been implemented.

 Rehabilitate campground to accommodate 

ADA campsites 

 Increase number of volunteer sites  Relocate amphitheater to campground; locate 

and orient away from the access road

 Convert existing c

run RV/cabin camdetermined; see Oabove) 

 Incorporate curre

expanded campg

 Upgrade some ex

contemporary vehrig ready,” with putility hookups); rretain footprint o

 Retain some port

tent camping 

 Establish loop D a

laundry/shower 

 Add new restroom  Concessioner wo

campground ope

 Convert existing r

office and visitor concessioner 

 Relocate amphith

and orient away f
TABLE 2. KATHERINE LANDING ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED) 

46 

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Long-term Trailer Village

 Retain existing long-term trailer village 

(approximately 104 sites; see Overnight Accommodations and Campground above)

 Over time, convert portions of the trailer 

village to RV park, until the entire village is converted to short term (eventually)

 Trailer village fun

during the new cstrategies for pha

 Redevelop site fo

accommodations cabins) and for co

Dry Storage (boats/trailers)

 Retain existing dry storage function and area  Retain existing dry storage function and area  Retain existing dr

for boats and trai

Boat Wash  Existing boat wash station in boat rental area 

(for concession operation)

 Retain existing boat wash station in boat rental 

area (for concession operation)

 Retain existing bo

operation 

 Mobile boat wash 

for larger boats (p

Circulation and Access

 On the access road, maintain 250 ft turning 

lane at Cabinsite Road junction 

 Maintain existing three-lane paved access from 

Cabinsite Road to launch ramp

 On access road, maintain 250 ft turning lane 

at Cabinsite Road junction 

 Maintain existing three-lane paved access from 

Cabinsite Road to launch ramp 

 New paved access road from Cabinsite Road 

to new NPS maintenance area (i.e., significantly upgrade existing unpaved road to water treatment plant) 

 Investigate reservation system  Assuming HDR, Inc. flood control design, new 

low-water crossings in connection with concrete channels (access road west of parking area C, water tank access road, Cabinsite Road)

 On access road, e

entrance station t

 Maintain existing 

Cabinsite Road to 

 New paved loop s

areas of the devecampground loop 

 Assuming HDR, In

low-water crossinconcrete channelarea C, water tanRoad), same as al

 Explore options fo

circulation for emadministration, an
TABLE 2.

KATHERINE LANDING 

ALTERNATIVES 

COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Parking  Maintain existing parking areas and parking 

capacity: 

 Total dps: approximately 525  Total sps: approximately 440 

NOTE: The lake management plan authorizes 

325 sps and 469 dps.

 Maintain authorized parking capacity from the 

lake management plan (325 sps and 469 dps) but locate closer to lakeshore to improve function for users 

 Convert picnic area / amphitheater to parking 

to increase parking near lake 

 Redesign parking near information station to 

accommodate flood channel (remove if necessary depending on outlet solution) 

 Probably, following more study of parking, 

remove or reduce parking area C (shuttle parking) to maintain current total number of parking spaces across the developed area

 Maintain authoriz

lake managemenbut locate closer function for users 

 Convert motel sit

greatly expand pamarina 

 Expand parking (p

road to serve maramphitheater, anservices / visitor c

 Probably, followin

remove or reduce parking) to maintparking spaces ac

 Better organize a

throughout (day versus dps, etc.)

 Better organize and delineate parking 

throughout (day use versus overnight; sps versus dps, etc.)

Law Enforcement/ Emergency

 Existing ranger / visitor contact station  NPS booking station / government dock  Existing fire station (in housing area)  Emergency helicopters land on launch ramp  Existing fire station in housing area

 New (modest) ranger / visitor contact station 

by launch 

 Retain government dock and booking station  Retain first aid station function by launch 

(most likely at ranger station) 

 Emergency helicopters would continue to land 

on launch ramp 

 Relocate fire station to new NPS maintenance 

area on bluff

 Law enforcement 

would be located general vicinity of interpretation/ma

 In this area, deve

for medical emer

 Provide covered p

services vehicles 

 Retain fire station

channel as appro

 Extend governme New paved admin

serve law enforce

 Small parking are

would be convertemergency parkin

 Retain first aid fu

near boat launch 
TABLE 2. KATHERINE LANDING ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED) 

48 

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

NPS Housing  Existing NPS/concessioner joint housing area 

 A few volunteer spaces are accommodated 

within the housing area and the campground 

 Maintain existing joint NPS/concessioner 

housing 

 Existing joint NPS

would remain in t

 Rehabilitate existi Convert campgro

trailer court

Concession Housing

 Existing concessioner housing is concentrated 

in two locations: the joint NPS/concessioner housing area and the concessioner area near the boat rental operation

 Maintain existing joint NPS/concessioner 

housing area 

 Replace trailers in the shoreline concession 

area (near the boat rental area) with permanent structures and screen from view: build dorm and single family housing

 Concession housi

removed and resthousing in the joiarea would rema

NPS Maintenance Area

 Maintain existing NPS maintenance area, 

which is screened from public view by a natural topographic feature

 Relocate NPS maintenance area to a new area 

on a bluff northwest of the developed area; provide access via paved spur road

 Maintain existing 

Integrate with nelaw enforcementthis general locat

Concession Maintenance Area

 Existing concessioner maintenance area is 

located near the boat rental area

 Expand in existing concessioner maintenance 

area if necessary and feasible (not much room; most likely not feasible)

 Maintain existing 

area. Preserve the adjacent trailhead maintenance into concessioner hou
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

49 

Elements Considered but Dismissed 

During the alternatives development process, 

certain elements initially considered as part of the 

range of alternatives were dismissed from further 

consideration. The following list summarizes 

these elements for Katherine Landing and offers a 

brief summary of the rationale for dismissal. 

Marina Reconfigured and Boat Launch 

Relocated. Rationale for dismissing this element 

includes the following: 

 This idea was proposed to provide enough 

space to accommodate the boat launch and 

the outlet for the flood control channel for 

Katherine Wash. Initially it was unclear 

whether the proposed conceptual design for 

flood channel (HDR 2004b) would allow boat 

launch function to continue in this location. 

 This would require extensive facilities 

infrastructure development. Analysis 

indicates that the cost to construct the new 

boat launch and related facilities would be 

very high. 

 Relocating the boat launch is likely to result in 

adverse environmental impacts. 

 Further flood control design is necessary and 

pending; however, it is believed that a solution 

could be reached that would reduce the size 

of the outlet and allow the boat launch to 

remain. 

Expansion of Motel. Rationale for dismissing this 

element includes the following: 

 Financial analysis indicates that motel 

expansion would be financially infeasible. 

Motel occupancy rates are very low so 

expansion is not warranted. 

 National Park Service Management Policies 

state that concession facilities must be 

necessary and appropriate. One of the factors 

for determining whether a concession facility 

is necessary and appropriate is an analysis of 

whether a commercial operation can be 

provided outside park boundaries. Due to the 

significant presence of affordable lodging 

facilities located immediately outside the park 

in Bullhead City, Arizona and Laughlin, 

Nevada, within easy driving distance of 

Katherine Landing, overnight 

accommodations are no longer necessary and 

appropriate at Katherine Landing. 

 Expansion was proposed by the general 

management plan. Because this specific 

proposal was not feasible, it was adjusted in 

the corresponding alternative (alternative 2). 

Reuse Motel Structures for NPS Administration.

Rationale for dismissing this element includes the 

following: 

 This element does not appear to be a good 

location for this type of facility. 

Administrative and support functions would 

require a substantial footprint. Public use 

occurs in the immediate surroundings. There 

is a conflict between these types of uses (for 

example, emergency access difficulties). 

KATHERINE LANDING VICINITY 

ALTERNATIVES (PRINCESS COVE, 

CABINSITE POINT, AND NORTH AND 

SOUTH ARIZONA TELEPHONE COVE) 

Narrative Description of Alternatives 

Overview of the Entire Range of Alternatives.

The planning team developed alternatives to test 

different options for visitor opportunities, access, 

and emergency services at Princess Cove, 

Cabinsite Point, and North and South Arizona 

Telephone Cove. Existing facilities were reviewed 

and the need for changes was assessed, with the 

goal of maintaining a variety of recreational 

settings across these four sites. 

The team also reviewed direction contained in the 

lake management plan. This plan had determined 

that recreational boating on the southern portion 

of Lake Mohave (i.e., from Princess Cove south) 

was at or exceeding capacity for safety and visitor 

enjoyment. It therefore directs park managers not

to implement measures that would cause 

recreational boating on this portion of the lake to 

rise — such as adding new parking areas or launch 

lanes. The plan even recommends exploring 

closing an existing launch at South Arizona 

Telephone Cove or Cabinsite Point. 

Alternative 1: No Action, Continue Current 

Management Trends. The no-action alternative 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

50 

reflects a continuation of current management. 

No changes to facilities are proposed. See figure 9 

at the end of the chapter for a map.

Alternative 2: Implement Previous Planning 

Proposals. Alternative 2 reflects past proposals 

from established plans. For instance, it proposes 

closing Cabinsite Point to launching, per the lake 

management plan, and exploring options for an 

entirely new access road to North and South 

Arizona Telephone Cove, as reflected in the 

general management plan. (It also presents some 

new ideas to allow park managers to test out a full 

range of options.) See figure 10 at the end of the 

chapter for a map. 

Alternative 3: Enhance Visitor Experience and 

Park Operations (Preferred Alternative).

Alternative 3 is consistent with established 

direction but proposes some new changes to 

enhance visitor experience and improve access 

and emergency services. For instance, it includes 

new picnic facilities at Cabinsite Point, a new 

helipad at Princess Cove, and reconfiguring the 

intersection of Cabinsite Point and Princess Cove 

roads. See figure 11 at the end of the chapter for a 

map. 

The Katherine Landing vicinity alternatives are 

compared in table 3. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Capital improvement costs were also a 

consideration in the selection of the preferred 

alternative. The following cost estimates were 

developed to inform decision making at the 

preferred alternative workshop. To the extent 

possible, the National Park Service and industry 

cost estimating guidelines were used to develop 

the figures, which describe anticipated costs in 

2010 dollars. 

The cost estimates integrate figures from the 

following three different sources: 

 NPS personnel developed costs for NPS 

visitor and support facilities — for example, 

orientation and interpretation facilities, dayuse areas, roads and parking, and NPS 

maintenance and housing areas. These costs 

were developed using the agency’s Current 

Replacement Value (CRV) calculator. 

 The National Park Service contracted the 

financial consulting firm Dornbusch 

Associates to analyze the financial viability of 

the draft alternatives for concessions 

operations. As part of this contract, 

Dornbusch prepared class C construction 

cost estimates for facilities that could 

potentially be funded by a concessioner. 

These include commercial visitor facilities 

(e.g., marinas, stores, motels, and other 

overnight accommodations) and support 

facilities (e.g., concessioner housing or 

maintenance areas). 

 Costs for flood control measures were derived 

from figures reported by HDR, Inc. in the 

structural flood mitigation reports prepared 

for the National Park Service in 2004. An 

inflation factor was applied to update these 

costs to 2010 dollars. These amounts were for 

a PMF event. When final design is completed, 

the cost will be for a 500-year structural 

protection. 

To develop the estimates, general assumptions 

were made regarding the extent of the work to be 

undertaken. The cost figures identified in this 

document enabled the planning team to compare 

the projected magnitude of costs across 

alternatives (see table 4). However, the estimates 

are at a class C (general and preliminary) level and 

therefore should not be used for budgetary 

purposes. These figures are not intended to 

replace more detailed consideration of design 

program and final construction estimates. 
TABLE 3. KATHERINE LANDING VICINITY ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Princess Cove

Access  Maintain paved access road  Same as no-action alternative  Retain paved acce

plus reconfigure iRoad to a “T” intPrincess Cove as t

Parking  Paved parking area (approximately 100 dps 

and 50 sps need to confirm) (lake management plan assumes 100 dps) 

 Informal gravel overflow lot (approximately 50 

dps) used during peak periods

 Retain paved parking area  Disallow use of overflow area to enforce 

capacity defined by the lake management plan (would likely require reservation system or increased law enforcement)

 Retain existing pa

unpaved overflow 

NOTE: In the event th

Katherine Lancontrol designand formalizinarea).

Boat Launch  Maintain existing concrete boat ramp (8-lane 

capacity)

 Same as no-action alternative  Same as no-actio

Picnic/Camping  Maintain existing picnic area (6 shelters, vault 

toilet, 6 sps) 

 Continue to allow backcountry camping 

nearby, off 4x4 road

 Maintain existing picnic facilities, same as noaction alternative  Disallow backcountry camping off nearby 4x4 

road

 Same as no-actio

picnic facilities

 Continue to allow 

nearby, off 4x4 roCove 

Emergency Services

 No facilities  Same as no-action alternative  Establish helipad 

Cabinsite Point

Access  Retain existing paved access road  Retain access road, same as no-action 

alternative|

 Retain access roa

alternative

Parking  Existing parking would remain informal and 

unpaved, occurring on a series of benches that terrace to lake, but separated from lakeshore

 Same as no-action alternative  Retain existing un

additional parking sites 

Boat Launch  Retain unimproved shallow launch, which 

works well for low level of use

 Close site to launching  Do not permit motorized boats to beach 

 Same as no-actio

unimproved shall

No Boat Areas  Very small designated no-boat area just north 

of launch zone

 Enlarge no-boat area to include popular 

SCUBA destination 

 Retain small no-b

alternative

Picnic  Continue to manage as backcountry site with 

no formal picnic areas (users picnic informally; erect own shade shelters)

 Same as no-action alternative  Develop designat

picnic tables and shelters; do not pprovide appropriatoilet)
TABLE 3. KATHERINE LANDING VICINITY ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED) 

52 

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Camping  No camping in area  Same as no-action alternative  Backcountry cam

some former cab

North and South Arizona Telephone Cove

Access  Access roads to both sites are graded, 

unpaved and located in washes

 North Arizona Telephone Cove – If feasible, 

construct new paved access road on higher ground between North and South Arizona Telephone Coves 

 South Arizona Telephone Cove – If feasible, 

construct new paved access road on high ground south of wash 

NOTE: New access road proposed by the general 

management plan may not be feasible, given that access roads have been constructed in the wash.

 Both North and S

Coves – Design agreatly reduce ex

Parking  North Arizona Telephone Cove – Maintain 

existing unpaved parking area and earthen berms to separate parking from beach and delineate launch access (approximately 230250 dps) 

 South Arizona Telephone Cove – Retain paved 

parking area (approximately 27 dps, 8 sps)

 North Arizona Telephone Cove – Same as noaction alternative  South Arizona Telephone Cove – Retain paved 

parking area, same as no-action alternative, plus expand to south of cove, if needed (probably southeast of existing parking, based on site constraints)

 North Arizona Te

unpaved parking alternative 

 South Arizona Te

parking area, sam

Boat Launch  North Arizona Telephone Cove – Continue to 

allow boat launching under “backcountry lake access site” conditions; launch is informal, gravel, shallow, two-lane capacity

 North Arizona Telephone Cove – Establish 

concrete two-lane launch ramp to improve ease of launch 

NOTE: This would differ from the general 

management plan but the overall approach to satellite areas is consistent with the lake management plan, and the team used the alternatives to try out a range of options for each site.

 North Arizona Te

action alternative 

NOTE: If launch capa

reduced due tnew/improved southernmost consider improArizona TelepPoint, to align levels set by thexample, paveincrease numb

No-boat Areas  South Arizona Telephone Cove – Retain as 

designated no-boat area, providing safe and comfortable setting for swimming and other non-motorized activities 

 North Arizona Telephone Cove – No 

designated no-boat area

 South Arizona Telephone Cove – Same as noaction alternative  North Arizona Telephone Cove – Same as noaction alternative

 South Arizona Te

action alternative 

 North Arizona Te

action alternative
TABLE 3. KATHERINE LANDING VICINITY ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Title

Alternative 1: No Action 

Continue Current Management Trends

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous Planning Proposals

Alternat

Enhance V

and Pa

Picnic  South Arizona Telephone Cove – Maintain 

designated picnic facilities (two vault toilets, six single site shelters) 

 North Arizona Telephone Cove – No formal 

picnic facilities

 South Arizona Telephone Cove – Same as noaction alternative  North Arizona Telephone Cove – Same as noaction alternative

 South Arizona Te

action alternative 

 North Arizona Te

developed picnic shelters, provide (vault toilet)

Camping  Continue to prohibit camping  Same as no-action alternative  Same as no-actio
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

54 

TABLE 4. COST ESTIMATES 

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous 

Planning Proposals

Alternative 3: Preferred 

Enhance Visitor Experience 

and Park Operations 

Cottonwood Cove

Flash Flood Control $12,768,000 $12,768,000 

Orientation and Visitor Contact Facilities $310,519 $0a

Commercial Services Facilities $822,854 $1,807,837 

Marina Expansion $3,026,513 $3,026,513 

Administration and Support Facilities (National Park Service 

and concessioner)

$6,980,813 $3,210,603 

Day-use Areas (Cottonwood Cove, Ski Cove, and/or 

Cottontail Cove)

$1,289,268 $1,777,299 

Overnight Accommodations (motels, RV park, camping, 

etc.)

$9,254,723 $9,254,723 

Long-term Trailer Village (demolition) $960,000 $960,000 

Road Construction $2,833,150 $2,305,118 

Parking $4,088,055 $4,088,055 

TOTAL – Cottonwood Cove $42,333,895 $39,198,148 

Katherine Landing

Flash Flood Control $9,419,035 $9,419,035

Visitor Orientation and Interpretation Facilities $1,125,000 $337,774b

Commercial Services Facilities $1,299,382 $926,199

Picnic Areas, Fishing Piers, Gathering Areas, Pedestrian 

Plazas

$8,837 $792,643

Trails $0 $82,523

Launch Ramp, etc. $1,640,595 $0

Marina $0c $0d

Motel (renovation, demolition, etc.) $2,500,000 $350,753

Other Overnight Accommodations (campgrounds, RV 

park)

$2,078,608 $3,154,180

Long-term Trailer Village (demolition) $520,000 $520,000

Boat Wash Station $0 $5,000

Road Construction $875,167 $1,051,651

Parking $3,820,938 $3,820,938

NPS Administration Facilities (including Law Enforcement / 

Emergency Services)

$0e $2,105,031

National Park Service and Concessioner Housing $1,212,953 $1,713,465

National Park Service and Concessioner Maintenance 

Areas

$1,721,099 $469,421

TOTAL – Katherine Landing $26,221,614 $24,748,613

Katherine Landing Vicinity (Princess Cove, Cabinsite Point, North and South Arizona Telephone Cove)

Princess Cove

Access 0 $339,935 

Emergency Services Facilities (i.e., helipad) 0 146,194

Subtotal – Princess Cove $0 $486,129 
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

TABLE 4. COST ESTIMATES (CONTINUED)

55 

Alternative 2 

Implement Previous 

Planning Proposals

Alternative 3: Preferred 

Enhance Visitor Experience 

and Park Operations 

Cabinsite Point

Access $0 $0

Boat Launch (changes) $10,000 $0

No-boat Area (changes) $10,000 $0

Picnic Facilities $0 $387,000

Subtotal – Cabinsite Point $20,000 $387,000

North and South Arizona Telephone Cove 

Access – North $1,333,080 $533,232

Access – South $2,110,710 $710,976

Parking – North $0 $0

Parking – South $473,842 $0

Boat Launch – North $282,968 $0

Picnic Facilities – North $0 $298,550

Subtotal – North and South Arizona Telephone Cove $4,200,600 $1,542,758

SUBTOTAL – Princess Cove, Cabinsite Point, North and 

South Arizona Telephone Cove

$4,220,600 $2,415,887 

Notes: 

a. The Visitor Contact Facility costs (i.e., commercial/visitor services facility) are included under Commercial Services Facilities. 

b. The Visitor Contact Facility costs (i.e., rehabilitated store and restaurant) are included under Commercial Services Facilities. 

c. Estimate does not include $7.6 million in deferred maintenance. 

d. Estimate does not include $7.6 million in deferred maintenance. 

e. The New Ranger Station costs are included under Visitor Orientation and Interpretation Facilities.

ENVIRONMENTALLY 

PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The NPS is required to identify the 

environmentally preferable alternative in its 

NEPA documents for public review and 

comment. Guidance from the CEQ states the 

environmentally preferable alternative is “the 

alternative that causes the least damage to the 

biological and physical environment; it also means 

the alternative which best protects, preserves, and 

enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources” 

(CEQ 1981). 

The NPS has identified alternative 1, the noaction alternative, as the environmentally 

preferable alternative. Although the other 

alternatives would greatly improve visitor 

experience and safety, overall, alternative 1 would 

result in the least damage to the biological and 

physical environment and best protect and 

preserve cultural resources among the 

alternatives. Alternative 1 would leave the existing 

facilities in place, essentially maintaining 

conditions at status quo, resulting in minor 

additional impacts from facility maintenance and 

visitor use. There would be no new impacts to 

cultural resources and they would continue to be 

managed similar to existing practices. As a result, 

after completing the environmental analysis, the 

NPS identified the no-action alternative as the 

environmentally preferable alternative and the 

alternative that best meets the definition 

established by the CEQ. 

CONSISTENCY OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requires an analysis of how each alternative meets 

or achieves the purposes of the act, as stated in 

section 101(b). Each alternative analyzed in a 

NEPA document must be assessed as to how it 

meets the followings purposes: 

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation 

as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

56 

2. Ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings. 

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of 

the environment without degradation, risk of 

health or safety, or other undesirable and 

unintended consequences. 

4. Preserve important historic, cultural and 

natural aspects of our national heritage, and, 

wherever possible, maintain an environment 

that supports diversity and variety of 

individual choice. 

5. Achieve a balance between population and 

resource use that would permit high standards 

of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. 

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources 

and approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources. 

Taken as a whole, alternative 3 would best satisfy 

the above goals. Goals 2, 3, and 4 are most 

pertinent to this analysis. 

Goal 2. Alternative 3 best “assures for all 

Americans safe, healthful, productive, and 

aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings.” During the evaluation of the draft 

alternatives, alternative 3 consistently rated 

highest under the “visitor and staff safety” factor. 

This alternative would provide an added measure 

of protection from flash floods for residents (e.g., 

National Park Service and concessioner staff) and 

visitors staying overnight. 

Improvements to circulation would also yield 

benefits to safety. These improvements include 

the following: the new loop road at Cottonwood 

Cove, the extended right-turn lane for the 

Cabinsite Road at Katherine Landing, the 

reconfigured intersection of Cabinsite and 

Princess Cove roads, new administrative roads at 

Katherine Landing, and increased and better 

organized parking convenient to the water. These 

improvements should reduce accidents, improve 

emergency access, and alleviate visitor frustration 

with long launch lanes and wait times. Currently, 

this frustration leads to conflicts between visitors 

— occasionally even to physical fights. The 

improved NPS visitor contact near the lakeshore 

should prove beneficial to visitor safety. While 

some new areas would be developed, overall the 

aesthetic qualities of the environment would be 

enhanced. New facilities would be designed to 

coordinate with each other and harmonize with 

the surrounding lands through appropriate use of 

siting, materials, and other design elements. In 

time, existing temporary (i.e., “butler-style”) 

buildings would be phased out in favor of 

permanent structures. For example, at 

Cottonwood Cove new structures could feature 

stylistic elements that respond to the architectural 

features of the existing motel. The new combined 

commercial / visitor services facility could be sited 

to physically align with the motel. Redesign 

should promote a more unified aesthetic 

environment at the waterfront. Removing 

overhead wires and burying utilities would also be 

an aesthetic enhancement. 

Goal 3. Alternative 3 best achieves goal 3 because 

it represents the widest range of beneficial uses. 

Alternative 3 preserves the same general uses that 

are present today (e.g., camping, 

lodging/overnight accommodations, day use, 

interpretation) but it adds new visitor 

opportunities that are more responsive to 

contemporary visitor preferences. For example, in 

alternative 3, the concessioner would provide a 

greater number and quality of RV sites, with 

bigger, accessible spaces, pull-through parking, 

and other modern features. At Katherine Landing, 

the motel — that does not perform well — would 

be replaced by these and other forms of 

accommodations, such as cabins or “park 

models.” 

Goal 4. Resource condition was one of the factors 

on which the alternatives were evaluated at the 

preferred alternatives workshop. This factor is 

associated with goal 4 since it addresses the 

impacts of proposals on both natural and cultural 

resources. The no-action alternative generally 

performed best under this category because no 

previously undeveloped sites would be developed, 

thus limiting damage to natural resources (e.g., 

habitats, water quality) and cultural resources 

(including historic structures and cultural 

landscape features and patterns associated with 

Mission 66 design and construction). By contrast, 

alternatives 2 and 3 both propose changes that 

would result in some adverse impacts on natural 

and cultural resources. On the other hand, both 
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

57 

action alternatives also contain elements to 

mitigate these impacts — for instance, replacing 

exotic oleanders and palms that currently cause 

resource damage with native species that are 

compatible with the cultural landscape. 

Alternative 3 best promotes “diversity and variety 

of individual choice.” It greatly expands options 

for shoreline day use. For example, new picnic 

and no-boat areas in Ski and Cottontail Coves 

would offer another option for beach users — an 

alternative to Cottonwood Cove, which is 

comparatively congested. Alternative 3 provides 

an option for visitors to fish at a designated pier in 

Cottonwood Cove and also gives visitors new 

choices for overnight accommodations. 

Furthermore, new loop roads and other 

circulation improvements would provide visitors 

and staff greater choices for navigating through 

developed areas. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

Mitigation measures are specific actions designed 

to reduce, minimize, or eliminate impacts of 

alternatives and to protect Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area resources and visitors. 

Monitoring activities are actions to be 

implemented during or following project 

implementation to assess levels of impact. The 

following measures relate to construction 

activities and facility operation would be 

implemented under all applicable alternatives and 

are assumed in the analysis of effects for each 

alternative. 

Vegetation and Soils 

To minimize impacts on vegetation and soils and 

to prevent the introduction and minimize the 

spread of exotic vegetation and noxious weeds, 

the following mitigation measures would be 

incorporated into the action alternatives: 

 Topsoil would be collected and stockpiled 

from construction areas. Upon completion of 

construction, topsoil would be placed in 

disturbed areas to enhance the recovery of 

native vegetation and reduce erosion. 

 Construction equipment would be pressurewashed prior to entering the park to ensure it 

is free of foreign soils and plant material. 

 Vegetation salvage would occur within project 

boundaries as deemed appropriate by NPS 

resource managers. Salvaged plants would be 

stored at the park’s native plant nursery and 

used to revegetate the project site. 

 Disturbed areas would be monitored for two 

to three years following construction to 

identify exotic vegetation. Remedial or 

control of exotic vegetation would be 

completed in accordance with the recreation 

area’s exotic plant management plan. 

 Staging for a construction office, construction 

vehicles and equipment, and materials storage 

would be located in previously disturbed 

areas, outside of high visitor use areas, and 

would be clearly identified in advance. 

Special Status Species 

To minimize impacts on special status species, the 

following mitigation measures would be 

incorporated into the action alternatives: 

 Construction activities would comply with all 

applicable conservation measures and terms 

and conditions contained in the 2002 and 

2010 programmatic biological opinions 

(USFWS 2002a and 2010) for the federally 

listed Mohave desert tortoise and its critical 

habitat, the Southwestern willow flycatcher, 

the bonytail chub and its critical habitat, and 

the razorback sucker and its critical habitat, 

and the 2005 biological and conference 

opinion for the Lower Colorado River MultiSpecies Conservation Program (see 

appendix B). A number of the mitigation 

measures identified for listed species, such as 

proper trash disposal, would also benefit 

wildlife and wildlife habitat in general. 

 Burrowing owl and banded Gila monster 

habitat is present in the area surrounding the 

developed areas. Project areas would be 

surveyed for burrowing owls prior to 

construction. Any identified burrows would 

be avoided until after the young fledged or 

collapsed while unoccupied. To minimize 

potential impacts on banded Gila monsters, 

any found within a construction area would 

be captured and relocated by a qualified 

biologist. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

58 

 Based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, land clearing or other surface 

disturbance would be conducted outside the 

avian breeding season or have a qualified 

biologist survey the area prior to clearing. If a 

migratory bird nest were found with nestlings 

present, impacts would be avoided until birds 

fledge. 

Water and Air Quality 

To minimize impacts on water and air quality, the 

following mitigation measures would be 

incorporated into the action alternatives: 

 A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit would be obtained 

and a stormwater pollution prevention plan 

prepared as required for specific projects. Any 

activities involving dredging or the placement 

of fill material in waters of the United States 

would comply with requirements of section 

404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and with 

other applicable state permit programs. 

 Best management practices (earthen berms, 

silt fences, etc.) would be implemented to 

keep stormwater runoff sediments from 

entering Lake Mohave from construction 

areas. All erosion control materials such as 

straw bales must be certified as weed free. 

 Best management practices would be in place 

during refueling and other activities that may 

release hazardous materials into the 

environment. A hazardous spill plan would be 

developed prior to construction projects. 

 Marina operators would be required to follow 

the Best Management Practices, Watercraft 

and Marina Operations, Dry Boat Storage, 

and Boat Repair Services for the Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area. 

 Dust abatement measures would be 

developed to minimize impacts on air quality 

during construction activities. 

Visitor Experience and Safety 

To minimize impacts on visitor experience and 

safety, the following mitigation measures would 

be incorporated into the action alternatives: 

 Barricades, construction fencing, signs, or 

other measures as appropriate would be used 

around construction areas to discourage 

visitors from entering construction areas. 

 Construction work will be conducted to avoid 

peak visitor use times (i.e., weekends, 

holidays) to the extent practical to minimize 

inconveniences to park visitors. 

 Public information regarding implementation 

of projects located in public areas would be 

made available. 

 An informational brochure or flyer about the 

projects could be produced and distributed at 

the entrance station or other on site facilities 

and sent to those with reservations at park 

facilities, postings on the area’s website, press 

releases, and/or other methods. 

 Facilities would be accessible to visitors, 

including those with disabilities, in 

compliance with federal standards. 

Visual Quality 

To minimize impacts on visual quality, the 

following mitigation measures would be 

incorporated into the action alternatives: 

 The design of the buildings and other 

structures shall, to the extent possible, use 

materials, colors, textures, screening, 

landscaping, and native vegetation in order to 

blend into the natural setting and harmonize 

with surrounding buildings. 

 Structures would be sited and sized so that 

they do not compete with views and vistas and 

are incorporated into the surrounding 

landscape. 

 In order to blend into the surrounding 

landscape, cut and fill slopes would be 

rounded and topsoil would be salvaged and 

placed on the roughened and contoured 

slopes. 

Cultural Resources 

The National Park Service would preserve and 

protect, to the greatest extent possible, resources 

that provide evidence of the human occupation of 
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

59 

project areas. Mitigative measures intended to 

reduce or eliminate adverse effects to cultural 

resources could include the following: 

 Continue to develop inventories for and 

oversee research about archeological, 

historical, and ethnographic resources to 

better understand and manage the resources. 

Continue to manage cultural resources and 

collections following federal regulations and 

NPS guidelines. 

 Subject projects to site-specific planning and 

compliance. Make efforts to avoid adverse 

impacts through adherence to the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation, Guidelines for 

Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and 

Reconstructing Historic Buildings, and 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes. 

 Make use of screening and/or sensitive design 

that would be compatible with historic 

resources. Consult with the Arizona and 

Nevada State Historic Preservation Offices as 

needed. If adverse impacts could not be 

avoided, mitigate these impacts through a 

consultation process with all interested 

parties. 

 Inventory all unsurveyed areas in the 

recreation area for archeological, historical, 

and ethnographic resources as well as cultural 

and ethnographic landscapes. 

 Document cultural and ethnographic 

landscapes in the recreation area and identify 

treatments. 

 Conduct archeological site monitoring and 

routine protection. Conduct data recovery 

excavations at archeological sites threatened 

with destruction, where protection or site 

avoidance during design and construction is 

infeasible. 

 Avoid or mitigate impacts to ethnographic 

resources. Mitigation would include 

continuing to provide access to traditional use 

and spiritual areas and screening new 

development from traditional use areas. 

 Continue ongoing consultations with 

culturally associated American Indian people. 

Protect sensitive traditional use areas to the 

extent feasible. 

 Wherever possible, locate projects and 

facilities in previously disturbed or existing 

developed areas. 

 Design facilities to avoid known or suspected 

archeological resources. 

 If previously unknown cultural resources are 

discovered during project work, cease all 

work in the area until the site can be evaluated 

by a qualified person and appropriate 

treatment can be implemented. 

 Encourage visitors through the park’s 

interpretive programs to respect and leave 

undisturbed any inadvertently encountered 

archeological resources and to respect and 

leave undisturbed any offerings placed by 

American Indians. 

 Strictly adhere to NPS standards and 

guidelines on the display and care of artifacts, 

including the U.S. Department of the 

Interior’s Museum Management Handbook. 

This would include artifacts used in exhibits 

in the visitor center. 

In addition, for structures and landscapes, 

mitigative measures include documentation 

according to standards of the Historic American 

Buildings Survey, Historic American Engineering 

Record, and Historic American Landscape Survey. 

The level of this documentation, which includes 

photography, archeological data recovery, and/or 

a narrative history, would depend on significance 

(national, state, or local) and individual attributes 

(an individually significant structure, individual 

elements of a cultural landscape, etc.) and be 

determined in consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer and tribal historic 

preservation office. 

SUMMARY OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The National Park Service analyzed the 

environmental impacts of implementing the three 

alternatives on natural resources, cultural 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

60 

resources, visitor use and experience, park 

operations, and socioeconomics. Table 5 

summarizes the key differences in impacts across 

the alternatives. “Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences” describes the analysis process and 

findings in greater depth. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

61 

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3: Preferred 

Natural Resources 

Native Plant 

Communities 

and Soils 

There would be additional minor, 

long-term, adverse impacts to soils 

and vegetation from facility 

maintenance and visitor use that 

disturb soils and vegetation and 

potentially contribute to the 

introduction and spread of 

nonnative and invasive plant 

species. 

There would primarily be longterm, minor, adverse impacts to 

native plant communities and soils 

from facility construction and 

associated visitor use in previously 

disturbed areas. Approximately 

44 acres of local, long-term minor 

to moderate adverse impacts would 

result from development of 

additional lands and construction of 

flood control structures. Local 

beneficial effects would also result 

from the selective removal of 

existing nonnative invasive species 

and restoration of some currently 

developed sites. 

The impacts would be similar to 

alternative 2, but would affect 

approximately 37 acres. 

Wildlife There would be additional minor, 

long-term, adverse impacts to 

terrestrial and aquatic species 

from facility maintenance and 

increased visitor use. 

The adverse impacts to terrestrial 

wildlife would be long-term and 

minor, affecting individuals from 

wildlife populations in local areas, 

but not resulting in loss of 

population viability for these 

species. Impacts from in-water 

work and from construction in or 

near the lakeshore would be short 

term and minor and would not 

adversely affect fish populations. 

The impacts would be similar to 

alternative 2. 

Threatened, 

Endangered, 

and Special 

Status Species 

Continued maintenance activities 

and visitor use in the developed 

areas may affect, but would not 

be likely to adversely affect the 

razorback sucker, bonytail chub, 

Southwestern willow flycatcher, 

desert tortoise, Western 

burrowing owl, and banded Gila 

monster populations or 

designated critical habitat. 

The alternative may affect, but 

would not be likely adversely affect 

the Southwestern willow flycatcher, 

razorback sucker, bonytail chub, or 

their critical habitat. Alternative 2 

would be likely to adversely affect 

the desert tortoise, banded Gila 

monster, and Western burrowing 

owls although impacts would be 

local. Potential impacts on the 

desert tortoise and banded Gila 

monster include temporary or 

permanent loss of suitable habitat 

from new development and 

incidental harassment and possibly 

loss of individuals from construction 

activities. There would be no 

disturbance to designated critical 

habitat for the desert tortoise. 

Potential impacts to Western 

burrowing owls would include 

short-term disturbance from 

construction activities and longterm local loss of habitat from new 

development. 

The impacts would be similar to 

alternative 2. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (CONTINUED) 

62 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3: Preferred 

Natural Resources (continued) 

Floodplains There would continue to be a 

potential long-term moderate to 

major adverse impact on human 

life and property in the floodplain 

and a long-term moderate adverse 

impact on floodplain values 

because of the presence of 

facilities in the floodplain. 

The flood hazard would be greatly 

reduced at both developed areas 

through the use of structural and 

nonstructural protection, resulting 

in a long-term substantial benefit to 

safety for people and property in 

the floodplains. There would be a 

long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on floodplain values 

because of construction of 

additional flood control structures 

that divert and channel flood flows. 

The impacts would be similar to 

alternative 2. 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological 

Resources 

There would be no new impacts 

on archeological resources. There 

would be no cumulative impacts 

on archeological resources under 

the no-action alternative. 

Ground-disturbing activities would 

be sited away from known National 

Register eligible archeological 

resources and would be avoided to 

the greatest extent possible 

resulting in no to negligible, local 

adverse impacts. Cumulative 

impacts would be indirect and 

direct, long-term/permanent, minor 

to major, and adverse; NPS 

contributions would be potentially 

extremely small. 

The impacts would be the same as 

alternative 2. 

Historic 

Structures 

There would be no new impacts 

on historic structures. There would 

be no cumulative impacts on 

historic structures under the noaction alternative. 

Structures contributing to the 

historic district (Cottonwood Cove) 

and structures potentially eligible 

for listing in the National Register 

(Katherine Landing) would be 

removed or altered/remodeled; 

resulting in permanent, direct, 

local, major adverse impacts on 

significant and potentially 

significant historic structures. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

direct, regional, long 

term/permanent, moderate to 

major, and adverse; NPS 

contributions would be substantial. 

The impacts would be the same as 

alternative 2. 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

There would be no new impacts 

on cultural landscapes. There 

would be no cumulative impacts 

on cultural landscapes under the 

no-action alternative. 

Landscape components 

contributing to a determined 

eligible cultural landscape 

(Cottonwood Cove) and 

components potentially National 

Register eligible (Katherine Landing) 

would be removed, altered or 

remodeled, and/or visually 

impacted, resulting in in 

permanent, long-term, local, direct, 

moderate to major adverse impacts. 

There would be no cumulative 

effect. 

The impacts would be the same as 

alternative 2. 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

There would be no new impacts 

on ethnographic resources. There 

would be no cumulative impacts 

on ethnographic resources under 

the no-action alternative. 

Ground-disturbing activities would 

be sited away from National 

Register eligible ethnographic 

resources resulting in no or 

negligible, local, adverse impacts. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

regional, permanent, direct, minor 

to major, and adverse; NPS 

contributions would be minimal. 

The impacts would be the same as 

alternative 2. 
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative 

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (CONTINUED)

63 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3: Preferred 

Cultural Resources (continued) 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

There would be no new impacts 

on cultural landscapes. There 

would be no cumulative impacts 

on cultural landscapes under the 

no-action alternative. 

Landscape components 

contributing to a determined 

eligible cultural landscape 

(Cottonwood Cove) and 

components potentially National 

Register eligible (Katherine Landing) 

would be removed, altered or 

remodeled, and/or visually 

impacted, resulting in in 

permanent, long-term, local, direct, 

moderate to major adverse impacts. 

There would be no cumulative 

effect. 

The impacts would be the same as 

alternative 2. 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

There would be no new impacts 

on ethnographic resources. There 

would be no cumulative impacts 

on ethnographic resources under 

the no-action alternative. 

Ground-disturbing activities would 

be sited away from National 

Register eligible ethnographic 

resources resulting in no or 

negligible, local, adverse impacts. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

regional, permanent, direct, minor 

to major, and adverse; NPS 

contributions would be minimal. 

The impacts would be the same as 

alternative 2. 

Visitor Use Experience and Safety 

The no-action alternative would 

have moderate to major adverse 

long-term effects on the visitor 

experience to Lake Mohave. 

Significant issues (such as visitor 

conflicts and inadequate overnight 

accommodations) that affect the 

experience of a significant 

percentage of visitors that would 

continue not to be fully addressed. 

This alternative would result in 

minor to moderate, long-term, and 

beneficial impacts on visitor 

experience. Some additional minor 

to moderate, short-term, and 

adverse impacts on visitor 

experience would be caused by 

construction activities associated 

with this alternative. 

This alternative would result in 

moderate to major, long-term, and 

beneficial impacts to visitor 

experience and safety. The main 

issues affecting visitor use, 

experience, and safety — 

congestion, circulation, access, 

parking, and overnight 

accommodations — would be all 

addressed in this alternative in 

reasonable and effective ways that 

would significantly improve current 

conditions. By resolving the causes 

of visitor conflict and by meeting 

the needs of overnight visitors, the 

changes would be readily apparent 

to all visitors and the effects would 

be felt in a positive manner. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

Besides the ongoing direct and 

indirect economic impacts of 

visitor spending at both locations, 

there would be no additional 

impacts on socioeconomic 

resources from the no-action 

alternative. 

Construction and increased visitor 

spending would result in minor, 

short- and long-term, beneficial 

impacts for concession-operated 

facilities. Effects on local 

communities and the region would 

be beneficial, but negligible to 

minor because the park is a small 

part of the overall regional 

economy. 

Impacts associated with spending 

and employment shifts would be 

expected to occur over the duration 

of concession contracts, the length 

of which would be 10 years with 

the potential for contract 

extensions or renewals. Short-term 

impacts would include construction 

spending, which would occur over 

an estimated 2 to 3 years. See table 

16 for a summary of socioeconomic 

impacts of alternative 2. 

Construction and increased visitor 

spending would result in minor, 

short- and long-term, beneficial 

impacts for concession-operated 

facilities. Effects on local 

communities and the region would 

be beneficial, but negligible to 

minor because the recreation area 

is a small part of the overall 

regional economy. 

Impacts associated with spending 

and employment shifts would be 

expected to occur over the duration 

of concession contracts, the length 

of which would be 10 years with 

the potential for contract 

extensions or renewals. Short-term 

impacts would include construction 

spending, which would occur over 

an estimated 2 to 3 years. See table 

19 for a summary of socioeconomic 

impacts of alternative 3. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (CONTINUED) 

64 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3: Preferred 

Park Operations 

The impacts of insufficient 

recreation area staffing (at current 

levels) on operational needs would 

be adverse and long term. 

However, the no-action alternative 

would not impact park operations. 

Alternative 2 would increase 

demands on NPS staff at both 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing. 

Alternative 3 would increase 

demands on NPS staff at both 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing, although certain NPS 

responsibilities will be shifted to the 

concessioner. 
N

COTTONWOOD COVE

SKI COVE

Upper Campground 

• 100 Sites

Short-term RV Park

Concessioner Housing

Long-Term Trailer Village

• 233 Sites

Boat Wash

Concessioner Maintenance 

And housing

Dry Boat Storage

Wayside/Fish cleaning station

Overflow

Amphitheater

Lower

Campground

Courtesy Dock

Launch Ramp (15 Lane)

Fuel/rental dock 

Restaurant

Marina 

Non Boating area

Store

Concessioner support facilities

Motel

• 25 Units

COTTONTAIL COVE

Day Use area (non boating/picnic)

Fuel Pump

Helipad

NPS Housing

NPS Maintenance Area

Ranger Station

NPS Administration

Alternative 1: 

No-Action Alternative

Cottonwood Cove

Lake Mead N ationa l Rec r eation Ar e a

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC • Feb 13

Figure 3

Commercial Services

Short-term

Long-Term (Trailer Village)

NPS Support Facilities

Visitor Contact Facilities

Day Use

Road

Flood Control Dike

Parking

Legend

Engineered Flood Channel

Hiking Trail

Probable Maximum Flood
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

66 

This page intentionally blank 
N

Upper Campground (Existing)

• Rehabilitate Restrooms

Campground Office

• Adaptive Use of Existing Ranger Station

New Entrance to Trailer Village

• Remove Other Entrances

Short-term RV Park (existing)

Long-Term Trailer Village (existing)

• Retain or Convert to Short-Term Sites Over Time

Boat Wash Station

Restoration area

Concessioner Maintenance

• Expand Existing

NPS Maintenance Area

• Relocated

Relocate Access Road 

• Moved to Accommodate Proposed 

Concrete Flood Channel

Dry Boat Storage (existing) 

• Increase Capacity

Fuel pumps (Relocated)

Earthen

• Extend Existing

Fish cleaning station

Amphitheater

Lower Campground

(Existing)

• Rehabilitate Restrooms

Picnic Area (Relocated)

• Group & Individual Sites

No-Boating Area/Beach

 (Relocated)

Courtesy Dock (existing)

Launch Ramp (Existing)

Fuel/rental dock 

Restaurant (Existing)

Visitor Contact/Ranger Station

Store (Existing)

Motel

• Add Second Story

New Paved

Access Road

COTTONTAIL COVE

NPS Housing (Relocate)

• Single-Family/Dorms Concessioner House (Relocated)

• Orient Units to View

Alternative 2: 

Implement previous 

planning proposals

Cottonwood Cove

Lake Mead N ationa l Rec r eation Ar e a

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC • Feb 13

Figure 4

Marina 

• Expand to 484 Slips

COTTONWOOD COVE

SKI COVE

Commercial Services

Short-term

Long-Term (Trailer Village)

NPS Support Facilities

Visitor Contact Facilities

Day Use

Road

Flood Control Dike

Parking

Legend

Engineered Flood Channel

Hiking Trail

Probable Maximum Flood
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

68 

This page intentionally blank 
N

RV/Cabin/Tent Campground

• Short-Term Premier Accommodations

• Regrade Site for Terrace Views to Lake

• Opportunity to Shade with Photovoltaic Panels

RV/Cabin/Tent Campground

• All Campgrounds Operated By 

Concessioner

NPS Volunteer use

Concessioner Housing

Ranger Station (Protection)

New Launch ready lane

• Campground Junction to Launch Ramp

• Widen Shoulder

Loop Road

• Designed for Improved 

Circulation and Access

Combined concessioner services

and visitor contact center

Boat Wash Station

Helipad

Concessioner Maintenance

• Expand Existing

NPS Housing

• Expand Existing Area

• Renovate/Replace Existing 

Structures as Needed

NPS Maintenance Area

• Expand Existing Area

Relocate Access Road 

• Moved to Accommodate 

Proposed Concrete 

Flood Channel 

Day Use area (non boating/picnic)

• Enhance Existing Picnic Area

• New Shelters and Tables for Group and Individual Use

Alternating Day Use 

Area/Campground

• Summer Picnic Area

• Winter Campground

Day Use area (proposed)

• Includes Non-boat Areas and 

Picnic Grounds

Designated Trail to 

Cottonwood Cove

Courtesy Dock (Proposed)

Courtesy Dock

Fuel/rental dock 

• Number of Rentals to Change

Day Use area 

• Enhance Pedestrian Plaza

Marina 

• Expand to 484 Slips

Fuel Pump

Launch Ramp

Fishing pier (proposed)

Motel

• Option to Expand

COTTONWOOD COVE

SKI COVE

COTTONTAIL COVE

Commercial Services

Short-term

Long-Term (Trailer Village)

NPS Support Facilities

Visitor Contact Facilities

Day Use

Road

Flood Control Dike

Parking

Legend

Engineered Flood Channel

Hiking Trail

Probable Maximum Flood

Alternative 3: 

Enhance visitor experience & 

Park operations (preferred)

Cottonwood Cove

Lake Mead N ationa l Rec r eation Ar e a

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC • Feb 13

Figure 5

Dry Boat Storage
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

70 

This page intentionally blank 
N

Campgrounds

• Maintain Number of Sites; Increase 

Volunteer Sites

• Improve Pedestrian Connections 

to Access Road

Ranger Station

/Visitor Contact

Informal 

Staging Area

Pave access road

• 2 Lanes to Cabinsite Road

• 3 Lanes from Cabinsite Road to 

Launch

Long-term Trailer

Village

Amphitheater

Picnic Area

Short Term RV Park

Accessible Fishing Pier

Boat Rental

Marina

Entrance Station

Convenience 

Store & 

Restaurant

Concessioner Housing

Concessioner

Maintenance

Boat Wash Station

NPS Booking Station & 

Government Dock

Information Station

Courtesy Dock (92’)

Launch Ramp (8-Lane)

Wayside(S)

Motel

NPS/Concessioner Housing 

Firehouse

NPS Maintenance

Fisherman’s Trail

Alternative 1: 

No-action alternative

Katherine Landing

Lake Mead N ationa l Rec r eation Ar e a

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC • Feb 13

Figure 6

Commercial Services

Short-term

Long-Term (Trailer Village)

NPS Support Facilities

Visitor Contact Facilities

Day Use

Road

Flood Control Dike

Parking

Legend

Engineered Flood Channel

Hiking Trail

Probable Maximum Flood

Lakeview Trail
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

72 

This page intentionally blank 
N

Alternative 2: 

Implement previous 

planning proposals

Katherine Landing

Lake Mead N ationa l Rec r eation Ar e a

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC • Feb 13

Figure 7

Rehabilitate Campground

• Increase Volunteer Sites

• Accommodate ADA Accessibility

Waysides

Improve Access

• 2 Lanes from Entrance Station to 

Cabinsite Road

• Widen Existing Access Road to 

Entrance Station

Sediment Basin

Long-Term Trailer Village 

• Retain or Convert to Short-term Sites Over Time

NPS Maintenance

(Relocated)

Short Term RV Park

(Expanded)

• Convert portion of Trailer Village 

Over Time

Accessible Fishing Pier

Boat Rental

Marina

Amphitheater (Relocated)

Entrance Station

Convenience 

Store & 

Restaurant

• Double Capacity

Concessioner Housing

• Replace Trailers with Permanent Housing

• Improve Appearance

Concessioner Maintenance

Boat Wash Station

Fisherman’s Trail

Government Dock

Courtesy Dock

• Extended to 120’

Wayside(s)

Rehabilitate motel 

and Concessioner Administration

• Option to Reuse for Another Function

NPS/Concessioner

Housing

Ranger Station/Visitor Center

Launch Ramp (8-Lane)

Commercial Services

Short-term

Long-Term (Trailer Village)

NPS Support Facilities

Visitor Contact Facilities

Day Use

Road

Flood Control Dike

Parking

Legend

Engineered Flood Channel

Hiking Trail

Probable Maximum Flood

Lakeview Trail
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

74 

This page intentionally blank 
N

Lakeview Trail

New Lakeshore

 Trail

RV/Cabin/Tent Campground

RV/Cabin/Tent Campground

Volunteer Court

Boat Wash Station

• Eliminate Parking

• Restore Area

Extended Turn Lane On 

Access Road

Sediment Basin

RV/Cabin/Tent Campground

RV/Cabin/Tent

Campground

Accessible Fishing Pier

WATER TREATMENT FACILITY

(EXISTING)

Accessible Fishing Pier

(Existing)

Boat Rental

Fisherman’s trail (existing)

Marina

(existing)

Maintain 3-lane 

Paved Access Road

Nps Ranger Station/ 

Campground Office

• Rehabilitate Existing

Amphitheater

(Relocated)

Improved Entrance Station

• Expanded Parking 

• Improved Circulation

• Added Employee Picnic Shelters

Day use 

picnic area 

Trailhead 

(relocated) 

Day use 

picnic area

Concessioner Maintenance (expanded)

Enhanced Trailhead

New Lakeshore Trail connection

Extended Government Dock

Launch Ramp (8-Lanes)

• Option to Expand Courtesy Dock

Helipad/Emergency Parking

Rehabilitate or Replace Existing 

store and restaurant

• Integrate Visitor Orientation/Exhibit Space

and Outdoor Gathering Areas

Expanding Parking

Firehouse (existing)

NPS/Concessioner

Housing

Consolidated NPS Administration

• Protection/Interpretation/Maintenance/ETC

NPS Administration loop road

Alternative 3: 

Enhance visitor experience & 

Park operations (preferred)

Katherine Landing

Lake Mead N ationa l Rec r eation Ar e a

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC • Feb 13

Figure 8

Commercial Services

Short-term

Long-Term (Trailer Village)

NPS Support Facilities

Visitor Contact Facilities

Day Use

Road

Flood Control Dike

Parking

Legend

Engineered Flood Channel

Hiking Trail

Probable Maximum Flood
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

76 

This page intentionally blank 
N

0 1/4 1/2

WAKELESS SPEED ZONE

1 MILE

163

68

ROADS

Maintain existing

paved access road

Backcountry camping

allowed along 4x4 road

Princess cove

• Maintain existing paved parking lot 

and unpaved overflow lot

• Maintain existing boat ramp (8-lanes)

• Maintain existing picnic areas

CabinsiTe point

• Maintain access road

• Maintain existing unpaved parking

• Maintain unimproved shallow boat launch

• Maintain small no-boating area

• No formal picnic areas and no camping

• Camping prohibited

North arizona telephone cove

• Maintain existing unpaved parking area and 

berms

• Maintain boat launch as backcountry lake

access

• No formal picnic areas

• Camping prohibited

Maintain existing unpaved 

access road(s)

south arizona telephone cove

• Maintain paved parking area 

• Maintain cove as designated 

no-boating area

• Maintain designated picnic facilities

• Camping prohibited

Katherine landing

Davis Dam

to bullhead city

to HWY 163

stonehouse road

nevada telephone cove

A

lternative 1:

No-actio

n alter

n

ative

Katherine 

Landing 

Vicinity

Lake Mead Natio

n

a l Rec

r eatio

n Ar e a

DSC • United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

Feb 13

Figure 9

Katherine landing ACCESS ROAD
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

78 

This page intentionally blank 
N

0 1/4 1/2

WAKELESS SPEED ZONE

1 MILE

163

68

ROADS

Retain in current condition

paved access road

Backcountry camping prohibited 

along 4x4 road

Princess cove

• Maintain existing paved parking lot 

and discontinue use of overflow lot

• Maintain existing boat ramp (8-lanes)

• Maintain existing picnic areas

CabinsiTe point

• Retain in current condition access road

• Maintain existing unpaved parking

• Close boat launch and enlarge noboating area for SCUBA destination

• No formal picnic areas 

• Camping prohibited

North arizona telephone cove

• Maintain existing unpaved parking area 

and berms

• Construct 2-lane concrete launch ramp

• No formal picnic facilities

• Camping prohibited

Redesign access road to

minimize flood risk

south arizona telephone cove

• Maintain paved parking area and expand 

to south if needed

• Maintain cove as designated no-boating 

area

• Maintain designated picnic facilities

• Camping prohibited

Katherine landing

Davis Dam

to bullhead city

stonehouse road

to HWY 163

nevada telephone cove

Katherine landing ACCESS ROAD

A

lternative 2:

Impleme

nt previous 

planning proposalsKatherine 

Landing 

Vicinity

Lake Mead Natio

n

a l Rec

r eatio

n Ar e a

DSC • United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

Feb 13

Figure 10
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

80 

This page intentionally blank 
N

0 1/4 1/2

WAKELESS SPEED ZONE

1 MILE

163

68

ROADS

Altern

ative 3:

Enhanc

e visitor

exp

eri

enc

e & 

Park operations (pr

e

f

err

e

d)

K

atherine

L

anding

Vicinity

L a k e M e a d N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e aUnited States Department of the Interior / 

National Park Service

DSC • Feb 13 Figure 11

Backcountry camping

allowed along 4x4 road

Princess cove

• Maintain existing paved parking lot 

and unpaved overflow lot

• Maintain existing boat ramp (8-lanes)

• Maintain existing picnic areas

• Establish helipad

CabinsiTe point

• Retain in current condition

• Maintain existing parking and allow for 

additional lot on former cabin sites

• Maintain unimproved shallow boat 

launch

• Maintain small no-boating area

• Develop picnic facilities

• Back country camping allowed at 

former cabin sites

Reconfigure to “T” 

intersection

North arizona telephone cove

• Retain gravel parking area

• Maintain boat launch as backcountry lake

access

• Establish developed picnic area

• Camping prohibited

Redesign access road to

minimize flood risk

south arizona telephone cove

• Maintain paved parking area 

• Maintain cove as designated noboating area

• Maintain designated picnic facilities

• Camping prohibited

Katherine landing

Davis Dam

to bullhead city

to HWY 163

stonehouse road

nevada telephone cove

Katherine landing ACCESS ROAD

Retain in current condition

paved access road
82
A f f e c t e d

E n v i r o n m e n t
84 

BACK OF DIVIDER 
85 

CHAPTER 3: 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the natural and cultural 

resources; visitor use, experience, and safety; 

socioeconomic environment; and park operations 

in the vicinity of Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing areas that might be affected either 

directly or indirectly by implementing any of the 

alternatives. The impact topics presented in this 

chapter correspond to those topics contained in 

“Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences.” 

Complete and detailed descriptions of the 

environment and existing use at Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area are located in the Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area Lake Management 

Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(LMP)(NPS 2002), Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area Resource Management Plan (NPS 

1999), and the Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area General Management Plan (NPS 1986). 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Native Plant Communities and Soils 

The majority of Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area is characterized by generally north-south 

trending mountain ranges separated by broad, 

shallow valleys. The mountains are dissected by 

deep ravines that open into broad alluvial fans. 

Commonly, adjoining fans coalesce and form a 

continuous alluvial apron, known as a bajada, 

along the base of the mountains. These slopes 

extend down to the lakeshore. The topography of 

the developed areas and surrounding lands 

consist mainly of uplands interspersed with large 

washes, typical of many areas in the recreation 

area. A caliche capstone covers the sides of some 

washes and helps stabilize the soil and create 

suitable conditions for burrowing animals such as 

the desert tortoise, burrowing owl, and Gila 

monster. 

Soils in the recreation area are generally shallow, 

friable, wind-deposited, or alluvial materials that 

are susceptible to wind and water erosion. The 

soils typically develop on gray alluvium and have 

high salt-alkali contents that often form caliche 

hardpans. The alluvial outwash areas contain red 

desert soils that are slightly leached and rich in 

lime and mineral plant nutrients. Rain events 

constantly change and reshape the washes, while 

turning upland soils into hard, compacted desert 

pavement, wherein the surface fines have been 

removed by wind and water and the rocks that 

remain armor the surface, preventing further 

erosion. The process usually takes a very long 

time, although periodic erosion events may 

remove large amounts of soil rapidly during severe 

rain and wind storms. 

Evaporation rates are much greater than 

precipitation and this creates extremely low soil 

moisture conditions throughout the year, which 

severely restricts plant growth. Soils generally take 

a long time to recover if disturbed because of the 

lack of precipitation and slow plant growth. 

Within both developed areas, soils have been 

permanently altered by the construction of 

facilities such as roads, parking areas, and 

buildings. Geology and soils on the peripheries of 

the developed areas more closely resemble those 

of adjacent natural areas. The surrounding areas 

consist mainly of upland soils interspersed with 

large washes, typical of many areas in the 

recreation area. 

Desert creosote-bursage shrub communities and 

desert wash communities typically surround the 

developed areas. The creosotebush-bursage 

community is regionally common and covers 

nearly three quarters of the recreation area. 

Vegetation cover is sparse and is dominated by 

creosote bush and bursage. This community 

occurs below 4,000 feet (ft) in valley bottoms and 

lowlands of mild slope aspect. It is locally welldeveloped on lower bajadas, alluvial fans, and 

playas. Vegetation cover is sparse in this 

community and dominated by creosotebush 

(Larrea tridentata) and white bursage (Ambrosia 

dumosa). Primary associated shrub species can 

include blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima, 

usually at higher elevations), Mormon tea 

(Ephedra spp.), indigo bush (Psorothamnus 

fremontii), shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), 

hopsage (Grayia spinosa), desert thorn (Lycium 

spp.), ratany (Krameria erecta), burro bush 

(Hymenoclea salsola), honey mesquite (Prosopis 

glandulosa), and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa). 

Other associated species can include yucca 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

86 

(Yucca spp.) and prickly pear cactus (Opuntia 

erinacea). Profusions of annual wildflowers can be 

observed in this community in the spring. 

The desert wash community is found in the 

washes and includes plants of the surrounding 

creosote bush community as well as species such 

as mesquite, catclaw acacia, desert willow, 

cheeseweed, and nonnative saltcedar (Tamarix 

spp). There are no wetlands or desert springs in 

then project areas. 

Two plants, smoke tree (Psorothamnus spinosus) 

and American threefold (Trixis californica) are 

common and widespread species in the Sonoran 

desert. Neither plant is federally or state listed. 

However, these species are of interest to the park 

because their northern distribution extends into 

the recreation area. Populations of both species 

occur along southern Lake Mohave. American 

threefold is only known from Empire Wash on the 

northeastern edge of the Newberry Mountains 

and smoke tree from Nevada Telephone Cove. 

There are no recorded occurrences of either of 

these plants in the vicinity of Cottonwood Cove or 

Katherine Landing. However, American threefold 

may occur along the shoreline between Katherine 

Landing and Princess Cove. 

Saltcedar is widespread and well established along 

the Lake Mohave shoreline where it displaces 

native riparian plant species. Other nonnative 

plant species that are known to be invasive that 

have been found on the shoreline of Lakes Mead 

and Mohave are athel (Tamarix aphylla), 

fountaingrass (Pennisetum setaceum), tree tobacco 

(Nicotiana glauca), oleander (Nerium oleander), 

date palm (Phoenix sp.), Mexican paloverde 

(Parkinsonia aculeata), Sahara mustard (Brassica 

tournefortii), camelthorn (Alhagi pseudoalhagi), 

and giant reed (Arundo donax). The invasive 

annual grass Mediterranean grass (Schismus spp.) 

occurs at the lowest elevations like creosotebush 

shrublands. Construction, development, and 

landscaping all are ground-disturbing activities 

that have the potential, or that have led to the 

introduction and spread of alien plant species. 

Several species of invasive plants were first 

introduced to the recreation area in landscaping 

and still remain in landscaped areas, with a few 

species that have naturalized into adjacent natural 

areas. Examples include the following: giant reed 

(Arundo donax), Bermuda grass (Cynodon 

dactylon), oleander (Nerium oleander), tree 

tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), fountaingrass 

(Pennisetum setaceum), date palm (Phoenix 

dactylifera), athel (Tamarix aphylla), and 

chastetree (Vitex agnus-castus) (NPS 2010). 

Wildlife 

The desert, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems 

present at the Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area provide habitat for a rich diversity of animal 

species. The recreation area contains over 

500 species of vertebrates, including, fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The last 

survey of the recreation area lists 54 species of 

reptiles and amphibians occurring within the 

recreation area (Schwartz et al. 1978). Desert 

creosote and bursage shrub communities provide 

food sources, perch sites, and cover for many 

desert animals. Desert reptiles and amphibians 

hibernate or estivate in burrows under the plants, 

avoiding predators and excessive daytime 

temperatures. Desert tortoises dig shelters where 

plant roots stabilize the soil. Diurnal lizards and 

nocturnal snakes are relatively common reptiles in 

the creosote bush and bursage community. For 

the most part, they prefer the rocky slopes and dry 

washes where boulders and brush furnish plenty 

of shelter and shade. The coachwhip, gopher 

snake, common king snake, sidewinder, glossy 

snake, and speckled rattlesnake are commonly 

encountered snakes at the park. Many lizards may 

be found throughout the park including sideblotched lizard, desert iguana, Great Basin 

collared lizard, Western whiptail, Western banded 

gecko, chuckwalla, and desert spiny lizard. 

The most recent inventory and review of literature 

for Lake Mead National Recreation Area has 

documented 57 mammal species as occurring 

within the recreation area boundaries (Drost and 

Hart 2008). White-footed mice, pocket mice, 

kangaroo rats, and woodrats comprise the vast 

majority of individual mammals occurring at the 

recreation area. Because of the extensive aquatic, 

wetland, and riparian habitat created by Lake 

Mead and Lake Mohave, 356 species of birds have 

been recorded at the recreation area. Aquatic and 

shorebird species such as great blue heron, 

American coot, ruddy duck, cinnamon teal, 

semipalmated plover, and willet generally restrict 

their activities to the lakes, the shoreline areas 

surrounding the lakes, and associated wetland 

habitats. Riparian zones along the lake, side 

canyons, washes, and around spring sources are 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

87 

the most heavily used corridors for breeding and 

foraging by nonaquatic bird species such as 

Gambel’s quail, red-tailed hawk, greater 

roadrunner, cactus wren, phainopepla, and house 

sparrow. 

Developed areas, in which the habitat has been 

altered, typically only support a small subset of the 

park’s wildlife. Opportunistic predators and 

scavengers are likely to be more abundant in these 

areas due to the greater abundance of food left by 

humans. The outer edges of the developed zones 

usually more closely resemble the desert habitat of 

the surrounding region, but because of 

disturbance it is less desirable for desert-dwelling 

species. 

Lake Mohave supports a number of fish species, 

including game, nongame, and endemic fish 

species. Nongame species, such as carp, and game 

species including largemouth bass, striped bass, 

catfish, crappie, and blue gill inhabit the waters of 

the reservoir. Rainbow trout are stocked in select 

areas. Quagga mussels, freshwater mollusks that 

are alien to North America, have been found in 

Lakes Mead and Mohave. These mussels deplete 

the plankton levels, reducing the food supply for 

native aquatic organisms. They also attach to and 

damage infrastructure such as water intake pipes, 

docks, and boats. To help prevent the spread of 

Quagga, visitors are encouraged to clean that their 

boats, vehicles, trailers, and other equipment at 

the boat wash stations after exiting the lakes. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species 

Two endemic fish species remain in the lakes, 

despite the alteration of the riverine environment 

resulting from the construction of the Hoover and 

Davis dams. The razorback sucker (Xyrauchen 

texanus) occurs in both lakes, with the largest 

remaining population in the Colorado River 

system inhabiting Lake Mohave. The bonytail 

chub (Gila elegans) exists in Lake Mohave. Both of 

these fish are listed as federally endangered 

species. Lakes Mead and Mohave have been 

designated as critical habitat for the razorback 

sucker, and Lake Mohave has been designated as 

critical habitat for the bonytail chub. 

Surveys for razorback suckers have been 

conducted since the early 1990s by biologists 

working with the Native Fish Work Group. The 

biologists determined that there are at least nine 

coves on Lake Mohave that are important for 

razorback sucker recovery and where spawning 

activities occur. Spawning takes place from 

January through May and occurs in shallow, rocky 

areas. Young fish may stay in these shallow areas 

during the first few weeks of their lives, while 

adult fish utilize all areas of the lake. As part of an 

augmentation program for razorback suckers and 

bonytail chub, larvae are collected from Lake 

Mohave during the spawning season and raised in 

labs and backwater ponds and re-released into 

Lake Mohave in hopes that larger fish will be able 

to avoid predation and enter the breeding 

population. There are no rearing ponds in the 

Cottonwood Cove or Katherine Landing areas. 

Populations of bonytail chub consist of large, old 

adults with recruitment being virtually 

nonexistent. These fish were once known to 

reproduce in lower Lake Mohave, although it is 

unclear if this is still the case. Bonytail chubs are 

known to utilize both deep water channels and 

shallow shoreline habitats. 

The Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

provides important habitat for the desert tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii). The Mohave population of 

the desert tortoise, which occurs north and west 

of the Colorado River in Arizona, Utah, Nevada, 

and California, are federally listed threatened 

species (USFWS 2008). Cottonwood Cove is 

within this geographic area. Desert tortoise that 

occur east and south of the Colorado River in 

Arizona are referred to as the Sonoran population. 

The Sonoran population is a federal candidate 

species. Katherine Landing is within this 

geographic area. The Mohave population occurs 

on sandy loam to rocky soils in valleys, bajadas, 

and hills in Mohave desert scrub. The Sonoran 

population occurs primarily on rocky slopes and 

bajadas of Mohave and Sonoran desert scrub. 

Washes and valley bottoms may be used in 

dispersal. 

This species occurs throughout the recreation 

area in Mohave desert scrub habitats away from 

the shoreline areas. Tortoise populations in the 

area are generally low density, with scattered high 

density areas. Most habitat of the Mohave 

population of the desert tortoise within the 

recreation area south of Hoover Dam is protected 

by wilderness or critical habitat designations. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

88 

The developed areas are located in marginal 

habitat with low tortoise densities. The project 

area at Cottonwood Cove is located within 

noncritical habitat, although the Cottonwood 

Cove access road does pass through critical 

habitat. Near the access road to Cottonwood 

Cove, tortoise densities are low-to-medium, but 

are particularly hard to quantify because droughtinduced mortality has significantly reduced 

populations in those areas (NPS 1997, 2002). 

The Mohave population is most active during the 

spring when plants are most abundant with 

additional activity in late summer monsoons 

(August to September), while the Sonoran 

population is also active in the spring, but most 

active during the summer monsoon season. Desert 

tortoises retreat into burrows the remainder of the 

year to avoid extreme weather conditions and 

conserve water and energy. Tortoises require 

loose soil to excavate burrows below rocks, 

boulders, or vegetation, and also use rock 

crevices. They eat a variety of annual and 

perennial grasses, forbs, and succulents (AZGFD 

2010). 

Desert tortoise populations have been declining 

throughout their range due to urban development, 

disease, off-road vehicle disturbance, 

construction activities, mining, and grazing. 

Habitat fragmentation because of urbanization is a 

continuing problem. The park provides large areas 

of protected, continuous habitat. All undisturbed 

areas in the proposed project areas are considered 

potential habitat for desert tortoise. 

The Southwestern willow flycatcher (Epidonax 

trailii extimus) was federally listed as endangered 

in 1995, and is a neotropical migrant known to 

visit both Lakes Mead and Mohave. Declines in 

Southwestern willow flycatcher populations are 

primarily due to habitat alteration for water 

impoundment and diversion, agriculture, and 

development. 

Willow flycatchers generally nest in dense riparian 

habitats with standing water or saturated soils. 

Although typically associated with native riparian 

tree species, willow flycatchers have been 

observed nesting in tamarisk and other nonnative 

riparian vegetation (USFWS 2002b). Nesting 

occurs in the Overton Wildlife Management Area, 

along the Virgin and Muddy River inflows into 

Lake Mead, and at the Lake Mead delta near the 

Grand Canyon. Additional suitable habitat exists 

along the shoreline of Lake Mohave, although 

surveys have been conducted of several coves that 

contain suitable habitat and no nesting has been 

documented. The size and shape of habitat 

patches used by breeding flycatchers vary 

considerably, but it is likely that much of the 

shoreline habitat lacks suitable amounts of 

riparian vegetation with the proper structural and 

hydrological characteristics to be used for 

anything other than migration or dispersal. 

The Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) is 

classified as a protected reptile in Nevada. The 

banded Gila monster (H.s. cinctum) is the 

subspecies that occurs in Clark County in Nevada. 

This species is found primarily below 5,000 ft 

elevation and its geographic range approximates 

that of the desert tortoise. Gila monster habitats 

are associated with desert wash, spring, and 

riparian habitats that integrate with complex 

rocky desert scrub lands. They will use and are 

occasionally encountered out in gentler terrain of 

alluvial fans (bajadas). The Gila monster is diurnal 

and is most active from March to June. Although 

they are diurnal they spend most of their time 

underground (AZGFD 2002). The banded Gila 

monster may occur near the developed areas. 

Western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia 

hypugea) are a protected species in Nevada. 

They are found in desert shrub habitats and utilize 

animal burrows for nesting. They could occupy 

lands near the developed areas. 

Floodplains 

Desert washes are dry most of the time and only 

run following rain events. The washes at 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing are 

subject to flash flooding caused by intense 

thunderstorms over their drainages. Precipitation 

typically falls as winter rain and late summer 

thunderstorms associated with the southwestern 

monsoonal flow. However, precipitation is highly 

variable, with significantly above average rainfall 

in some years (such as 20042005) and below 

average rainfall in most years. A flash flood is one 

that occurs in a short time interval (minutes to 

hours) following a rain event, and for which there 

is insufficient time for persons on-site to become 

aware of the flood and safely evacuate. Areas 

subject to flash flooding are considered high 

hazard areas and the regulatory floodplain 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

89 

includes the area covered by the extreme flood 

that is considered the largest flood possible in the 

drainage. The extreme flood magnitude can be 

determined by any one of several accepted 

extreme flood procedures and this plan uses the 

probable maximum flood (pmf) to define the 

regulatory floodplain. 

Beginning in the early 1980s, a series of flood 

studies at both developed areas were prepared 

(USGS 1981, NPS 1982, 1983, and 1986, FLRA 

1983). Structural flood mitigation discussed under 

the alternatives was reviewed and updated in 2004 

(HDR 2004a and HDR 2004b). The previous 

studies have estimated flood depths at 

Cottonwood Cove of approximately 6 to 7 ft 

during the probable maximum flood and depths 

that range from 3 to 6 ft during the 100-year storm 

event. These flood depths impact visitor facilities 

including camping areas, motel, and the trailer 

village, and concessioner and National Park 

Service staff housing areas. At Katherine Landing 

estimated flood depths are approximately 3 to 8 ft 

during the probable maximum flood and range 

from 1 to 6 ft during the 100-year storm event. 

These flood depths impact visitor overnight 

facilities including camping areas, trailer village, 

and the concessioner housing. The development 

concept plan graphics for the no-action 

alternative for each developed area show the 

extent of the pmf flows. 

The following washes/basins were identified for 

the purposes of calculating flood flows at 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing. Based 

on the most recent hydrologic and hydraulic 

calculations, tables 6 and 7 summarize the runoff 

peaks at the outlets of the basins for the 100-year 

and pmf flows. The warning time, or time from 

the onset of rainfall until the pmf flows reach 

various facilities, varies between approximately 

42 minutes for Ranger Wash basin to 8 minutes 

for the Dry Boat Storage basin at Cottonwood 

Cove. At Katherine Landing, warning times vary 

between approximately 7 minutes at the Dry Boat 

Storage Wash to 33 minutes at the motel in South 

Katherine Wash. Warning times for South and 

North Telephone Coves are approximately 51 and 

79 minutes. 

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF PEAK RUNOFF

(COTTONWOOD COVE) 

Wash/Channel

100-year peak 

(cfsa)

pmf peak 

(cfs) 

Ranger Residence 1,900 8,400 

Upper Access Road 600 2,500 

Dry Boat Storage 150 600 

Lower Access Road 2,200 11,000 

Lower Boat Storage 125 500 

Upper Campground 400 1,800 

a. cfs = cubic feet per second. 

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF PEAK RUNOFF

(KATHERINE LANDING) 

Wash/Channel

100-year peak 

(cfs)

pmf peak 

(cfs) 

North Katherine Wash 230 1,500 

South Katherine Wash 950 6,500 

Dry Boat Storage Wash 350 1,730 

South Telephone Cove 

Wash

1,400 8,150 

North Telephone Cove 

Wash

4,500 25,500 

Potential flood and flood debris hazards are 

defined by the depth of flow, velocity, extent of 

inundation, and the amount and character if the 

debris likely to be mobilized by flood flows. 

Generally, the higher the flow velocity and depth, 

the greater are the flood hazards. For example, 

anyone caught in a 2 ft deep rapidly flowing flow 

could be swept away. If depths and velocities 

increase, automobiles, recreational vehicles, and 

trailers can be transported by flood flows. 

Existing water diversion structures at 

Cottonwood Cove include the following. In the 

upper Access Road Wash there is a diversion dike 

1,500 ft west of the ranger station that directs flow 

south across the access road to a narrow channel 

along the south side of the main campground. 

Previous reports indicate this upstream diversion 

dike may be overtopped in flood flows greater 

than the 50-year event. Another diversion dike, 

further downstream and east of the main 

campground, directs flow from the main 

campground channel back to the north across the 

main access road and into the lower access road 

channel. Previous reports indicate this channel 

can convey the 100-year flood; however,
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

90 

maintenance of this channel is difficult and 

sedimentation appears to have reduced the 

conveyance capacity. The lower diversion dike is 

immediately above the trailer village. Flood flows 

are conveyed along the north side of the access 

road in an earthen channel to the west side of the 

lower parking lot. At this point, flows are 

discharged to the parking lot surface where sheet 

flow occurs with discharge to the lake. 

Currently, the 1.6 square mile (sq mile) Ranger 

Wash basin drains to the Dry Boat Storage Wash. 

This basin alone contributes approximately 

8,400 cfs to the developed area of Cottonwood 

Cove during the pmf event. There is a welldefined channel that extends from the upper boat 

storage yard, past the concessioner housing area 

and down to the access road. The Dry Boat 

Storage Wash conveys flows from the Ranger 

Wash basin where an existing diversion dike is 

located above the NPS housing area that directs 

flow to the Dry Boat Storage channel. The west 

end of the dike has been breached by a dirt access 

road and reduces the top elevation of the dike 

approximately 3 to 4 ft. Previous reports also 

indicate the Dry Boat Storage channel has 

adequate capacity to convey the 100-year flood 

but it overtops in the probable maximum flood. 

At the lower campground, flood flows are 

conveyed around the campground by an existing 

diversion dike located at the far west end of the 

campground and an earthen channel located 

along the northern side of the campground. 

At Cottonwood Cove, rain gauges located 

upstream of the developed area are used to 

monitor rainfall in real time. An automated system 

consisting of flash flood hazard monitoring and 

warning equipment is in place to notify the public 

in the developed area of flood danger. All 

hydrologic data and siren activation/deactivation 

capability is also available at the emergency 

dispatch center in Boulder City, Nevada. 

At Katherine Landing, the South Katherine Wash 

flood flows are conveyed towards Lake Mohave 

on the south side of the access road. Two existing 

dikes divert the flows to the south and into an 

earth-lined channel starting at the NPS 

maintenance area. The existing channel has 

gabion-lined segments as it flows past the motel 

area. The channel discharges onto the roadway 

east of the boat ramp and flows into the lake. 

North Katherine Wash flood flows are conveyed 

towards Lake Mohave on the north side of the 

access road. The existing alignment of this wash 

flows though the north campground as well as the 

trailer village. 

Flood flows through the Dry Boat Storage Wash 

are conveyed through the maintenance area by an 

existing earth-lined channel located just east of 

the maintenance area. The existing inflow channel 

from the south is well defined. The wash from the 

east is well defined in the lower reach but in the 

upper reaches it tends to be less defined because 

of the development of the boat storage area. 

South Telephone Cove Wash flood flows are 

diverted from North Katherine Wash towards 

South Telephone Cove Wash by an existing 

diversion dike. Sediment clogs the existing 

diversion outlet pipes and in large flows the 

drainage overtops the roadway and flows to the 

south entering North Katherine Wash. 

In addition to flood protection, considerable 

effort by NPS staff is expended in maintaining 

existing flood channels and removing debris 

deposited during relatively minor storm events. 

Maintenance includes restoration of waterlines 

that have been exposed as a result of flow 

velocity/scour, cleaning of culverts plugged with 

sediment and debris, and removal of sediment 

from parking areas. Under current operations, 

parking lot sediment removal can reduce the 

pavement life because of equipment (e.g., frontend loader) impacting the asphalt surface. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural Context 

This section summarizes the prehistory and 

history of the project areas at the two developed 

areas and the coves adjacent to Katherine 

Landing. In general, the prehistory of the 

American Southwest is commonly divided into 

following broad temporal periods: the 

Paleoindian, Archaic, Formative, Protohistoric, 

and Historic (EcoPlan 2011). The following 

briefly describes these temporal periods. More 

detailed overviews of the prehistory can be found 

in Reid and Whittlesey (1997), McQuire and 

Schiffer (1982), Faught and Freeman (1998), and 

Mabry and Faught (1998). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

91 

Paleoindian Period (ca. 12000–8000 BC).

Following the last major glaciation of the 

Pleistocene epoch, small bands of nomadic 

hunters and gatherers migrated across the greater 

southwest and elsewhere. Subsistence was based 

largely on hunting large game, or megafauna (e.g., 

mammoth). Hallmarks of the Paleoindian material 

culture were large, finely made spear points 

(EcoPlan 2011). Population densities were low 

and social structures are presumed to have been 

simple and probably egalitarian. 

Archaic Period (ca. 8000 BC – AD 700).

Beginning around 8000 BC, the moist climate 

conditions of the Paeloindian period began 

transitioning to an increasingly drier climate. 

During this period, most of the lower Colorado 

Region became desert and a mass extinction of 

megafauna occurred. These drastic and somewhat 

rapid changes forced humans to modify their 

subsistence strategies. Smaller game was hunted 

with darts thrown by dart throwers or atlatls. A 

wider variety of plants were gathered (e.g., agave, 

cacti, pinyon pinenuts) and used for food, 

clothing, and structures. Stone tools were more 

crudely made and included spear points, knives, 

and other tools. Archaic bands continued to be 

migratory, seasonally moving from lower 

elevations to higher elevations as different 

resources became available. Habitation sites 

included rock shelters, caves, and temporary 

surface structures. Other features associated with 

Archaic peoples include petroglyphs, and possibly 

geoglyphs, rock alignments, and trail shrines. 

Towards the end of this period, Archaic peoples 

gradually began to adopt and depend on 

agriculture (EcoPlan 2011). 

Formative (ca. AD 700  1300) and Protohistoric 

(ca. AD 1300  1500) Periods. The appearance of 

ceramics marks the end of the Archaic and the 

beginning of the Formative period. In the study 

area, the Patayan cultural tradition dominated the 

region. This cultural tradition is widely used to 

refer to numerous groups occupying the lower 

Colorado River Valley and surrounding uplands 

from the Grand Canyon to the Colorado River 

delta. Heilman et al. describe the cultural tradition 

as follows: 

“Most Patayan sites are relatively ephemeral 

and appear to represent the remains of 

limited-activity camps (McGuire 1982). Rare 

habitation sites consisting of Rancheria type 

settlements located on upland areas have been 

noted. Associated artifact assemblages consist 

of chipped stone with small, triangular 

sidenotched projectile points [dart points and 

arrowheads] and large, percussion-flaked 

choppers. Mortars and pestles also have been 

identified at Patayan sites (McGuire and 

Schiffer 1982). Ceramics are typically buff to 

gray, and are sometimes reddish in hue. 

Ceramics are rarely decorated, but do include 

red-on-buff wares. 

Three branches of the Patayan cultural 

tradition have been identified in northern 

Arizona [and southern Nevada]: the 

Coconina, Cerbat, and Prescott. The Cerbat 

branch inhabited the desert and riverine areas 

that border the Colorado River near the 

Mohave Valley (McGuire and Schiffer 1982). 

They manufactured Tizon Brown [ceramics], 

which include three sequential types: Cerbat, 

Sandy, and Aquarius Brown. Structures 

characteristic of the Cerbat branch include 

rock shelters and caves as well as simple 

circular brush structures used as temporary 

dwellings (EcoPlan 2011).” 

The Patayan tradition is divided in phases: 

Patayan I, II, and III. The different phases are 

largely distinguished by ceramic temper, vessel 

form, and innovations in ceramic manufacturing 

and decoration (EcoPlan 2011). The distinctions 

between the latter Patayan III and Protohistoric 

peoples is somewhat blurred. Patayan ceramics 

have been found in association with Historic 

period metal and glass, suggesting associations 

may have extended in the 1800 or early 1900s 

(EcoPlan 2011). During Patayan III/Protohistoric 

transition, it appears that inhabitants of the region 

dispersed and redistributed themselves in the 

region (EcoPlan 2011). 

Historic Period (ca. AD 1500 – 1950). The lower 

Colorado Region was not settled by 

Euroamericans until the late 1850s. Early explores 

such as Sitgreaves (in 1851), Whipple (in 

18531854), and Ives (in 1858) attempted to 

develop a trail from New Mexico to California. 

Later Edward F. Beale constructed a federally 

funded wagon road following the 35th Parallel 

from New Mexico to California in the late 1850s. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

92 

Portions of this road were constructed slightly 

south of the study area (EcoPlan 2011). 

The 1850s saw a large influx of miners to the 

region. In the 1860s mines and prospects sprang 

up in the Cerbat and Black mountains. A regional 

mining camp, Kingman, developed into the area’s 

first town and later an important business town, 

site for a train depot, and eventually the county 

seat of Mohave County. During the 1860s, gold 

was discovered at the Pyramid Mine; later in 1900 

gold and silver were discovered at the Katherine 

Mine, located in the Katherine Landing developed 

area (EcoPlan 2011). The Katherine Mine, 

determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places as an historic district / 

cultural landscape, operated intermittently from 

1900 to 1942, producing over $12 million in gold. 

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the 

Yuman tribes were forced on to a series of 

reservations along the Colorado River with their 

children being forced to attend boarding schools. 

These tribes shared many cultural elements, 

including mythic tradition, cosmology, and 

religion. In their world view, the entire lower 

Colorado Region consisted of an intricate system 

of trails, shrines, other symbolic objects 

(petroglphys, geoglyphs, rock alignments), and 

physical features (mountains and vistas) that 

connected the scattered tribes with sacred sites in 

the region. Pilgrimages, in person and in dreams, 

were made to these areas. One of the most 

important sacred areas in the Yuman cosmology is 

Spirit Mountain, located approximately 15 miles 

south of Cottonwood Cove near Laughlin, 

Nevada. The site is now listed in the National 

Register as a traditional cultural property (NPS 

2005). 

During the early 20th century, communities began 

to develop along the Colorado River. However, 

these communities were subject to repeated 

devastating floods by the (then) unpredictable 

Colorado River. In 1931, construction of Hoover 

Dam began and concluded in 1935. The purpose 

of the dam was to tame and regulate the flow of 

the Colorado River. Subsequently, Davis Dam, 

north of Laughlin and approximately 45 miles 

south of Hoover Dam, was built. The purpose of 

this dam is to reregulate waters received from 

Hoover Dam, as well as generate electricity 

(EcoPlan 2011). 

Today, Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

developed areas are regionally popular recreation 

destinations for local communities and visitors to 

area. Boating dominates both developed areas, 

although day use, tent camping, and RV camping 

are increasingly popular. 

The lower Colorado Region, including the 

developed areas, also remains important to the 

Yuman tribes and the Chemihuevi tribe along the 

Colorado River. During their reservation period, 

many of these tribes resisted missionization and 

continued to practice their traditional life ways 

and religion (Ezzo and Altschul 1993; Cleland 

2011). Tribes, like the Hualapai in the Grand 

Canyon and the Paipai below the Mexican border, 

continue to make pilgrimages to sites like Spirit 

Mountain and Grapevine Canyon to perform 

ceremonies. 

Archeological Resources 

Cottonwood Cove. Portions of the developed 

area have been inventoried for archeological 

resources. To date, 14 prehistoric archeological 

sites and 1 historic site have been recorded in and 

around the Cottonwood Cove developed area. 

The prehistoric sites consist of 8 petroglyph sites 

(one also possessing a lithic scatter and another 

also possessing a rock alignment), 2 rock shelters, 

2 rock circles, and 2 lithic scatters. None have 

been listed in the National Register, but the sites 

are managed as if they were eligible for listing. In 

addition, 8 isolated finds have been documented. 

These are primarily projectile points (Osborne, 

G.A., pers. comm. on April 20, 2011). Because they 

are isolated finds, they do not have the integrity or 

scientific values to make them eligible for the 

National Register. 

The historic site consists of the remains of the 

Quartette Mine Mill (site no. 26CK8444). The site 

is submerged 10 to 45 ft below the surface of Lake 

Mohave in the southeast corner of Cottonwood 

Cove. The site consists of three masonry walls 

supported by rock buttresses. The site can only be 

reached by diving or viewed through a remotely 

operated vehicle. The site was recorded by the 

NPS Submerged Resources Center in 2008. At that 

time, the site’s condition was rated as good; 

however, water movement, sedimentation, 

invasive quagga mussels, and recreational 

activities (boating/fishing) pose threats to its 

integrity. The site has not been evaluated for 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

93 

National Register significance (NPS 2008). The 

site is not listed on the recreation area’s list of 

classified structures (Osborne, G.A., pers. comm. 

on April 20, 2011). As with other developed area 

sites are managed as though they are eligible for 

listing. 

Based on this data, there is a possibility for intact 

archeological resources to exist in portions of the 

developed area that are undisturbed by 

development, recreation area operations, or 

visitor use. The potential for intact sites is 

corroborated by the results of the 1993 survey of 

the Newbery Mountains south of Cottonwood 

Cove. During the survey, 54 prehistoric sites and 

2 historic sites in the 5,530-acre survey area were 

documented (NPS 1993). 

Potential types of unrecorded archeological 

resources include, but are not limited to, lithic 

scatters, surface sites, rock alignments, trails and 

trail shrines, petroglyphs, geoglyphs, rock shelters 

(prehistoric resources) and trash scatters, mining 

prospects, mines and mining related equipment, 

historic roads and railroad segments, corrals, and 

other ranching-related remains (historic 

resources). 

Katherine Landing. Over 20 archeological sites 

have been recorded in and around the Katherine 

Landing developed area. Seven of these are 

prehistoric sites. Site types include lithic scatters 

(4) lithic / ceramic / ground stone scatter (1), rock 

alignment/lithic scatter (1), and petroglyph (1). In 

addition, 14 isolated finds have been documented 

in the developed area. Resource types include 

mortars, rock rings, lithic scatters, ceramics, and a 

projectile point (Osborne, G.A., pers. comm. on 

April 20, 2011). 

Twelve of the sites are historic and related to 

mining activity. The Katherine Mine and Mill site 

is located north of the project area and was 

determined eligible for the National Register in 

2009. 

The Princess Cove Mine (site no. AZ F:10:43 

[ASM]) is located in the vicinity of Princess Cove 

Road. The site is a historic period load-rock mine 

with 24 features including 2 mine adits, 3 mine 

shafts, 9 prospects, 9 rock cairns, 1 rock 

alignment, and 3 trash scatters. Artifacts at the site 

suggest mining operations took place in the late 

19th or early 20th century. Bricks, household 

ceramic fragments, and plate glass fragments 

suggest there was a residential structure in the 

vicinity, although there is no evidence to indicate 

its exact location. The site appears to be linked to 

the Katherine Mining District. In 2001, the site 

was recommended as being eligible for listing in 

the National Register under criterion A, since it 

contributed to the development of industry and 

economy in the region. It also may be eligible 

under criterion D because of its potential to yield 

information important to the early mining history 

of the local Katherine Landing area. In 2001, the 

site’s condition was assessed as overall good (NPS 

2001a). 

An additional three sites were recorded in a recent 

survey of the Katherine Landing access road. One 

site is an unwidened segment of State Road 68 that 

relates to the Historic State Highway System 

(EcoPlan 2011). The segment is located east of the 

access road’s juncture with State Road 68. The 

survey recommends the road segment be treated 

as contributing element to the Historic Highway 

System, which has been determined eligible for 

listing in the National Register under criterion D. 

The segment west of the access road leading to 

Nevada has been widened and is not eligible for 

listing (EcoPlan 2011). 

The second site recorded in the survey was the 

access road itself. The road predates the 

Mission66 period and lacks several of the design 

elements of the Mission 66 initiative. In addition, 

the road has been modified numerous times since 

its construction in ca. 1952. The access road 

survey concludes that the road should not be 

considered eligible for listing in the National 

Register (EcoPlan 2011). The last site, a mining 

prospect, was also recommended as not eligible 

for the National Register (EcoPlan 2011). 

As with the Cottonwood Cove developed area, 

there is a potential for additional intact 

archeological sites that could have National 

Register significance in areas that have not been 

disturbed by development or visitor use.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

94 

Historic Structures 

Table 8 summarizes the general location, 

condition, and National Register eligibility of 

historic structures listed on the park’s list of 

classified structures for Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing developed areas. The 

Quartette Mining Company Railroad Grade 

consists of railroad segment with a can scatter, 

bolt scatter, and other historic railroad debris. The 

site has been determined eligible for listing in the 

National Register. The eastern end of the railroad 

grade could be in the project area. 

Many of the Cottonwood Cove developed area 

structures are contributing elements to a Mission 

66 historic district, which was determined to be 

eligible in the National Register in 2006. They are 

discussed in more detail under “Cultural 

Landscapes.” These structures are in the area of 

potential effect. 

The two Katherine Landing structures are 

contributing elements to the National Register 

eligible Katherine Mine historic district (NPS 

2009). As noted, the mine site is outside of the area 

of potential effect outlined in the alternatives. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Both developed areas were expanded as part of 

the Mission 66 movement. Both represent 

examples of historic design landscapes, as defined 

by NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline. Cottonwood Cove developed area has 

been determined eligible for the National Register 

as a historic district. The integrity of the Katherine 

Landing landscape is not as intact as that at 

Cottonwood Cove; however, it has the potential 

to be determined eligible and is being considered 

as part of a multiple property National Register 

nomination being developed to establish a cultural 

context for the Mission 66 initiative within the 

recreation area (NPS 2007). There are no defined 

ethnographic landscapes within the project areas, 

but the potential for one or more exists (see 

discussion under “Ethnographic Resources”). 

Mission 66 Cultural Landscapes. The Mission 66 

program (19561966) was a major post-World 

War II funding initiative that commemorated the 

National Park Service’s 50th anniversary. 

Mission 66 was not simply a development 

program; it was a redefinition of how national 

parks would function as public places. Mission 66 

architecture represents a departure from earlier 

styles in the national parks. By the 1950s, 

modernist architecture had emerged as the 

dominant style. Park service architects designed 

buildings that adapted various strains of postwar 

American modernism while also being mindful of 

the programmatic and aesthetic requirements of 

national parks. This resulted in a distinctive 

building type known as Park Service Modern. 

Mission 66 buildings were utilitarian, functional, 

and without the “historical allusions” of rustic 

style. Architects designed each visitor center 

individually, while houses, comfort stations, and 

other small buildings were often based on 

standardized design to limit costs (NPS 2007). 

Mission 66 developed areas usually contained 

three to four discrete functional areas: visitor 

services, visitor accommodations (including 

picnicking and camping), employee housing, and 

park support services. These functional areas 

typically were located in two distinct zones: visitor 

services and park support. Park support areas 

such as housing and maintenance yards typically 

were separate and screened from public view. 

Modern roads allowed vehicular access between 

these sites (NPS 2007). 

The Mission 66 plan for Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area imparted similar patterns of 

development and circulation for each developed 

area. A highly visible and easily accessible visitor 

center or ranger station marked the entrance to 

the developed areas. A long access road, leading 

from a main road or highway toward the lake, 

ended at or near a boat launch. Spur roads along 

the way led to distinct functional areas — NPS 

employee housing and maintenance areas, 

concessioner public use and maintenance areas, 

and campgrounds. The configuration of each 

developed area was determined principally by the 

terrain and shape of the shoreline in each location. 

The designed landscapes at each area also shared 

common characteristics. These were 

characterized by geometric forms and paving 

patterns as well as the use of exotic vegetation for. 

both shade and aesthetic purposes. Park planners 

considered trees and shrubs, which provided 

screening and shade, an integral part of 

Mission 66 development at the recreation area 

(NPS 2007).
TABLE 8. LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES IN THE VICINITY OF COTTONWOOD COVE AND KATHERINE LANDING DEVELOPED AREAS, LAKE MEAD NATIO

Structure Name Site No. Area

LCSa

No. Condition

Year 

Assessed Certified Park No.

Quartette Mining Co. Railroad Grade

26CK6581 Cottonwood Cove 21276 Fair 2006 2003 RR-08 

Administration Building Cottonwood Cove 55646 Good 2003 2003 118 Cottonwood Cove Residence #201

Cottonwood Cove 330037 Good 2006 2006 201

Cottonwood Cove Residence #202

Cottonwood Cove 330046 Good 2006 2006 202

Cottonwood Cove Residence #203

Cottonwood Cove 330051 Good 2006 2006 203

Cottonwood Cove Road Cottonwood Cove 330053 Good 2006 2006 TBDbCottonwood Cove Utility Building

Cottonwood Cove 330055 Good 2006 2006 241

Cottonwood Cove Ranger Station

Cottonwood Cove 444196 Good 2006 2006 240

Katherine Mine Mill Site AZ F:14:108 

(ASM)

Katherine Landing 55668 Fair 2003 2003 HS-13A 

Katherine Mine Mill Site Stone Foundation

AZ F:14:108 (ASM)

Katherine Landing 55669 Fair 2003 2003 HS-13B 

a. LCS = List of Classified Structures b. TBD = To be determined c. SHPO = state historic preservation officer 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

96 

For more than two decades after its founding in 

1936, the recreation area lacked adequate visitor 

services, facilities, and roads. As the southwestern 

U.S. population boomed during the postwar 

period, the public overwhelmed the few facilities 

the recreation area offered. The Mission 66 

program provided the first large influx of funding 

to the recreation area. Establishing developed 

areas transformed the recreation area from a park 

with little infrastructure into a regional recreation 

destination with modern services and amenities 

(NPS 2007). 

While the Mission 66 program served to 

reinvigorate the National Park Service, 50 years 

later the continued importance of these structures 

is questioned by some. The modern architectural 

style is not as popular as it was in the 1960s. Many 

of the aging properties are in need of repair and 

pose safety concerns. Others no longer serve the 

needs of contemporary visitors. For example, 

most campgrounds were designed for tent 

camping, not the larger recreational vehicles that 

are popular today. In several parks, Mission 66 

structures have been demolished or substantively 

remodeled to address these concerns and needs 

(Hill 2009). 

Cottonwood Cove. Most of the development at 

Cottonwood Cove occurred between 1960 and 

1966. The National Park Service constructed three 

employee residences in 1960. In 1964, park 

personnel built a ranger station that was designed 

to serve as an information center for visitors 

entering the park. Two years later, the park 

personnel constructed a 200 ft × 300 ft boat ramp, 

with 15,000 square feet of parking. The two 

campgrounds at Cottonwood Cove were built in 

1965. The upper campground contained three 

loops and 100 campsites (though plans originally 

called for 8 loops and 219 sites), while the lower 

campground contained 42 individual and two 

group sites. Like other Mission 66-era 

campgrounds, the campgrounds at Cottonwood 

Cove included one-way loop roads and campsites 

along herringbone spurs, a design that minimized 

the impact on the surrounding environment. By 

1966, the trailer village contained 3 loops and 23 

spaces, as well as a comfort station that included 

showers and laundry. The park constructed a 

utility building near the residential area in 1966. A 

number of structures called for in Mission 66 

plans — such as two additional NPS residence 

buildings, a concessioner motel, and an expanded 

trailer park — were not built until after the 

Mission 66 period. 

In 2006, the Cottonwood Cove developed area 

was determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register as an historic district. The eligibility 

statement in the determination of eligibility states: 

“The Cottonwood Cove Mission 66 District is 

eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places at the state level of significance under 

Criterion A in its association with events that 

made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of planning and park development, 

entertainment/recreation. The Cottonwood 

Cove Mission 66 District is also eligible under 

Criterion C at the state level of significance, as 

an embodiment of the distinctive 

characteristics of Modern park planning and 

architecture during the Mission 66 period... 

The district is less than 50 years old and is 

eligible under Criteria Consideration G. The 

Mission 66 development at Cottonwood Cove 

is an exceptional example of Mission 66 

development at the park that possesses 

substantial physical integrity to the period of 

significance, 19531966, and contains all of 

the elements of a Mission 66 developed area, 

including the public use resources of a ranger 

station, two campgrounds, concessioner 

amenities, as well as support resources 

including a maintenance utility area and NPS 

employee housing area. The district retains 

intact resources that relate the developed area 

to the Modern movement in terms of 

planning, building mass, spatial relationships, 

proportion, fenestration pattern, texture of 

materials, and structural expression (NPS 

2006).” 

Table 9 presents buildings, sites, and a structure 

located within the developed area, noting whether 

the buildings, sites, or the structure are 

contributing or noncontributing features to the 

historic district. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

97 

TABLE 9. COTTONWOOD COVE DEVELOPED AREA HISTORIC DISTRICT BUILDINGS AND SITES

Resource Name

Resource 

Type

Contributing 

or 

Noncontributing 

Cottonwood Cove Ranger Station (bldg. no. 240) and associated 

features 

Building Contributing 

Cottonwood Cove Upper Campground and associated features Site Contributing 

Cottonwood Cove Boat Launch Area Site Contributing 

Cottonwood Cove Lower Campground and associated features Site Contributing 

Cottonwood Cove Utility Building (bldg. no. 241) Building Contributing 

Cottonwood Cove Fire Station (bldg. no. 242) and associated 

features 

Building Noncontributing 

Cottonwood Cove NPS Residential Area Site Contributing 

Cottonwood Cove Residence No. 201 Building Contributing 

Cottonwood Cove Residence No. 202 Building Contributing 

Cottonwood Cove Residence No. 203 Building Contributing 

Cottonwood Cove Duplex Residence Nos. 204 and 205 Building Noncontributing 

Cottonwood Cove Concessioner Public Use Area Site Contributing 

Cottonwood Cove Concessioner Store Building Noncontributing 

Cottonwood Cove Concessioner Cafe Building Noncontributing 

Cottonwood Cove Road Structure Contributing 

Katherine Landing. Mission 66 park planners 

considered the Katherine Landing developed area 

as “one of the best developments in the recreation 

area” and they sought to expand both existing 

pre-Mission 66 concession and NPS facilities 

through the Mission 66 initiative. Park planners 

wanted to capitalize on the “spacious and 

attractive” harbor as well as the “splendid” beach. 

To this end, the National Park Service built a 

campground, a beach house, and a comfort station 

in 1958. By 1962, the park had added picnic 

shelters, comfort stations, and a boat ramp. The 

concessioner built an additional eight-room motel 

in 1957, and constructed an airstrip and combined 

boathouse-supply building by 1962. However, the 

National Park Service believed the site still did not 

meet visitors’ needs as visitation continued to 

increase. They hoped to build a ranger contact 

station, three new residences, a utility area, and 

enlarge the campground campfire circle. The 

agency also sought to relocate the airstrip, which 

lay in the path of a proposed campground 

expansion. Planners wanted the concessioner to 

expand boat-docking facilities and overnight 

accommodations, enlarge the restaurant, 

construct a boat repair and storage area, and build 

11 new residences. According to park planners, 

these proposed Mission 66 developments would 

bring development up to acceptable levels. 

However, many of the structures, such as the 

ranger station, were constructed after Mission 66; 

others were never built (NPS 2007). 

By 1964, Katherine Landing was the second most 

visited site in the recreation area, with over 

375,000 visitors per year. A 3-bedroom singlefamily home, a duplex, a 250-seat campground 

amphitheater, and 3 comfort stations were also 

completed in 1963. The next year, 117 new 

campsites, with picnic tables and fireplaces, were 

added to the campground (NPS 2007). 

Today, Katherine Landing has a developed marina 

with boat slips, gas dock, restaurant, general store, 

and motel. The developed area also contains a 

campground with amphitheater, a swim beach, 

hiking trails, ranger station, visitor center, 

National Park Service and concession housing and 

maintenance areas, and other support structures 

for marina, law enforcement, and public safety. Of 

these, a duplex and single-family residence, and 

an amphitheater are extant Mission 66 features 

(NPS 2007).
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

98 

Ethnographic Resources 

No ethnographic resources have been formally 

identified or assessed in the land around the 

developed areas. However, it is known that some 

Yuman tribes continue to travel to places like 

Spirit Mountain and Grapevine Canyon for 

ceremonial purposes. In addition, Cleland (2011) 

describes a large-scale ethnographic trail system 

that extends from below Davis Dam to the Gulf of 

California. The trail system is punctuated with 

petroglyphs, geoglyphs, rock alignments, trail 

shrines, and other resources that are prevalent in 

undisturbed areas (Cleland 2011, NPS 1993). 

While these features are often considered to be 

archeological resources, the fact that many are 

incorporated into contemporary traditional 

ceremonies indicates that they may be significant 

as ethnographic resources, as well. It is likely that 

the defined trail system, described by Cleland, 

extends northward into the recreation area. 

Therefore, in undisturbed areas in and around the 

developed areas, there is a potential for 

ethnographic resources. These resources could 

also be viewed as an ethnographic cultural 

landscape(s). 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Visitation Statistics 

Visitation statistics are recorded and managed by 

the NPS Public Use Statistics Office. The reports 

analyzed in in figures 12, 13, 14, and 15 include 

annual park visitation, visitation by month/year, 

and the recreation area year to date visitors by 

district report. 

Annual visitation to the Lake Mohave District of 

the recreation area has fluctuated over the past 

decade, including multiple periods of steep 

increases and decreases. 

Visitors to Lake Mohave generally make up about 

19% of total visitors to the Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area. The annual visitation numbers of 

this specific district, however, do not follow the 

same pattern as that of the overall park. Since the 

year 2000, visitation to the recreation area as a 

whole has not fluctuated in either direction more 

than 4.84%, except for an almost 11% decrease 

between 20012002. In the same period, the Lake 

Mohave District received barely any change in 

visitation. 

Lake Mohave’s peak season — bringing in nearly 

50% of annual visitation — consists of the summer 

months, June through August, with a strong 

shoulder season in April, May, and September. 

The other half of the year, October through 

March, accounts for only 25% of the Lake 

Mohave District’s yearly visitor count. 

These percentages do not differ too greatly from 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area’s overall 

monthly visitation statistics, although the overall 

park’s numbers are somewhat more evenly 

distributed among the three seasons: summer 

brings in 35%, the shoulder season 28%, and the 

off-season accounts for 37% of visitors. It must be 

kept in mind, however, that the off-season is 

comprised of six months, and the other two 

seasons are made up of three months each. Also of 

note is that summer visitation, in July and August 

especially, has dropped off slightly in the Lake 

Mohave District in the past three years, which is 

consistent with park visitation as a whole in those 

two months. 

Visitor Access and Circulation 

The largest airport nearby to the recreation area is 

McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, 

Nevada, approximately 70 miles away from 

Cottonwood Cove, the northernmost developed 

area of Lake Mohave. The most convenient 

airport for direct access to Lake Mohave, 

however, is the expanding Laughlin-Bullhead 

International Airport in Bullhead City, Arizona, 

which is located just outside the park’s southern 

boundary near Katherine Landing. Other small 

airports are located in surrounding communities. 

Vehicular access to Cottonwood Cove is along a 

road of the same name, which branches off of U.S. 

Route 95 from Searchlight, Nevada. Several 

highways provide access to Katherine Landing via 

Katherine Spur from Davis Dam Road — Arizona 

Route 68 from the east, Arizona Route 95 from the 

south, or Nevada Route 136 from the west. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

99 

FIGURE 12. LAKE MOHAVE DISTRICT – ANNUAL VISITATION 

TO THE LAKE MOHAVE DISTRICT OF LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

FIGURE 13. LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA – ANNUAL VISITATION TO

LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, INCLUDING THE LAKE MOHAVE DISTRICT

1,220,000

1,320,000

1,420,000

1,520,000

1,620,000

1,720,000

1,820,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of Visitors

Year

7,400,000

7,600,000

7,800,000

8,000,000

8,200,000

8,400,000

8,600,000

8,800,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of Visitors

Year
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

100 

FIGURE 14. LAKE MOHAVE DISTRICT – MONTHLY VISITATION TO THE 

LAKE MOHAVE DISTRICT OF LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

FIGURE 15. LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA – MONTHLY VISITATION TO

LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, INCLUDING THE LAKE MOHAVE DISTRICT

25,000

75,000

125,000

175,000

225,000

275,000

325,000

375,000

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Number of Visitors 

Month

Month
Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

101 

Fees exist to enter the park and collection booths 

are set up on entry roads. Private vehicles and 

motorcycles are charged $10, which covers all 

passengers and is valid for 7 days. A yearly 

(January 1 – December 31) vehicle pass is another 

option for private vehicles and motorcycles, at a 

cost of $30. Individuals, which include hikers, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians, are charged $5 per 

person for a 7-day pass, or $30 for a yearly pass. 

Vessel fees are separate, and the cost is $16 per 

vessel for up to 7 days or $30 for a yearly pass. The 

Federal Lands passes — Senior ($10 for a lifetime; 

if over 62 years of age), Access (free for a lifetime; 

for those with a permanent medical disability), 

and Annual ($80 for 1 year from month of 

purchase; available to anyone) — are sold and 

accepted. 

A network of backcountry roads has been 

developed to provide access to the lakeshore and 

other areas of interest in the backcountry. 

Approved roads are signed with a yellow arrow. 

Driving on roads or trails not marked with the 

yellow arrow is prohibited, as is driving off-road, 

in washes, or cross-country. 

Katherine Landing has the largest percentage of 

boating access at Lake Mohave, as it is the largest 

developed section of the recreation area in terms 

of existing marina slips (824). The most common 

types of boats used to get around the lake are 

runabouts (defined as less than 24 ft in length) and 

personal watercraft, the latter of which are more 

common on Lake Mohave than on Lake Mead. 

Both the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing experience congestion during busy times 

because of long back-ups behind the launch ramp. 

At Katherine Landing especially, parking at the 

lakeshore is not sufficient during these periods 

and visitors must park far away in one of the 

multitude of small lots surrounding the area. 

Visitor conflicts, both verbal and physical, arise 

due to the inconvenience of parking, long waits on 

the boat launch, and cutting in line. 

Visitor Recreation and Activities 

Lakes Mead and Mohave are oases in the desert; 

and therefore are highly popular for water-based 

recreation. These activities include motor boating, 

house boating, sailboarding and sailing, canoeing, 

kayaking, rafting, waterskiing, fishing, 

wakeboarding, swimming, SCUBA diving, use of 

personal watercraft, and boat touring. 

Visitors also participate in land-based recreation 

such as picnicking, nature study, hiking, biking, 

and camping along the lakeshore. Guided hikes 

depart from a variety of locations at different 

times, and include destinations such as the 

Katherine Mine, Hamblin Mountain, and 

Fortification Hill. 

Visitor Facilities, 

Services, and Amenities 

Both Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

have concessioners that each have a number of 

facilities and offer a variety of services and 

amenities. These year-round resorts have diverse 

accommodation options, including motel rooms, 

RV sites with full hookups (electric, water, and 

sewage), and houseboat rentals. Although these 

overnight facilities exist, the limited variety and 

current quality are not meeting current visitor 

needs and preferences, and therefore have 

extremely low occupancy rates. For instance, 

there are not enough campsites large enough to 

accommodate recreational vehicles, and there are 

too few spaces with hookups. Katherine Landing 

also faces accessibility challenges for those with 

mobility impairments. 

The resorts also have their own dining 

establishments and gift shops that offer the usual 

souvenir clothing and gifts, as well as, fishing 

licenses, bait, and tackle. These facilities get very 

crowded at peak periods. In addition, coinoperated laundry machines and public restrooms 

are available on the premises. Cottonwood Cove 

has recreational facilities that include a sand 

volleyball court, shuffle board, and horseshoe pit. 

The resorts manage the marinas and boat launches 

on their respective properties. In addition to 

houseboats, visitors can also rent powerboats, 

fishing boats and personal watercraft, and 

accessories like water skis, kneeboards, and 

wakeboards are also available. The boat launches 

have wide ramps with easy access to parking and 

tie-down areas. For additional convenience, the 

marinas rent out boat slips and secure dry storage 

areas. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

102 

Although there is no visitor center in the Lake 

Mohave District, the ranger station at Katherine 

Landing allows the public to make reservations 

for guided hikes and the staff provides assistance. 

Gift shops also provide park information. 

Visitor Safety 

Congestion at launch sites and on access roads not 

only detracts from the visitor experience, but 

hinders the ability of park staff to respond to 

emergencies. Physical altercations have been 

known to arise because of the high level of 

frustration, especially when visitors cut in the lines 

at the launch ramps. 

Safety issues also exist in regards to parking at 

each location. At Cottonwood Cove, the parking 

area is susceptible to flash flooding, particularly 

near the launch ramp. At Katherine Landing, most 

visitors must park in one of the various small lots 

and walk a fair distance in temperatures over 

100F, which can cause heat exhaustion or even 

heat stroke. 

Cottonwood Cove, in addition to having a marina 

and boat launch, has two no-boat areas. The 

proximity of these conflicting uses leads to 

conflicts among the user groups and safety issues. 

A number of safety concerns exist simply because 

of the nature of the recreational opportunities, 

such as the need to wear a personal flotation 

device and to be mindful of the weather. Based on 

the current location of the Cottonwood Cove 

ranger station, visitors do not currently stop and 

receive information regarding safety. 

Fire hazards also exist because of the current close 

proximity of long-term trailers at Katherine 

Landing, which would allow for a fire to spread 

quickly from one trailer to another. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Cottonwood Cove is located on the west shore of 

Lake Mohave within Clark County in Nevada. 

The nearest community is Searchlight, Nevada, 

located 15 miles west of the lake. Boulder City, 

Nevada, is 40 miles north of Searchlight, and the 

Las Vegas metropolitan area (including North Las 

Vegas and Henderson) is 60 miles north, 

approximately an hour’s drive from Searchlight. 

Katherine Landing is located near Davis Dam on 

the southeastern shore of Lake Mohave, within 

Mohave County in Arizona. Bullhead City, 

Arizona, and Laughlin, Nevada, are the two 

closest cities to Katherine Landing, each located 

within 8 miles of the Katherine Landing marina. 

Kingman, Arizona, is approximately 35 miles east 

of Katherine Landing. 

Economic impacts presented in this report are 

calculated using multipliers for Clark County and 

Mohave County. The actual influence area for 

economic and social considerations associated 

with Lake Mohave encompasses Searchlight, 

Boulder City, and Laughlin, Nevada, and Bullhead 

City and Kingman, Arizona. Although Las Vegas is 

located within Clark County, impacts on the Las 

Vegas metropolitan area from actions at 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing are 

considered negligible. 

Regional Land Use 

Lake Mohave has a surface area of 28,260 acres 

and 150 miles of shoreline. Portions of the 

recreation area, including a 300 ft zone around the 

shoreline of both lakes, are jointly administered by 

the National Park Service for recreation and 

resource protection and by the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (BOR) for project purposes and 

security areas at and around Davis Dam. The 

reclamation bureau manages the lake level, and 

there is an annual fluctuation between the lake 

elevations of 630 ft and 645 ft above mean sea level 

(NPS 2002). 

The Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

boundaries typically extend between one and five 

miles from the shoreline of Lake Mohave, and 

large tracts of land within the recreation area are 

managed jointly by the National Park Service and 

Bureau of Reclamation. These areas include the 

Eldorado Wilderness near the southern end of 

Black Canyon, the Ireteba Wilderness near 

Nevada Bay and Cottonwood Cove, the Nellis 

Wash Wilderness, and the Spirit Mountain 

Wilderness near Nevada Telephone Cove. All of 

these areas are on the Nevada side of the lake. 

The recreation area around Lake Mohave borders 

arid, mountainous land in unincorporated Clark 

County in Nevada and Mohave County in 

Arizona. Development within Laughlin and 

Bullhead City approaches the border of the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

103 

recreation area, only a few miles from the services 

at Katherine Landing. 

Population 

The region surrounding Lake Mohave, while 

sparsely populated, has experienced high 

population growth rates over the past 20 years. 

Population growth rates in Clark and Mohave 

counties were approximately five times faster than 

the national growth rate between the 1990 and 

2000 censuses, and have remained two to four 

times faster than the national average over the past 

decade. Table 10 presents population data for 

communities surrounding Lake Mohave. 

The population of Searchlight was 576 in 2000, 

according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A 2009 

projection was not available for Searchlight as of 

March 2011. 

The recent economic downturn has slowed 

population growth, especially since 2006, and 

current forecasts for regional population growth 

over the upcoming decade are more in line with 

national average estimates. The census bureau 

projects population growth of approximately 

1.0% per year through 2020. 

Regional Economic Status and Forecast 

The average monthly unemployment rate in Clark 

County in 2010 was 14.9%, among the highest in 

the nation. Mohave County had an 

unemployment rate of 10.1% in 2010, according 

to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. After several 

years of economic expansion, employment 

peaked in 2006 and has declined significantly over 

the past 4 years. 

According to the 5-year estimates in the census 

bureau’s 20052009 American Community 

Survey, per capita income in Mohave County was 

$21,321 in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars. In 

Clark County, per capita income was $27,395, 

while U.S. per capita income was $27,041. 

Table 11 presents employment statistics by 

industry in Clark County in 2003, 2006 (the year 

that employment peaked), and 2009. Note that the 

number of employed people fell by almost 100,000 

(11.8%) between 2006 and 2009. 

Leisure and hospitality industries employed over 

one-third of all Clark County residents in 2009, 

followed by trade, transportation, and utilities and 

professional and business services. The 

construction sector experienced the greatest 

decline in employment in both absolute and 

percentage terms, losing approximately 

45,000 workers (41.2%) between 2006 and 2009. 

The current, depressed state of the construction 

industry in Clark County has kept construction 

costs down and ensures that employees will be 

available for the construction projects proposed 

in alternatives 2 and 3. 

Mohave County’s labor force is significantly 

smaller than that of Clark County. According to 

the labor statistics bureau, total wages for Clark 

County workers in 2009 were $29.7 billion. Total 

wages for Mohave County workers in 2009 were 

$1.1 billion. 

Total employment in Mohave County declined by 

19.4% between 2006 and 2009, as listed in 

table 12. 

Trade, transportation, and utilities industries 

employed over one quarter of the Mohave County 

workforce in 2009, representing the largest share 

of total employment. Education and health 

services and leisure and hospitality industries 

were the next largest employers. As in Clark 

County, the construction sector in Mohave 

County experienced the largest decline in 

absolute and percentage terms between 2006 and 

2009, losing approximately 5,500 jobs, or 62.9% of 

construction industry employment. 

Within the leisure and hospitality industry, 

tourism is a key component of the economy of the 

Lake Mohave area. Visitors to Cottonwood Cove 

and Katherine Landing contribute to the local 

economy through the purchase and rental of 

watercraft and equipment, recreational 

equipment, and expenditures on lodging, food 

and beverage, and other travel-related services. 

Regional economic recovery will be dependent on 

tourism and therefore on the overall health of the 

U.S. economy. The construction industry will 

continue to be depressed due to overbuilding that 

has resulted in an excess supply of housing 

inventory and because of low demand resulting 

from declining employment in all sectors of the 

economy. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

104 

TABLE 10. POPULATION DATA FOR COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING LAKE MOHAVE

Location 1990 2000

CAGRa 

1990–2000 2009

CAGR 

2000-2009 

Bullhead City, AZ 21,951 33,769 4.4% 40,747 2.1% 

Kingman, AZ 12,722 20,069 4.7% 27,521 3.6% 

Mohave County, AZ 93,497 155,032 5.2% 194,825 2.6% 

Boulder City, NV 12,567 14,966 1.8% 14,896 -0.1% 

Las Vegas, NV 258,295 478,434 6.4% 567,641 1.9% 

North Las Vegas, NV 47,707 115,488 9.2% 224,387 7.7% 

Henderson, NV 64,942 175,381 10.4% 256,445 4.3% 

Clark County, NV 741,459 1,375,765 6.4% 1,902,834 3.7% 

United States 248,709,873 281,421,906 1.2% 307,006,550 1.0% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Census data; 2009 data from American Community Survey 2005-2009.

a. Compound Annual Growth Rate.

TABLE 11. EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY IN CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

Industry 2003 2006 2009

Growth 

2006–2009 Share 2009

Total Employed 676,932 820,983 723,820 -11.8% 100%

Construction 74,757 108,573 63,860 -41.2% 8.8%

Manufacturing 22,015 26,922 21,113 -21.6% 2.9%

Trade, Transport, and Utilities 132,549 156,012 148,544 -4.8% 20.5%

Professional and Business Services 86,561 115,212 99,254 -13.9% 13.7%

Education and Health Services 50,377 60,030 67,502 12.4% 9.3%

Leisure and Hospitality 238,726 271,700 251,347 -7.5% 34.7%

All Other Industries 71,947 82,534 72,200 -12.5% 10.0% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

TABLE 12. EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY IN MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA

Industry 2003 2006 2009

Growth 

2006–2009 Share 2009

Total Employed 39,124 46,823 37,739 -19.4% 100%

Construction 5,828 7,297 2,707 -62.9% 7.2%

Manufacturing 3,303 3,987 2,853 -28.4% 7.6%

Trade, Transport, and Utilities 10,477 11,798 10,443 -11.5% 27.7%

Professional and Business Services 3,475 4,033 3,262 -19.1% 8.6%

Education and Health Services 5,635 6,927 7,667 10.7% 20.3%

Leisure and Hospitality 5,730 6,885 6,026 -12.5% 16.0%

All Other Industries 4,676 5,896 4,781 -18.9% 12.7% 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment

105 

Other Park Concessioners 

In addition to the concession operations at 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing, there 

is a concession-run marina and watercraft rental 

operation at Willow Beach on the Arizona side of 

Lake Mohave, approximately 50 miles north of 

Katherine Landing. Six concession-run marinas 

and one tour boat service operate on Lake Mead, 

including facilities at Lake Mead Marina, Temple 

Bar, Echo Bay, Callville Bay, Overton Beach, 

Hemenway Harbor, and Las Vegas Wash. The 

tour boat operates out of Hemenway Harbor. 

Current Impacts of Visitor Spending 

The report “Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities from National Park Visitation and 

Payroll, 2009” estimates that total visitor spending 

associated with visits to the Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area was $265.7 million in 2009 (NPS 

20011). Dividing this figure by 7.67 million 

visitors, average spending per visitor was 

approximately $35. This includes expenses within 

the local region, excluding park entry fees (the 

local region is defined as a 60-mile radius around 

the park). Average spending figures are based on 

visitor survey data and national averages for all 

NPS units. In 2009, lodging and food and beverage 

expenses each accounted for around 25% of total 

spending, transportation expenses (mainly 

gasoline) accounted for 15%, groceries accounted 

for 9%, other retail 14%, and recreation and 

entertainment 10%. Of course, many visitors to 

the recreation area were day visitors or visitors 

driving through the area. 

This visitor spending is estimated to support 

approximately 2,400 jobs in the local area 

(including concessioner and NPS jobs), 

accounting for $79.4 million in labor income and 

$130.2 million value added to the economy in 

2009. Dividing labor income by jobs, annual wages 

averaged $33,000 for these positions. 

Local economic impacts of visitor spending are 

estimated in the Money Generation Model 

version 2 (MGM2), a set of Microsoft Excel 

workbooks for estimating the economic impacts 

of NPS visitor spending on a local region (Stynes 

et al. 2009). This model uses multipliers for local 

areas around each park. The multipliers capture 

both the direct and secondary economic effects in 

gateway communities around the parks in terms 

of jobs, labor income, and value added. Value 

added is the sum of labor income, profits and 

rents, and indirect business taxes. 

Economic impacts of current visitor spending 

specifically at the Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing concessions are presented in 

“Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences” of this 

document under “Impacts of the No-action 

Alternative.”

PARK OPERATIONS 

The general management plan divided the Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area into 9 

management zones that generally correspond with 

developed areas in the recreation area. The 

Katherine Zone and Cottonwood Zone are 

relevant to these development concept plans. The 

subsequent lake management plan established 

24 management zones for the recreation area 

where zones 14 correspond to Lake Mohave, 

including Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing. 

According to the Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area Business Plan (NPS 1999), staffing 

requirements are not being met to adequately 

provide visitor services, facility upkeep and 

maintenance, and resource management 

throughout the recreation area. 

Total salary and payroll benefits for the 

379 employees of the recreation area totaled 

$20.6 million in 2009 (NPS 2011). The economic 

impact of NPS payroll was estimated using 

multipliers for IMPLAN, the economic impact 

assessment software system, sector 439 (federal 

government payroll). The Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area payroll contributed $25.8 million 

in value added to the local economy in 2009 and 

supported an additional 46 jobs in the local 

economy. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

106 

 
E n v i r o n m e n t a l

C o n s e q u e n c e s
108 

Back of Divider 
109 

CHAPTER 4: 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter analyzes the environmental impacts 

of implementing the three alternatives on natural 

resources, cultural resources, visitor use and 

experience, socioeconomics, and park operations. 

The analysis is the basis for comparing the 

beneficial and adverse effects of implementing the 

alternatives. 

This chapter begins with a description of the 

methods and definitions used impact topic. A 

description of the related laws, regulations, and 

policies and thresholds used in the impact analysis 

are then presented for each impact topic. Impact 

analysis discussions are organized by impact topic 

and each alternative. The existing conditions for 

all of the impact topics that are analyzed were 

identified in “Chapter 3: Affected Environment.” 

All of the impact topics are assessed for each 

alternative. The analysis of the no-action 

alternative (the continuation of current 

management trends) identifies the future 

conditions in the park if no major changes to 

facilities or NPS management occurred. The two 

action alternatives are then compared to the 

no-action alternative to identify the incremental 

changes in conditions that would occur because of 

changes in park facilities, uses, and management. 

METHODOLOGY 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on 

NPS staff knowledge of resources and the project 

area, public input, review of existing literature, 

and information provided by experts in the 

National Park Service or other agencies and 

American Indian tribes. The impact analysis for 

each impact topic involved the following steps: 

 identify the area that could be affected 

 compare the area of potential effect with the 

resources that are present 

 identify the intensity, context, duration, and 

type of effect, both as a result of this action 

and from a cumulative effects perspective as 

compared to the baseline (no-action 

alternative) 

Impacts described in this section are based on the 

conceptual plan for the alternatives under 

consideration. Effects are quantified where 

possible; in the absence of quantitative data, best 

professional judgment prevailed. All the impacts 

have been assessed assuming that mitigating 

measures described in “Chapter 2: Alternatives, 

Including the Preferred Alternative” would be 

implemented to minimize or avoid impacts. 

The environmental consequences for each impact 

topic were identified and characterized based on 

impact type, intensity, context, and duration, 

which are generally defined in the following 

sections. 

Types of Effects 

Beneficial Effects. These effects are defined as 

positive changes in the condition or appearance of 

the resource or changes that move the resource 

toward a desired condition. 

Adverse Effects. These effects are defined as 

changes that move the resource away from a 

desired condition or detract from its appearance 

or condition. 

Direct Effects. These effects are caused by an 

action and occur at the same time and place as the 

action. 

Indirect Effects. These effects are also caused by 

the action and occur later or farther away, but are 

still reasonably foreseeable. 

Intensity of Effects 

“Intensity” refers to the degree or magnitude to 

which a resource would be beneficially or 

adversely affected. Each impact was identified as 

negligible, minor, moderate, or major. Because 

definitions of intensity (negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major) vary by impact topic, 

intensity definitions are provided separately for 

each impact topic analyzed in this environmental 

impact statement. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

110 

Context 

“Context” refers to the setting within which an 

impact may occur, and can be site specific, local, 

parkwide, or regionwide. In this analysis, many 

economic impacts are local and regionwide and 

many impacts to park operations are site specific. 

Site-specific Impacts. These impacts would occur 

at the location of the action. 

Local Impacts. These impacts would occur within 

the general vicinity of the project area. 

Parkwide Impacts. These impacts would affect a 

greater portion outside the project area yet within 

the park. 

Regionwide Impacts. These impacts would 

extend beyond park boundaries. 

Duration of Effects 

“Duration” refers to how long an impact would 

last. Unless otherwise specified, in these plans, 

“short-term” and “long-term” are used to describe 

the duration of the impacts. 

Short-term. The short-term impact would be 

temporary in nature, such as impacts associated 

with construction. Typically short-term impacts 

would last as long as construction was taking place 

(assumed to be a two- to three-year period in this 

analysis). 

Long-term. The long-term impact would last 

more than one year and could be permanent in 

nature, such as the loss of soil because of the 

construction of a new facility. More specifically, 

long-term impacts would be expected to occur 

throughout the concession contract period, which 

is assumed to be 10 years, with the potential for 

contract extensions/renewals beyond the initial 

10-year period. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on 

the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, regardless of what agency (federal 

or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other 

actions” (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

1508.7). Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant, 

actions taking place over a period of time. 

Each cumulative impact analysis is additive, 

considering the overall impact of the alternative 

when combined with effects of other actions — 

both inside and outside the recreation area — that 

have occurred or that would likely occur in the 

foreseeable future. To determine potential 

cumulative impacts, past, present, and future 

potential actions and developments within and 

surrounding each developed area were considered 

by the planning team. Some of these actions are in 

the early planning stages and the qualitative 

evaluation of cumulative impacts was based on a 

general description of the projects. 

In this analysis, the geographic area in which 

cumulative impacts are analyzed includes Clark 

County, Nevada, and Mohave County, Arizona. 

Specific projects or ongoing activities with the 

potential to cumulatively affect natural and 

cultural resources, visitor experience and safety, 

socioeconomics, or park operations (impact 

topics) that are evaluated for the project are 

identified in these plans and described in the 

following list. Some impact topics would be 

affected by several or all of the described 

activities, while others could be affected little or 

not at all. How each alternative would 

incrementally contribute to potential impacts for a 

resource is included in the cumulative effects 

discussion for each impact topic. 

 The damming of the Colorado River at 

Hoover Dam (Lake Mead) and Davis Dam 

(Lake Mohave) and the introduction of sport 

fish has diminished the habitat required for 

successful recruitment of the federally listed 

razorback sucker and bonytail chub. The 

damming of the river and fluctuating water 

levels also greatly reduced natural riparian 

habitats used by the federally listed Southwest 

willow flycatcher. 

 Reconstruction of the Katherine Landing 

access road is proposed from the road's 

intersection with Davis Dam Highway to the 

boat launch ramp at Katherine Landing 

Marina on Lake Mohave. The existing road 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

111 

suffers from poor pavement conditions, 

narrow travel lanes, inadequate drainage, and 

heavy traffic volumes. Reconstruction of the 

road would alleviate these problems, 

improving safety and offering a more 

desirable visitor experience. 

 In 2008, the Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area (NRA) finalized a Wireless 

Telecommunication Facilities Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (wireless 

telecommunication facilities plan) that 

identifies areas within the park suitable for 

new cellular towers. The Cottonwood Cove 

developed area is considered suitable in the 

plan and new structures could be permitted in 

the future. While specific locations have not 

been identified, cell towers would be 

constructed in previously disturbed areas. 

 The Lake Mead NRA Exotic Plant Management 

Plan (exotic plant management plan) was 

approved in 2011. The overall goal of the plan 

is to maintain native plant communities by 

preventing and removing exotic plants using 

an integrated approach that maximizes the 

effectiveness of the action while minimizing 

the undesirable impacts of the exotic plant 

and the management action. The plan would 

enhance the overall effectiveness of exotic 

plant management in the park by consistently 

and comprehensively incorporating exotic 

plant prevention measures into park 

operations and in NPS-controlled activities 

such as concessions, contracts, research 

permits, special use permits, and other 

activities undertaken by non-NPS entities but 

under the authority of the park. 

 The 2004 Lake Mead NRA Fire Management 

Plan (fire management plan) provides 

guidance on management of fires in the 

recreation area. The plan authorizes the use of 

wildland fire and prescribed fire to restore 

ecosystems to desired resource conditions, 

including the use of prescribed fire for exotic 

plant control. 

 The 2003 Lake Mead NRA Lake Management 

Plan (LMP) authorized the expansion of the 

marina at Cottonwood Cove to 484 slips. The 

plan directed that the marina at Katherine 

Landing should remain at approximately the 

current size, with an authorized capacity of 

824 slips. The plan also reduced the use of 

carbureted two-stroke engines until they are 

banned from the recreation area after 2012. 

Other actions to improve resource conditions 

related to shoreline and boating conflicts, 

litter and sanitation, sensitive wildlife habitat, 

and water quality. 

 Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC. is proposing 

to develop an approximately 370 megawatt 

(mW) wind energy facility consisting of up to 

161 wind turbine generators. The project is 

located on 24,383 acres of public lands 

between the community of Searchlight, 

Nevada, and the Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area. The proposed project would 

require the construction of new access roads, 

an overhead transmission line, two electrical 

substations, an electrical interconnection 

facility/switchyard, an operations and 

maintenance building, meteorological masts, 

as well as temporary and permanent areas for 

construction staging and storage. 

 Lands surrounding the developed areas have 

been altered by past and ongoing actions such 

as past occupation by feral burros (which have 

been significantly reduced over the past 

decade), maintenance and use of approved 

backcountry roads, illegal off-road vehicle 

driving, power line corridors, and the spread 

of nonnative plants. 

CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS 

FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Natural Resources  Native Plant 

Communities and Soils 

Guiding Laws, Regulations, and Policies. Soil 

resources would be protected by preventing or 

minimizing adverse potentially irreversible 

impacts to soils, in accordance with NPS 

Management Policies 2006. Director’s Order 77, 

Natural Resource Management, and Natural 

Resource Management Reference Manual #77

specifies soil resource management objectives. 

These management objectives are defined as: 

(1) preserve intact, functioning, natural systems by 

preserving native soils and the processes of soil 

genesis in a condition undisturbed by humans to 

the extent possible; (2) maintain significant 

cultural objects and scenes by conserving soils 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

112 

consistent with maintenance of the associated 

historic practices, and by minimizing soil erosion 

to the extent possible; (3) protect property and 

provide safety by working to ensure that 

developments and their management take into 

account soil limitations, behavior, and hazards; 

and, (4) minimize soil loss and disturbance caused 

by special use activities and ensure that soils retain 

their productivity and potential for reclamation. 

The NPS Organic Act of 1916 directs the park to 

conserve the scenery and the natural objects 

unimpaired for future generations. The NPS 

management policies defines the general 

principles for managing biological resources as 

maintaining all native plants and animals as part of 

the natural ecosystem. When NPS management 

actions cause native vegetation to be removed, 

then the National Park Service will seek to ensure 

that such removals will not cause unacceptable 

impacts on native resource, natural processes, or 

other park resources. 

Exotic species, also referred to as nonnative or 

alien, are not a natural component of the 

ecosystem. They are managed, up to and including 

eradication, under the criteria specified in the 

NPS management policies and Director’s 

Order 77. 

Intensity Thresholds. 

Negligible impacts — Soils would not be affected or 

the effect would be below or at the lower end of 

detection. Vegetation would not be affected or 

some individual native plants could be affected, 

but the changes would be so slight that they would 

not be of any measurable or perceptible 

consequence to the species' population. 

Minor impacts — Soils and some individual native 

plants would be affected over a relatively small 

area and the effects would be local. The effects 

could include changes in the abundance or 

distribution of individuals in a local area, but not 

changes that affect the viability of local 

populations. 

Moderate impacts — Soils and native plants would be 

affected over a relatively small area or multiple 

sites and would be readily noticeable. Impacts 

would cause a change in the abundance or 

distribution of local populations, but would not 

affect the viability of regional populations. 

Major impacts — A substantial, highly noticeable 

effect on soils and native plant populations would 

occur over a relatively large area. Impacts would 

cause a change in the abundance or distribution of 

a local or regional population to the extent that 

the population would not be likely to recover or 

would return to a sustainable level. 

Natural Resources – Wildlife 

Guiding Laws, Regulations, and Policies. The 

NPS Organic Act, which directs parks to conserve 

wildlife unimpaired for future generations, is 

interpreted by the National Park Service to mean 

native animal life should be protected and 

perpetuated as part of the recreation area’s natural 

ecosystem. Natural processes are relied on to 

control populations of native species to the 

greatest extent possible. The restoration of native 

species is a high priority. Management goals for 

wildlife include maintaining components and 

processes of naturally evolving park ecosystems, 

including natural abundance, diversity, and 

ecological integrity of plants and animals. The 

recreation area also manages and monitors 

wildlife cooperatively with the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department (AZGFD) and the Nevada 

Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 makes it 

unlawful to kill, capture, buy, sell, import, or 

export migratory birds, eggs, feathers, or other 

parts. Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of 

Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,” 

issued in January 2001, restated the value of 

migratory birds and directed agencies to develop 

and implement memoranda of understanding with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to 

protect them. The NPS memorandum of 

understanding with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

was signed April 12, 2010 and establishes how the 

both agencies will jointly promote the 

conservation of migratory birds by incorporating 

bird conservation measures into agency actions 

and planning processes. It also identifies NPS 

actions that could result in the unintentional take 

of migratory birds or impacts on their habitats, so 

that strategies can be developed to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate the effects of those actions. 

Intensity Thresholds. 

Negligible impacts — Effects on wildlife and aquatic 

species would be at or below the level of detection 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

113 

and the changes would be so slight that they 

would not be of any measurable or perceptible 

consequence to species’ populations. 

Minor impacts — Effects on wildlife and aquatic 

species would be detectable, although the effects 

would be local. The effects could include changes 

in the abundance or distribution of individuals in 

a local area, but not changes that affect the 

viability of local populations. 

Moderate impacts — Effects on wildlife and aquatic 

species would be readily detectable and would 

cause a change in the abundance or distribution of 

local populations, but would not affect the 

viability of regional populations. 

Major impacts — Effects on wildlife and aquatic 

species would be substantial, highly noticeable, 

and might result in widespread change and be 

permanent in nature. Impacts would cause a 

change in the abundance or distribution of a local 

or regional population to the extent that the 

population would not be likely to recover or 

would return to a sustainable level. 

Natural Resources – Threatened, 

Endangered, and Special Status Species 

Guiding Laws, Regulations, and Policies.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

mandates all federal agencies determine how to 

use their existing authorities to further the 

purposes of the Endangered Species Act to aid in 

recovering listed species, and to address existing 

and potential conservation issues. Section 7(a)(2) 

states that each federal agency shall, in 

consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, 

insure that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat. 

NPS management policies directs the parks to 

survey for, protect, and strive to recover all 

species native to national park system units that 

are listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(section 4.4.2.3). It sets the direction to meet the 

obligations of the Act. The NPS management 

policies also directs the National Park Service to 

inventory, monitor, and manage state and locally 

listed species, and other native species that are of 

special management concern to the parks, to 

maintain their natural distribution and 

abundance. 

The following impact intensity definitions are 

consistent with the language used to determine 

effects on threatened and endangered species 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

Intensity Thresholds. 

No effect — The alternative would have no effect on 

the species or critical habitat if present. 

Not likely to adversely effect — The alternative would 

be expected to have insignificant or discountable 

effects on a species or critical habitat (i.e., 

extremely unlikely to occur and not able to be 

meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) or 

be completely beneficial. 

Likely to adversely effect — The alternative would 

have a direct or indirect adverse effect on a 

species or critical habitat and the effect is 

measurable and likely to occur. 

Natural Resources – Floodplains 

Guiding Laws, Regulations, and Policies. 

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain 

Management,” requires an examination of 

impacts to floodplains and of the potential risk 

involved in placing facilities within floodplains as 

well as the protection of floodplain values. The 

National Park Service established procedures for 

implementing floodplain protection and 

management actions in units of the national park 

system as required by Executive Order 11988 and 

Director’s Order 77-2, Floodplain Management, in 

the NPS Floodplain Management Procedural 

Manual 77-2. When it is not practicable to locate 

or relocate development or inappropriate human 

activities to a site outside and not affecting the 

floodplain, a statement of findings for floodplains 

is required to be prepared (see appendix C). 

Intensity Thresholds. 

Negligible impacts — Impacts on floodplain functions 

and values would be so slight that it would not be 

of any measurable or perceptible consequence. 

There would be no flood hazards to people or 

property. 

Minor impacts — Impacts would result in a 

detectable change to floodplain functions and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

114 

values, but the expected change would be small, of 

little consequence, and local. There would be a 

slight change to the flood hazards to people or 

property. 

Moderate impacts — Impacts would result in a 

change to floodplain functions and values that 

would be readily detectable, measurable, 

consequential, and local. There would be a 

noticeable change to flood hazards to people or 

property. 

Major impacts — Impacts would result in a 

substantial change to floodplain functions and 

values and could affect large portions of the 

associated washes or basins. There would be a 

substantial change to flood hazards to people or 

property. 

Cultural Resources – General 

Guiding Laws, Regulations, and Policies. This 

environmental impact statement addresses the 

effects of the three alternatives on cultural 

resources that are proposed by actions in these 

development concept plans. The method for 

assessing effects on cultural resources is designed 

to comply with the requirements of both the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA), and with implementing the 

following regulations: 40 CFR1500 and 36 CFR 

800. Accordingly, the assessment of effects 

discusses the following characteristics of effects: 

 direct and indirect effects 

 duration of the effect (short term, long term) 

 context of the effect (site-specific, local, 

regional) 

 intensity of the effect (negligible, minor, 

moderate, major, both adverse and beneficial) 

 cumulative nature of the effect 

In accordance with 36 CFR 800, the regulations 

implementing Section 106 of National Historic 

Preservation Act, effects on cultural resources are 

identified and evaluated by 

 Determining the area of potential effect (APE) 

[800.4(a)] 

 Applying the criteria of adverse effect to 

affected historic properties in the area of 

potential effect [800.5.(a)(1)] is as follows: 

 An adverse effect is found when an 

undertaking may alter, directly or 

indirectly, any of the characteristics of a 

historic property that qualify the property 

for inclusion in the National Register in a 

manner that would diminish the integrity 

of the property’s location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Consideration shall be given 

to all qualifying characteristics of a 

historic property, including those that 

may have been identified subsequent to 

the original evaluation of the property’s 

eligibility for the National Register of 

Historic Places. Adverse effects may 

include reasonably foreseeable effects 

caused by the undertaking that may occur 

later in time, be farther removed in 

distance, or be cumulative. Examples of 

adverse effects are provided in 

800.5(a)(2). 

 A finding of no adverse effect is found 

when the undertaking’s effects do not 

meet the criteria of 800.5(a)(1) [800.5.(b)]. 

 Considering ways to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate or otherwise resolve adverse effects. 

The following are considered: 

 Consultation with the Nevada and 

Arizona state historic preservation 

officers / tribal preservation officers and 

others to develop and evaluate strategies 

to mitigate adverse effects [800.6]. 

 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations and Director’s Order 12 call 

for the discussion of mitigating impacts 

and an analysis of how effective the 

mitigation would be used in reducing the 

intensity of an impact, such as reducing it 

from moderate to minor intensity. Any 

resultant reduction in impact intensity is, 

however, an estimate of the effectiveness 

of mitigation under the National 

Environmental Policy Act only. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

115 

 Such reduction in impact intensity does 

not suggest that the level of effect as 

defined by Section 106 and 36 CFR 800 is 

similarly reduced. Cultural resources are 

nonrenewable resources and adverse 

effects generally consume, diminish, or 

destroy the original historic materials or 

form, resulting in a loss of integrity that 

can never be recovered. Therefore, 

although actions determined to have an 

adverse effect under Section 106 and 

36 CFR 800 may be mitigated, the effect 

remains adverse. 

Section 106 summaries are included in the impact 

analysis sections of the “Impacts on Cultural 

Resources.” The Section 106 summaries provide 

an assessment of effect of the undertaking 

(implementation of the alternative) on historic 

properties, based on the Section 106 regulations. 

Cultural Resources – 

Archeological Resources 

Intensity Thresholds. 

Negligible impacts — Impact is at the lowest level 

of detection. Impacts would be measurable but 

with no perceptible consequences. For purposes 

of Section 106, the determination of effect would 

be no adverse effect. 

Minor impacts — Disturbance of a site(s) results in 

little loss of integrity. The determination of effect 

for Section106 would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate impacts — Site(s) is disturbed but not 

obliterated. The determination of effect for 

Section106 would be adverse effect. 

Major impacts — Site(s) is obliterated. The 

determination of effect for Section106 would be 

adverse effect. 

Cultural Resources – Historic Structures 

Negligible impacts — Impacts would be at the 

lowest levels of detection — barely perceptible 

and measurable. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. 

Minor impacts — Impacts would affect characterdefining features but would not diminish the 

overall integrity of the building or structure. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of 

effect would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate impacts — Impacts would alter a 

character-defining feature(s), diminishing the 

overall integrity of the building or structure to the 

extent that its National Register eligibility could 

be jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

Major impacts — Impacts would alter characterdefining features, diminishing the integrity of the 

building or structure to the extent that it would no 

longer be eligible to be listed on the National 

Register. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

Cultural Resources – Cultural Landscapes 

Negligible impacts — Impacts would be at the 

lowest levels of detection — barely perceptible 

and measurable. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. 

Minor impacts — Impacts would affect characterdefining features or patterns but would not 

diminish the overall integrity of the landscape. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of 

effect would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate impacts — Impacts would alter 

character-defining features or patterns, 

diminishing the overall integrity of the landscape 

to the extent that its National Register eligibility 

would be jeopardized. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would be 

adverse effect. 

Major impacts — Impacts would alter characterdefining features or patterns, diminishing the 

overall integrity of the landscape to the extent that 

it would no longer be eligible to be listed on the 

National Register. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be adverse 

effect.
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

116 

Cultural Resources – 

Ethnographic Resources 

Negligible impacts — Impacts would be at the 

lowest levels of detection and barely perceptible. 

Impacts would neither alter resource conditions, 

such as traditional access or site preservation, nor 

alter the relationship between the resource and 

the associated group’s body of practices and 

beliefs. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. 

Minor impacts — Impacts would be slight but 

noticeable and would neither appreciably alter 

resource conditions, such as traditional access or 

site preservation, nor alter the relationship 

between the resource and the associated group’s 

body of beliefs and practices. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect would be 

no adverse effect. 

Moderate impacts — Impacts would be apparent 

and would alter resource conditions or interfere 

with traditional access, site preservation, or the 

relationship between the resource and the 

associated group’s beliefs and practices, even 

though the group’s practices and beliefs would 

survive. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be adverse effect. 

Major impacts — Impacts would alter resource 

conditions. Proposed actions would block or 

greatly affect traditional access, site preservation, 

or the relationship between the resource and the 

associated group’s body of beliefs and practices to 

the extent that the survival of a group’s beliefs 

and/or practices would be jeopardized. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of 

effect would be adverse effect. 

Visitor Use, Experience, and Safety 

Guiding Regulations and Policies. Section 1.4.3 

of the NPS management policies states that 

enjoyment of park resources and values by the 

people of the Unites States is part of the 

fundamental purpose of all parks and that the 

National Park Service is committed to providing 

appropriate, high-quality opportunities for 

visitors to enjoy the parks. 

Section 7 of the NPS management policies states, 

“National parks are among the most remarkable 

places in America for recreation, learning, and 

inspiration.” Section 8.2 of the NPS management 

policies states, “Management controls and 

conditions must be established for all park uses to 

ensure that park resources and values are 

persevered and protected for the future.” 

Director’s Order 42, Accessibility for Park Visitors, 

states that “the NPS will seek to provide the 

highest level of accessibility that is reasonable, and 

not simply provide the minimum level that is 

required by law.” 

Part of the purpose of the Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area is to offer opportunities for 

recreation, education, inspiration, and enjoyment. 

Consequently, one of the park’s management 

goals is to ensure that visitors safely enjoy and are 

satisfied with the availability, accessibility, 

diversity, and quality of the park’s facilities, 

services, and appropriate recreational 

opportunities. 

Intensity Thresholds. 

Negligible impacts — The visitor to the developed 

areas is not affected, or changes in visitor use and 

experience are below or at the level of detection. 

The visitor is not likely to be aware of the effects 

associated with the alternative. Safety would not 

be affected, or the effects are at low levels of 

detection and do not have an appreciable effect 

on visitor or employee health and safety. 

Minor impacts — Changes in visitor use and 

experience at the developed areas are detectable, 

although the changes would be slight. Some 

visitors are aware of the effects associated with the 

alternative, but the effects are slight and not 

noticeable by most visitors. The effect is 

detectable, but does not have an appreciable effect 

on health and safety. 

Moderate impacts — Changes in visitor use and 

experience at the developed areas are readily 

apparent to most visitors. Visitors are aware of the 

effects associated with the alternative and might 

express an opinion about the changes. The effects 

are readily apparent and result in substantial, 

noticeable effects to health and safety on a local 

scale. 

Major impacts — Changes in visitor use and 

experience at the developed areas are readily 

apparent to all visitors. Visitors are aware of the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

117 

effects associated with the alternative and are 

likely to express a strong opinion about the 

changes. The effects are readily apparent and 

result in substantial, noticeable effects to health 

and safety on a regional scale. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

Guiding Laws, Regulations, and Policies. In 

accordance with NPS management policies, the 

recreation area may permit commercial services 

that are necessary and appropriate for public use 

and enjoyment of the area and are consistent to 

the highest practicable degree with the 

preservation and conservation of the area’s 

resources and values. 

Intensity Thresholds.

Negligible impacts — Impacts would be so slight as to 

be difficult to measure or perceive and have no 

meaningful implications for the socioeconomic 

environment. 

Minor impacts — Impacts would be effects on the 

socioeconomic environment that would be 

slightly detectable; there would be a small change. 

Moderate impacts — Impacts would be clearly 

detectable and could have an appreciable effect on 

the socioeconomic environment. 

Major impacts — Impacts would have a substantial, 

highly noticeable influence on the socioeconomic 

environment and could permanently alter the 

socioeconomic environment. 

Park Operations 

Guiding Laws, Regulations, and Policies. The 

NPS Management Policies (2006) directs the parks 

to pursue a human resources program that is 

comprehensive, that is based on competency, and 

that encompasses the entire workforce, including 

employees, volunteers, contractors, concession 

employees, interns, and partners (Section 1.9.1). 

Park operations encompasses the work of park 

staff in planning, resource protection and 

management, cultural resources, visitor safety and 

law enforcement, interpretation, facilities 

management, and commercial services 

(Sections 210). 

Intensity Thresholds. 

Negligible impacts — Impacts would be so slight as to 

be difficult to measure or perceive and have no 

meaningful implications for park operations. 

Minor impacts — Impacts would be effects on park 

operations that would be slightly detectable; there 

would be a small change. 

Moderate impacts — Impacts would be clearly 

detectable and could have an appreciable effect on 

park operations. 

Major impacts — Impacts would have a substantial, 

highly noticeable influence on park operations 

and could permanently alter park operations. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: 

NO ACTION, CONTINUE CURRENT 

MANAGEMENT TRENDS 

Natural Resources 

Native Plant Communities and Soils. Under 

no-action alternative, minimal changes would 

occur to existing facilities and no development of 

new facilities would take place. The overall 

development footprint would not be expanded. 

Within the developed areas, facilities, and 

infrastructure would require future maintenance 

and possibly replacement with age. No changes in 

visitation patterns are expected, although 

recreational use, particularly day use along the 

shoreline, could increase over time. 

Impacts such as soil compaction, increased 

erosion, and trampling or removal of plants may 

increase because of maintenance activities, 

increased foot traffic, and social trail 

development. However, maintenance activities 

and visitor use would be concentrated in 

previously disturbed high-use areas, thus 

minimizing additional or new damage or loss of 

soils and vegetation. Most impacts would be to 

areas supporting nonnative herbaceous and shrub 

flora, such as landscaped or shoreline areas with 

salt cedar, although some individual native plants 

within the developed areas may also be impacted. 

These local adverse impacts on native vegetation 

and soils would be long term and minor. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

118 

Several species of invasive plants in landscaped 

areas have naturalized into adjacent natural areas 

and compete with native plant species. 

Maintaining existing exotic landscaping as part of 

the cultural landscapes at both developed areas 

provides reoccurring opportunities for seeds and 

propagules to spread nonnative plant species to 

surrounding native plant communities. 

Maintenance projects can also create ground 

disturbance that increases susceptibility to exotic 

plant establishment. The opportunity for the 

accidental introduction of nonnative seed sources 

by visitors would also continue. The National 

Park Service has an active restoration program 

that deals primarily with human-caused 

disturbances (e.g., damage to soils and plants due 

to construction) and a native plant nursery that 

propagates native plants for a variety of purposes. 

The NPS interpretation program educates park 

visitors and the surrounding communities about 

the native plant communities in the recreation 

area and prevention of introductions of nonnative 

plants. With local control and education efforts, 

impacts on native plant communities would be 

long term and minor. 

Cumulative effects — Past and ongoing actions 

affecting soils and native plant communities on 

lands around the developed areas include 

occupation by burros, maintenance and use of 

approved backcountry roads, illegal off-road 

vehicle driving, and construction and 

maintenance of power line corridors. A priority 

for resource protection is to intensively manage 

these activities to prevent further disturbance or 

to limit disturbance from authorized activities to 

the extent possible as well as to treat areas to 

prevent the spread of invasive plants. 

Future park construction projects affecting soils 

and vegetation include potential installation of a 

cellular tower at Cottonwood Cove and 

reconstruction of the Katherine Landing access 

road. Lands outside of the recreation area along 

the Cottonwood Cove access road may be lost or 

modified in the future because of development of 

a wind farm outside of Searchlight, Nevada. These 

projects would have adverse impacts on soils from 

ground disturbance and compaction during 

construction, and increases in impervious surfaces 

and subsequent increases in surface water runoff 

and erosion potential. Vegetation would be 

removed and the potential for the introduction of 

nonnative species and noxious weeds would 

increase and could serve as a source population 

for nonnative plants that may disperse into native 

plant communities in the recreation area. Some of 

these effects are expected to be very limited such 

as for installation of the cellular tower within a 

previously disturbed area. Road reconstruction 

would result in temporary disturbance and 

permanent loss of vegetation and soils along the 

road corridor. Construction of a wind farm 

between the town of Searchlight and the 

recreation area boundary would impact 

approximately 600 acres which includes 

approximately 120 acres of permanent 

disturbance and approximately 480 acres of 

temporary disturbance for construction activities 

(URS 2009). It is expected that best management 

practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures would 

be implemented as part of the projects to reduce 

the extent of potential impacts. All of these past, 

present, and future actions would have short- and 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

soils and native plant communities. 

Long-term beneficial effects to native plant 

communities would be anticipated as a result of 

implementing the exotic plant management plan 

and the fire management plan, both of which seek 

to restore native plant communities and control 

exotic plants. Implementation of a comprehensive 

exotic plant management plan would enhance the 

overall effectiveness of exotic plant management 

in the recreation area and provide opportunities 

for more aggressive treatment, particularly for 

early detection and eradication of newly invading 

species. A comprehensive prevention program 

addressing both administrative actions as well as 

visitor and employee education would also create 

greater opportunities to intercept new 

introductions of nonnative plants. The use of 

prescribed fire for exotic plant control is 

addressed in the fire management plan. Provisions 

in the exotic plant management plan include 

systematically learning from treatment efforts, 

including prescribed fire, and integrating that 

knowledge into future decisions in an adaptive 

management framework. 

While some cumulative actions would have 

beneficial long-term effects throughout the 

recreation area, overall, the cumulative effects to 

lands in and around the developed areas from 

past, present, and future actions in combination 

with the impacts of the no-action alternative 

would be minor to moderate and adverse over the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

119 

short and long term. The no-action alternative 

would contribute to long-term adverse impacts on 

soils and native vegetation; however, the 

contribution would be minor and would not 

change the intensity level of the cumulative 

effects. 

Conclusion — The no-action alternative would 

result in additional minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts on soils and vegetation from facility 

maintenance and visitor use that disturb soils and 

vegetation and potentially contribute to the 

introduction and spread of nonnative and invasive 

plant species. Cumulative impacts on soils and 

vegetation from the no-action alternative in 

conjunction with past, present, and future 

projects would be minor to moderate and adverse 

over the short and long term. The no-action 

alternative, however, would contribute a local, 

minor increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Wildlife. Under the no-action alternative, existing 

impacts on wildlife would continue to occur as a 

result of routine maintenance activities and the 

high level of human activity in the developed 

areas. Habitat quality in the immediate areas is 

relatively low because of the existing level of 

development and human activity. In general, 

wildlife has become accustomed to human activity 

or has relocated outside of the developed areas. 

Should visitation continue to increase, it is 

expected to primarily occur within the existing 

developed areas, particularly along the shoreline. 

No wildlife habitat would be lost to new facility 

development. 

Maintenance activities or increased use in the 

developed areas would affect low quality 

previously disturbed habitat. Impacts from 

maintenance activities of in-water structures and 

other nearshore facilities could create increased 

runoff, turbidity, or sedimentation of nearby 

aquatic habitats. Mitigation measures would be 

implemented to ensure that impacts are minimal. 

Habitat would potentially be affected by the 

introduction of nonnative species from 

maintenance of exotic landscaping or 

transportation into the recreation area by visitors. 

Area restoration and education programs would 

continue to address this issue. 

Although some animals could be disturbed or 

displaced, impacts would not be expected to 

adversely affect overall populations or habitats. 

Adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat 

from the no-action alternative would be local, 

long term, and minor. 

Cumulative effects — As described in the “Native 

Plant Communities and Soils” section above, past 

and present actions on lands around the 

developed areas include occupation by burros, 

maintenance and use of approved backcountry 

roads, illegal off-road vehicle driving, and 

construction and maintenance of power line 

corridors. These actions disturb and fragment 

habitat, and likely introduce exotic plants and 

animals and result in injury or mortality as a result 

of encounters with humans and vehicles. Future 

projects affecting wildlife and habitat include 

potential installation of a cellular tower at 

Cottonwood Cove and reconstruction of the 

Katherine Landing access road. Lands outside of 

the recreation area along the Cottonwood Cove 

access road may be lost or modified in the future 

because of development of a wind farm outside of 

Searchlight. These projects would affect the 

behavior, distributions, and movements of some 

wildlife, such as dispersion of wildlife away from 

construction activity with reoccupation anticipated following construction, the loss of some less 

mobile species because of construction or 

operational activities, and reduction in habitat 

quality for adjacent areas because of noise and 

human activity during construction and possible 

introduction of invasive species. It is expected that 

best management practices and mitigation 

measures would be implemented as part of the 

projects to reduce the extent of potential impacts 

and that most of these actions would affect 

individuals or a few animals, not large 

populations. All of these past, present, and future 

actions would have short- and long-term, and 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on wildlife 

and wildlife habitat. 

Long-term beneficial effects to native plant 

communities would be anticipated as a result of 

implementing the exotic plant management plan 

and fire management plan, both of which seek to 

restore native habitats and control exotic plants. 

Management actions associated with the lake 

management plan would improve water quality of 

the lake’s aquatic habitat through the reduction of 

the amount of waste fuels and human wastes in 

the lake. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

120 

While some cumulative actions would have 

beneficial long-term effects throughout the 

recreation area, overall, the cumulative effects to 

lands in and around the developed areas from 

past, present, and future actions in combination 

with the impacts of alternative 1 would be minor 

to moderate and adverse over the short and long 

term. Alternative 1 would contribute an 

incremental long-term, minor adverse impact on 

the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — The no-action alternative would 

result in additional minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts on terrestrial and aquatic species from 

facility maintenance and increased visitor use. 

Cumulative impacts on wildlife from the 

no-action alternative in conjunction with past, 

present, and future projects would be minor to 

moderate and adverse over the short and long 

term. The no-action alternative, however would 

contribute a local, minor increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status 

Species. The no-action alternative would not 

appreciably change current conditions. Both 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing are 

major developed areas. Existing on land and in 

water facilities and continual high levels of visitor 

use at both developed areas have already 

negatively impacted habitat and use by 

threatened, endangered, and special status 

species. Continued use and maintenance of the 

developed areas would have little if any additional 

impact on these species. Mitigation measures from 

the 2002 and 2010 programmatic biological 

opinions would remain in effect (see appendix B). 

There are no known spawning areas or nearby 

rearing ponds for razorback sucker or bonytail 

chub along the shoreline of either developed area. 

No impacts on spawning habitat are expected. As 

noted under the wildlife impact topic, impacts 

from maintenance activities of in-water structures 

and from other nearshore facilities could create 

increased runoff, turbidity, or sedimentation of 

Lake Mohave, which is critical habitat for both 

species. Adverse impacts would be short term and 

local because of the small areas affected, the 

disturbing activities would be temporary, and 

mitigation measures would be used to minimize 

potential impacts. Similar temporary impacts from 

increased shoreline recreation are expected to 

continue to occur in areas already heavily used by 

visitors. Impacts would be short term and not 

likely to adversely affect razorback sucker, 

bonytail chub, or their critical habitat. 

Southwestern willow flycatchers are transitory 

along the Lake Mohave shoreline and may use 

riparian habitat along the lakeshore in the 

developed areas during migration or dispersal. 

Continued maintenance and increased shoreline 

recreation in areas already heavily used by visitors 

may result in occasional flight responses and 

movement to other available habitat, but would 

not result in disturbance to breeding birds or 

nesting habitat. Impacts would be short term and 

not likely to adversely affect Southwestern willow 

flycatchers. 

Potential noncritical habitat for the desert 

tortoise, Western burrowing owl, and banded Gila 

monster occur around the developed areas. 

Habitat quality in the immediate areas is relatively 

low because of the existing level of development 

and human activity. No habitat would be lost to 

new facility development under the no-action 

alternative. Maintenance activities or increased 

use in the developed area could affect low quality, 

previously disturbed habitat for these species. 

Mitigation measures would be implemented to 

minimize impacts. Thus, the no-action alternative 

would not be likely to adversely affect the species 

or desert tortoise critical habitat. 

Cumulative effects — The damming of the Colorado 

River at Hoover Dam (Lake Mead) and Davis 

Dam (Lake Mohave) and the introduction of sport 

fish has diminished the habitat required for 

successful recruitment of razorback suckers and 

bonytail chubs. Heavy predation by sport fish on 

juveniles and the lack of suitable habitat required 

for recruitment necessitates active management of 

the species to ensure recovery. The damming of 

the river also eliminated natural riparian habitats 

used by Southwestern willow flycatchers. 

Fluctuating lake levels and extensive coverage by 

invasive salt cedar continue to negatively affect 

native riparian areas. These species also continue 

to be affected by recreational facilities and use of 

the lake and shorelines, which would include the 

authorized expansion of the marina at 

Cottonwood Cove. 

Desert tortoise habitat in Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area has been altered or degraded by 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

121 

development of facilities and recreational use. 

Roads and unauthorized off-road vehicle use 

result in fragmentation of habitat, tortoise 

mortality, and spread of exotic invasive plants that 

affect food availability and increase fire frequency. 

Infrastructure in desert tortoise habitat may 

facilitate predation of desert tortoises by 

attracting predators or by making them more 

visible to predators. Some visitors likely harass or 

collect tortoises and leave litter that tortoises may 

ingest or become entangled in. Wild burros have 

damaged habitat. Some of these same actions and 

impacts also result in the loss or alteration of 

potential habitat for burrowing owls and banded 

Gila monsters. 

Future projects affecting wildlife and habitat 

include potential installation of a cellular tower at 

Cottonwood Cove and reconstruction of the 

Katherine Landing access road. Lands outside of 

the recreation area along the Cottonwood Cove 

access road may be lost or modified in the future 

because of development of a wind farm outside of 

Searchlight. These projects would result in loss of 

habitat and affect the behavior, distributions, and 

movements of terrestrial species of concern 

because of reduction in habitat quality for adjacent areas due to noise and human activity during 

construction and introduction of invasive species. 

Projects may result in the loss of some individuals 

because of construction activities and increased 

vehicle use or potentially higher speeds made 

possible by road improvements that increase the 

likelihood of vehicle collisions. It is expected that 

best management practices and mitigation 

measures would be implemented as part of the 

projects to reduce the extent of potential impacts. 

These past, present, and future actions would 

have short- and long-term adverse impacts. The 

exotic plant management plan and fire 

management plan are expected to have long-term 

beneficial effects on terrestrial. Management 

actions associated with the lake management plan 

would improve water quality of the lake’s aquatic 

habitat through the reduction of the amount of 

waste fuels and human wastes in the lake. 

Some cumulative actions would contribute 

beneficial long-term effects throughout the 

recreation area on special status species and their 

habitat, whereas other cumulative actions would 

contribute adverse effects to the overall 

cumulative impact. Consequently, the cumulative 

effects from past, present, and future actions in 

combination with the impacts of the no-action 

alternative would be both beneficial and adverse. 

The no-action alternative would contribute a 

local, discountable increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Continued maintenance activities and 

visitor use in the developed areas may affect, but 

would not be likely to adversely affect the 

razorback sucker, bonytail chub, Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, desert tortoise, Western 

burrowing owl, and banded Gila monster 

populations or designated critical habitat. When 

the effects of the no-action alternative are added 

to the effects of other park native plant 

community restoration efforts, there would be a 

long-term beneficial cumulative impact on special 

status species populations and their habitat 

populations. There would be a long-term adverse 

cumulative impact on these species and their 

habitat when the effects of the other cumulative 

actions are added to the impacts of the no-action 

alternative, although the no-action alternative 

would add a discountable increment to this 

overall impact.

Floodplains. No new development would occur 

under the no-action alternative. Some overnight 

facilities would remain in the flash flood hazard 

areas as would much of the development area at 

Cottonwood Cove (see figure 3 in chapter 2). 

Flood protection under the no-action alternative 

would rely mainly on the existing system of 

earthen dikes and channels that provide various 

levels of flood protection, ranging anywhere from 

approximately 10- to 100-year flows but that do 

not convey the probable maximum flood (pmf) 

flows. The flood warning system at Cottonwood 

Cove, which was recently upgraded, would 

continue to provide nonstructural protection. 

Flood depths at Cottonwood Cove would be 

approximately 6 to 7 ft during the probable 

maximum flood and 3 to 6 ft during the 100-year 

flood. At Katherine Landing estimated flood 

depths would be 3 to 8 ft during the probable 

maximum flood and 1 to 6 ft during the 100-year 

flood. The time between intense rainfall and 

subsequent flooding of the washes in the 

developed areas is relatively short, anywhere from 

approximately 80 minutes to potentially as little as 

7 to 8 minutes. The possibility of injury or loss of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

122 

life and damage or loss of facilities would continue 

to exist for people and property in the floodplain 

during larger flood events. Flooding could impact 

visitor overnight facilities including camping 

areas, trailer village, motel, and National Park 

Service and concessioner housing, as well as dayuse facilities including the store, restaurant, 

launch ramps, and parking areas. Consequently, 

the no-action alternative would continue to have 

the potential for long-term moderate to major 

adverse impacts on human life and property from 

flooding in both developed areas. 

The natural floodplain values in both developed 

areas, such as natural flood flows, sedimentation 

processes, vegetation, or groundwater recharge 

have been highly altered by development. Under 

the no-action alternative, these conditions would 

continue, although this alternative would not 

measurably add to these impacts. Thus, this 

alternative would continue to have a long-term 

moderate adverse effect on floodplain values in 

the developed area. 

Cumulative effects — The cumulative actions are not 

expected to alter floodplain values or the flood 

hazard in the developed areas. Therefore, there 

would be no cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — There would continue to be a 

potential long-term moderate to major adverse 

impact on human life and property in the 

floodplain and a long-term moderate adverse 

impact on floodplain values because of the 

presence of facilities in the floodplain. The 

no-action alternative would not measurably add 

to these impacts. There would be no cumulative 

impact on floodplains. 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological Resources. Under the no-action 

alternative, there would be no new impacts on 

archeological resources. All current facilities 

would remain in place. The concessioner would 

continue to operate the existing commercial 

services. The National Park Service would 

continue to operate the campgrounds, and would 

not establish any new facilities for day use. The 

NPS buildings and maintenance areas would be 

retained in their current locations. The existing 

flood control ditches and dikes would not be 

upgraded. Recommendations proposed by HDR, 

Inc. regarding the redesign of flood control 

systems would not be enacted. 

Cumulative impacts — Although other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions may 

affect archeological resources in the area, the noaction alternative would have no impacts on 

archeological resources; and therefore, would not 

contribute to the effects of other actions. 

Consequently, there would be no cumulative 

impacts on archeological resources under the noaction alternative. 

Conclusion — There would be no new impacts on 

archeological resources. There would be no 

cumulative impacts on archeological resources 

under the no-action alternative. 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes that 

the actions under the alternative 1 for both 

developed areas and the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing would have no adverse effect 

on archeological resources because adverse 

impacts on resources listed or eligible for listing in 

the National Register would be avoided. 

Historic Structures. Under the no-action 

alternative, there would be no new impacts on 

historic structures. To appropriately preserve and 

protect National Register listed or eligible historic 

structures, all stabilization and preservation 

efforts would continue to be undertaken in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

(NPS 1995). 

Cumulative impacts — Although other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions may 

affect historic structures in the area, the no-action 

alternative would have no impacts on historic 

structures; and therefore, would not contribute to 

the effects of other actions. Consequently, there 

would be no cumulative impacts on historic 

structures under the no-action alternative. 

Conclusion — There would be no new impacts on 

historic structures. There would be no cumulative 

impacts on historic structures under the no-action 

alternative. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

123 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes that 

the actions under the alternative 1 for both 

developed areas and the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing would have no adverse effect

on historic structures because adverse impacts on 

resources listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register would be avoided. 

Cultural Landscapes. Under the no-action 

alternative, there would be no new impacts on 

cultural landscapes. Significant landscape patterns 

and features (e.g., spatial organization, land-use 

patterns, circulation systems, topography, 

vegetation, buildings and structures, cluster 

arrangements, small-scale features, views and 

vistas, and archeological sites) would be 

protected, maintained, and unchanged from 

existing conditions. 

Cumulative impacts — Although other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions may 

affect cultural landscapes in the area, the noaction alternative would have no impacts on 

cultural landscapes; and therefore, would not 

contribute to the effects of other actions. 

Consequently, there would be no cumulative 

impacts on cultural landscapes under the noaction alternative. 

Conclusion — There would be no new impacts on 

cultural landscapes. There would be no 

cumulative impacts on cultural landscapes under 

the no-action alternative. 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes that 

the actions under the alternative 1 for both 

developed areas and the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing would have no adverse effect

on cultural landscapes because adverse impacts on 

resources listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register would be avoided. 

Ethnographic Resources. Under the no-action 

alternative, there would be no new impacts on 

ethnographic resources. All current facilities 

would remain in place. The ranger station and 

NPS housing and maintenance areas would be 

retained in their current locations. The existing 

flood control ditches and dikes would not be 

upgraded. Significant landscape patterns and 

features would be protected, maintained, and 

unchanged from existing conditions. 

Cumulative impacts — Although other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions may 

affect ethnographic resources in the area, the noaction alternative would have no impacts on 

ethnographic resources and, therefore, would not 

contribute to the effects of other actions. 

Consequently, there would be no cumulative 

impacts on ethnographic resources under the 

no-action alternative. 

Conclusion — There would be no new impacts on 

ethnographic resources. There would be no 

cumulative impacts on ethnographic resources 

under the no-action alternative. 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes that 

the actions under the alternative 1 for both 

developed areas and the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing would have no adverse effect

on ethnographic resources because adverse 

impacts on resources listed or eligible for listing in 

the National Register would be avoided. 

Visitor Use, Experience, and Safety 

Under the no-action alternative, existing facilities 

(e.g., motels, campgrounds, marinas, trailer 

villages, picnic areas) and access points would 

remain and continue to be maintained, with only 

minimal changes that are currently underway as 

authorized by other plans. 

Visitor conflicts that arise from congestion and 

frustration at access would persist and could 

increase in frequency if visitation levels rise. Law 

enforcement rangers would continue to address 

visitor conflicts on a case-by-case basis. These 

conflicts, however, have escalated to the point of 

physical altercations in the past and therefore not 

only reflect a diminished visitor experience but 

also threaten visitor and employee safety. These 

altercations occur more often at Katherine 

Landing than at Cottonwood Cove, and are result 

of the existing facilities and infrastructure being 

inadequate to accommodate the large number of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

124 

visitors during high use time. The implementation 

of the no-action alternative would result in 

moderate to major, long-term, and adverse 

impacts on visitor experience and safety. 

Overnight accommodations would continue to 

see low levels of occupancy as there are no current 

projects to improve these facilities or services to 

better meet visitor needs. Campsites are generally 

too small and only a few have RV hookups. The 

long-term trailer village, which has the 

appropriate amenities to satisfy visitors, provides a 

reliable revenue stream but does not allow use for 

a large or diverse segment of visitors. Lack of 

changes to overnight accommodations would 

result in minor to moderate, long-term, and 

adverse impacts on visitor experience. 

For Cottonwood Cove, authorized improvements 

include the construction of a new entrance station 

that would allow for increased visitor contact and 

dissemination of safety information, as well as the 

addition of picnic tables and shelters and the 

rehabilitation of campground restrooms. At 

Katherine Cove, these modifications include the 

replacement of campground restroom, removal of 

the picnic area restroom, and pavement overlay of 

the campground roads. Nearby, the road to 

Princess Cove would also be paved. These 

modifications would have minor, long-term, and 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience. 

Any construction, removal, or rehabilitation 

activities and related effects associated with these 

improvements would have minor to moderate, 

short-term, and adverse impacts on visitor 

experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are several 

reasonably foreseeable projects, separate from this 

plan, that could further impact visitor experience 

at Lake Mohave. 

One proposal that would affect the visitor 

experience is the reconstruction of the Katherine 

Landing access road beginning at its intersection 

with the Davis Dam Highway and continuing to 

the boat launch ramp. Because of high visitation 

levels at Katherine Landing, this road is subject to 

heavy-traffic volumes and in its current state is 

narrow and poorly paved, with inadequate 

drainage. Each of these problems, with the 

exception of traffic volume, would be corrected 

under the proposed reconstruction. These actions 

may partially mitigate visitor conflict issues by 

reducing tensions and frustrations that currently 

begin on this stretch of road. Despite the positive 

effects, however, the cumulative impact of these 

measures, when added to the lack of resolution of 

existing visitor conflicts, would perpetuate 

current moderate, long-term, and adverse impacts 

on visitor experience and safety. 

The 2008 Lake Mead NRA Wireless 

Telecommunication Facilities Plan identified 

Cottonwood Cove as a suitable site for the 

construction of a new cellular tower in the future. 

Improved communications within the coverage 

area would directly benefit those who choose to 

use this technology while in the recreation area. 

Moreover, some visitors may be more content and 

have peace of mind knowing that they can use a 

cell phone to contact help in case of emergency, 

especially in remote areas that receive less 

visitation. Construction of cellular towers would 

provide moderate, long-term beneficial impacts 

on safety resulting from improved communication 

services and increased emergency response time. 

Effects to visitor experience would be minor, 

long-term, and could be either beneficial or 

adverse, depending on the visitor’s views on the 

technology and its suitability to national parks. 

Another potential development that may affect 

visitors to the Cottonwood Cove area is the 

proposed installation of up to 161 wind turbine 

generators in the area between the community of 

Searchlight (where the Cottonwood Cove access 

road begins) and the Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area. This development would have a 

moderate, long-term, and adverse impact on the 

viewshed experienced by visitors entering the 

park via Cottonwood Cove. 

The Cottonwood Cove marina is also authorized 

to expand from approximately 300 slips to 

484 slips, per the lake management plan. This 

increase, if undertaken, would provide increased 

accommodations for boat owners at this popular 

destination site. Visitation levels may show a slight 

increase, although would likely have only an 

imperceptible effect on congestion. This 

expansion would have minor, long-term, 

beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor 

experience. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

125 

The construction activities and related effects 

involved with these improvements would have 

minor to moderate, short-term, and adverse 

impacts on visitor experience. When combined 

with the impacts of the no-action alternative, 

there would be minor to moderate, long-term, 

beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor 

experience. The National Park Service’s 

contribution to these impacts would be 

substantive. 

Conclusion. Overall, the no-action alternative 

would have moderate to major adverse long-term 

effects on the visitor experience to Lake Mohave. 

There are currently significant issues (such as 

visitor conflicts and inadequate overnight 

accommodations) that affect the experience of a 

significant percentage of visitors that are not being 

fully addressed at present nor would be under the 

no-action alternative. There would be minor to 

moderate, long-term, beneficial, and adverse 

cumulative impacts on visitor experience under 

this alternative. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

At Cottonwood Cove, the existing concession 

operation consists of a motel (25 rooms); trailer 

village (223 sites); short-term RV park (72 sites); 

marina (300 slips); dry storage; houseboat rentals; 

small boat rentals; a gift shop / convenience store; 

restaurant; marine and auto fuel service; and 

shower and laundry services. Over the past 

6 years, total revenue has averaged $6.3 million 

with houseboat rental and trailer village rentals 

comprising the largest shares of revenue. 

At Katherine Landing, the existing concession 

operation consists of a motel (50 rooms); trailer 

village (104 sites); short-term RV Park (28 sites); 

marina (824 slips); dry storage; houseboat rentals; 

small boat rentals; retail store; restaurant and bar; 

marine and auto fuel service; and shower and 

laundry services. Over the past 6 years, total 

revenue has averaged $6.5 million with moorage 

(marina), fuel sales, houseboat rental, and retail 

sales comprising the largest shares of total 

revenue. 

Socioeconomic Impacts Used for Analysis.

Impacts on the socioeconomic environment, 

including the commercial operators in the 

recreation area and nearby communities were 

considered. Impacts are partly based on estimates 

in the “Revised Alternatives Analysis” for both 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

(Dornbusch 2011a, 2011b). The following impact 

topics were developed to analyze impacts in 

alternatives 2 and 3: 

Construction-related economic impacts — It is 

assumed that construction in each alternative 

occurs over an initial 2- to 3-year period. There is 

no construction proposed under this alternative, 

so there would be no impacts on economic 

output, labor, or employment from construction 

activity. 

Visitor spending-related economic impacts — New 

or modified concession services would include 

changes to marinas, lodging options, and other 

commercial services including food and beverage 

and retail sales. The $6.3 million average annual 

spending figure (revenue) at Cottonwood Cove 

generates an estimated $9.3 million in direct and 

indirect value added to the local economy 

annually. This spending supports approximately 

57.3 concession-related jobs and generates 

$1.8 million annually in concession labor income. 

The indirect spending effects support an 

estimated 27.5 additional jobs in the local 

economy and generate an additional $880,000 in 

labor income. 

The $6.5 million average annual spending figure 

(revenue) at Katherine Landing generates an 

estimated $9.6 million in direct and indirect value 

added to the local economy annually. This 

spending supports approximately 

59.1 concession-related jobs and generates 

$1.9 million annually in concession labor income. 

The indirect spending effects support an 

estimated 28.4 additional jobs in the local 

economy and generate an additional $908,000 in 

labor income. See table 13 for more information 

on the visitor spending characteristics of the 

no-action alternative. Since this alternative 

represents the status quo, visitor spending would 

have no impact on the existing socioeconomic 

environment.
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

126 

TABLE 13. VISITOR SPENDING-RELATED 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 

Cottonwood 

Cove

Katherine 

Landing 

Average Revenue $6,300,000 $6,500,000 

Visitor Spending 

Value Added $9,324,000 $9,620,000 

Concession- related 

Jobs 57.3 59.1 

Concession Labor 

Income $1,833,000 $1,891,000 

Indirect Jobs 27.5 28.4 

Indirect Labor Income $880,000 $908,000 

Impacts on other park concessions and local 

businesses — These impacts on other marina 

concessioners were considered, but because of the 

long distances between marinas in the area, these 

impacts are expected to be minor. Impacts on 

lodging and retail establishments in nearby 

communities were also considered. There would 

be no impacts on other park concessions and local 

businesses under the no-action alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. Growth of the 

Laughlin/Bullhead City area, as well as the 

broader Clark County-Mohave County area, and 

other markets that attract recreation visitors to the 

recreation area (especially southern California), 

has the potential to increase use of concession 

facilities at Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing. However, when combined with the noaction alternative, the cumulative impact would be 

imperceptible on the socioeconomic environment 

of the region. The National Park Service’s 

contribution to this impact would be minimal. 

Conclusion. Besides the ongoing direct and 

indirect economic impacts of visitor spending at 

both locations, there would be no additional 

impacts on socioeconomic resources from the noaction alternative. Cumulative impacts would be 

imperceptible on the socioeconomic environment 

of the region. 

Park Operations 

Under the no-action alternative, the number of 

personnel in law enforcement, maintenance, 

natural and cultural resource management, and 

interpretive positions would remain at the present 

level. 

The recreation area would not implement 

recommendations for improved flood control at 

Cottonwood Cove or Katherine Landing, so there 

would be no new construction for diversion dikes 

and channels. Maintenance staff would maintain 

existing flood control channels, and there would 

be no additional impact on maintenance staff. 

Existing facilities at both Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing would be maintained. There 

would be minimal changes to roadways and NPS 

housing and maintenance areas would remain in 

the same locations. Existing ranger stations, 

information stations, and entrance stations would 

be maintained. There would be negligible impact 

on law enforcement, interpretive, and feecollecting staff. 

Some interpretive waysides would be enhanced or 

replaced. Existing picnic areas and day-use 

facilities would be maintained, as would informal 

and formal pedestrian trails. There would be no 

impact on maintenance and interpretive staff. 

The number of volunteer sites at the Katherine 

Landing campground would be increased. 

Increased numbers of volunteers could reduce 

NPS staffing requirements. 

Facilities at Princess Cove, Cabinsite Point, and 

North and South Arizona Telephone Coves would 

remain the same under this alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. The no-action alternative 

would have an imperceptible impact on park 

operations. 

Conclusion. The impacts of insufficient recreation 

area staffing (at current levels) on operational 

needs would be adverse and long term. However, 

the no-action alternative would not impact park 

operations. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 2: 

IMPLEMENT PREVIOUS PLANNING 

PROPOSALS 

Natural Resources 

Native Plant Communities and Soils. Most 

construction activities associated with 

rehabilitation, replacement, or redesign of 

facilities at both developed areas would occur 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

127 

within areas and corridors previously disturbed by 

existing development and associated use and 

would have minimal additional impacts on soils or 

native vegetation. These areas contain a mixture 

of native and nonnative landscape plants. Some 

individual native plants or small remnant areas of 

Mohave desert scrub within the developed areas 

may be removed or trampled or desert soils 

compacted or disturbed in areas within and 

immediately surrounding these sites. 

Desert shrub vegetation and soils would be lost or 

altered by construction of new visitor or park 

administrative facilities on currently undeveloped 

sites that would expand the overall development 

footprint. While portions of these new 

development sites have been impacted to some 

degree by visitor use or administrative roads, 

much of the impact would be new disturbance 

and permanent. Relocation of the National Park 

Service and concessioner housing, NPS 

maintenance area, and shoreline picnic area and 

parking at Cottonwood Cove and the NPS 

maintenance area at Katherine Landing would 

impact approximately 10 acres. Extension of 

utility lines and access road improvements to 

these sites would result in additional impacts 

along corridors 1,500 to 3,600 ft in length. 

Alternative 2 would essentially maintain the 

existing road systems; however, approximately 

8,200 ft of the access roads to North and South 

Telephone Coves would be relocated outside of 

the floodplains. This road construction would 

likely involve extensive grading and cut and fill 

work along the intervening ridge. Construction 

for the relocation would result in paving 

approximately 2 acres of desert shrub and desert 

wash communities. An additional indeterminate 

amount of acreage, dependent on the extant of 

excavation and fill work, would also be disturbed 

and revegetated. 

Structural flood protection for both developed 

areas would include concrete-lined channels, 

reinforcement and extension of existing dikes, 

relocation of some sections of roads, low-water 

crossings, erosion protection, and a spillway to 

utilize the existing borrow pit at Katherine 

Landing as a detention basin. Approximately 

9 acres at Cottonwood Cove and 12 acres at 

Katherine Landing would be affected. Much of 

this disturbance to soils and vegetation associated 

with excavation, grading, and flood structure 

construction would occur in areas previously 

disturbed by existing roads, channels, dikes, or 

other manmade facilities and uses. 

Flood structures would also include construction 

of a new diversion dike and channel system in 

Ranger Wash, approximately 0.5 mile west of the 

Cottonwood Cove developed area. It is 

anticipated that cut sections for the upper Ranger 

Wash diversion will be through alluvium and that 

rock excavation would not be necessary. 

Construction would include a considerable 

amount of grading and cut and fill work (up to 

approximately 20 ft in height). Work would 

impact about 13 acres of currently undisturbed 

desert shrub and wash vegetation and soils. 

Although the local topography would be altered 

and the dikes and channels would likely be 

reinforced with riprap or gabions, surface 

restoration / revegetation of most of the disturbed 

area would occur. Construction access to the site 

would be provided via the wash bottom, where 

scouring during flood events would rework the 

soils in the wash compacted by construction 

equipment access. 

Overall, vegetation and soils would be removed 

within the immediate footprint of new structures, 

roads, parking areas, trails, etc. Disturbance of 

desert soils and vegetation around the 

construction zones may result in changes in plant 

production and species composition, introduction 

and spread of nonnative plants and noxious 

weeds, compaction and loss of soil because of 

increased susceptibility of soils to wind and water 

erosion, reduced soil moisture and infiltration 

rates, and changes in soil temperatures and 

increased evaporation rates. 

Implementation of construction mitigation 

measures (e.g., restricting equipment to within the 

project area boundaries, revegetation of disturbed 

areas, and use of best management practices to 

control erosion) would minimize the loss and 

enhance the reestablishment of native vegetation 

and desert soils. Mitigation measures such as 

pressure washing of construction equipment 

would reduce the risk of introducing new exotic 

species. Post-construction revegetation, 

monitoring, and treatment would also reduce the 

risk of spreading existing populations and 

introducing new exotic species. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

128 

Given the disturbance to soils and vegetation that 

has already occurred in most of the areas that 

would be impacted by proposed construction and 

visitor use and the application of appropriate 

mitigation measures to minimize additional 

impacts, the alteration of native plant species’ 

populations and desert soil structure would be 

local and long-term adverse impacts are expected 

to be primarily minor. Development of new sites, 

road relocation, and construction of structural 

flood protection would result in greater 

disturbance to native plant communities and soils 

and would likely have long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts. 

Some local beneficial effects to native plant 

communities and soil resources would also occur 

as the result of alternative 2. The replacement of 

existing invasive nonnative landscaping with 

native plantings as facilities are rehabilitated, 

replaced, or redesigned would remove sources of 

seeds and propagules that spread nonnative plant 

species to surrounding native plant communities. 

Existing exotic shoreline plants such as tamarisk 

would be removed and replaced with native 

plantings during development of the relocated 

picnic area in Ski Cove at Cottonwood Cove. 

Some currently disturbed sites (i.e., maintenance 

and picnic areas at Cottonwood Cove, picnic area 

and existing satellite parking lot C located at 

Katherine Landing, informal overflow parking 

area at Princess Cove, and dispersed camping in 

the adjacent wash) would be restored or partially 

restored. Enhanced interpretive and educational 

facilities and programs are expected to help 

educate and deter visitor caused impacts, such as 

social trailing or unintentional transport of exotics 

into the park. 

Cumulative effects — As described for the no-action 

alternative, there are several actions in and outside 

of the national recreation area that would 

contribute to cumulative effects. These past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would have short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on soils and native 

plant communities because of construction and 

other activities and uses. However, long-term 

beneficial effects to native plant communities 

would be anticipated as a result of implementing 

the exotic plant management plan and fire 

management plan, both of which seek to restore 

native plant communities and control exotic 

plants. Alternative 2 would contribute both longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts because 

of construction and expansion of day use and 

administrative areas, and long-term beneficial 

effects such as replacement of invasive nonnative 

landscaping with native plantings and restoration 

of some currently developed sites. The overall 

cumulative impact from past, present, and future 

actions in combination with the impacts of 

alternative 2 would result in a minor to moderate, 

long-term adverse cumulative effect on native 

plant communities and soils from development 

and use and long-term beneficial cumulative 

effects from native plant community restoration 

efforts and removal of invasive species. 

Conclusion — Alternative 2 would primarily result in 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on native plant 

communities and soils from facility construction 

and associated visitor use in previously disturbed 

areas. Approximately 46 acres of local, long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts would result 

from development of additional lands and 

construction of flood control structures. Local 

beneficial effects would also result from the 

selective removal of existing nonnative invasive 

species and restoration of some currently 

developed sites. Cumulative impacts on vegetation 

and soils from alternative 2 in conjunction with 

past, present, and future projects would result in 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse cumulative 

effects from development and use and long-term 

beneficial cumulative effects from native plant 

community restoration efforts and removal of 

invasive species.

Wildlife. Wildlife populations and their habitats 

in the developed areas have been altered by past 

human actions. These areas have marginal habitat 

value. The rehabilitation, replacement, or redesign 

of facilities would primarily occur within existing 

areas of concentrated human use and 

development and not in areas of continuous, 

undisturbed habitat. 

Construction of new facilities and road relocation 

on currently undeveloped sites would result in the 

additional loss or alteration of desert shrub 

communities, which provides habitat for species 

such as reptiles, birds, and small mammals. The 

overall development and use footprint of these 

developments would encompass approximately 

7 acres at Cottonwood Cove and 5 acres at 

Katherine Landing. While portions of these new 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

129 

development sites have been impacted to some 

degree by visitor use or administrative roads, most 

of the impact would be new disturbance and 

permanent. 

Excavation, grading, and associated disturbance 

to construct flood control structures would 

permanently impact approximately 9 acres at 

Cottonwood Cove and 12 acres at Katherine 

Landing, although much of this acreage has been 

previously disturbed by existing roads, channels, 

dikes, or other manmade facilities and uses. 

Approximately an additional 13 acres of currently 

undisturbed desert shrub and wash habitat would 

be impacted by a new diversion dike and channel 

system in Ranger Wash, although surface 

restoration and revegetation of most of this 

acreage would occur following construction. 

Loss or fragmentation of habitat from proposed 

ground-disturbing activities and noise and visual 

intrusions associated with construction activity 

would affect wildlife species using these areas for 

foraging, nesting, and shelter and could result in 

direct loss of some individuals during 

construction activities. However, the majority of 

mammals, birds, and reptiles that are currently 

using habitat within or adjacent to these areas 

would be displaced to nearby habitat. Some may 

abandon nests or dens if construction occurred 

during critical phases of their breeding cycles. 

Generalist species like gulls, ravens, and coyotes 

would likely continue to be attracted to, and adapt 

to human habitation. Impacts should be 

minimized by the fact that planned projects would 

likely be implemented throughout multiple years 

and it is unlikely that at any one time, construction 

would be occurring in more than a few areas. 

In addition to disturbance and loss of habitat from 

construction, new and existing facilities would 

accommodate larger numbers of visitors, which 

could increase disturbance to adjacent habitat. 

However, increased visitation is expected to 

primarily occur within the existing developed 

areas, which are currently degraded because of 

high disturbance levels from existing 

developments and human use. In general, wildlife 

would either become accustomed to human 

activity or relocate outside of the developed areas 

because of noise, visual intrusions, or habitat 

alteration. Local increased mortality to lizards and 

small mammals could occur from an increase in 

visitor traffic. 

Mitigation measures developed for minimizing 

impacts on soils and vegetation such as replanting 

areas with native species, pressure washing of 

construction equipment, etc., as described in 

chapter 2 would also aid in minimizing impacts on 

the quality of wildlife habitat. To reduce impacts 

on birds, land clearing, or other surface 

disturbance would be conducted outside the avian 

breeding season or have a qualified biologist 

survey the area prior to clearing. If a migratory 

bird nest were found with nestlings present, 

impacts would be avoided until birds fledge. In 

addition, enhanced interpretive and educational 

facilities and programs are expected to help deter 

visitor caused impacts on wildlife and wildlife 

habitat, such as social trailing, littering, and 

unauthorized collection of small animals. 

Most actions would occur in areas extensively 

disturbed by existing development and associated 

use, and in areas that are typically avoided by most 

wildlife and that have marginal habitat value. 

Alternative 2 would result in temporary or 

permanent loss of approximately 46 acres of 

natural habitat, although the disturbed areas are 

small relative to the desert shrub and wash habitat 

found in the surrounding lands and park-wide. 

Individual projects would also likely be 

implemented periodically throughout multiple 

years and would not occur simultaneously. 

Mitigation measures would minimize damage 

during construction and replant areas as 

appropriate. Therefore, the adverse impact on 

wildlife would be long-term and minor, affecting 

individuals from wildlife populations in local 

areas, but not resulting in loss of population 

viability for these species. 

Some local beneficial effects to wildlife habitat 

would occur as the result of alternative 2. The 

replacement of existing invasive nonnative 

landscaping and exotic shoreline plants with 

native plantings and the restoration of previously 

disturbed sites at Cottonwood Cove, Katherine 

Landing, and Princess Cove would improve local 

wildlife habitat conditions. 

Impacts from in-water work for extension of the 

existing Katherine Landing lunch ramp, 

formalizing and paving the launch at North 

Telephone Cove, and general construction near 

the lakeshore could create increased runoff, 

turbidity, sedimentation, or introduction of 

pollutants (e.g., petroleum products from 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

130 

construction equipment) to nearby aquatic 

environments. Noise and visual disturbances 

during construction could cause fish to move 

from the area of disturbance. Generally, these 

adverse impacts would be short-term and minor 

because of the small areas affected, the disturbing 

activities would be temporary, and mitigation 

measures would be used to minimize potential 

impacts. Lake substrates would be lost within the 

footprint of the in-water structures, although this 

area would be very limited, and impacts would be 

minor. 

Cumulative effects — As described for the no-action 

alternative, there are several actions in and outside 

of the national recreation area that would 

contribute to cumulative effects. These past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would have short- and long-term, minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife 

habitat because of construction and other 

activities and uses. However, long-term beneficial 

effects would be anticipated as a result of 

implementing the exotic plant management plan 

and fire management plan, both of which seek to 

restore native habitat and control exotic plants. 

Management actions associated with the lake 

management plan would improve water quality 

and the lake’s aquatic habitat through the 

reduction of the amount of waste fuels and human 

wastes in the lake. 

The overall cumulative impact on lands in and 

around the developed areas from past, present, 

and future actions in combination with the 

impacts of alternative 2 would result in a minor to 

moderate, long-term adverse cumulative effect 

from development and use and long-term 

beneficial cumulative effects from wildlife habitat 

restoration efforts and removal of invasive 

species. Alternative 2 would contribute long-term 

minor adverse impacts because of construction 

and expansion of day use and administrative 

areas, and long-term beneficial effects from 

replacement of invasive nonnative landscaping 

and shoreline exotics with native plantings and 

restoration of some currently developed sites.

Conclusion — Although alternative 2 would 

adversely impact approximately 46 acres of 

natural habitat, most impacts would occur in areas 

extensively disturbed by existing development 

and associated use. The adverse impacts on 

terrestrial wildlife would be long-term and minor, 

affecting individuals from wildlife populations in 

local areas, but not resulting in loss of population 

viability for these species. Impacts from in-water 

work and from construction in or near the 

lakeshore would be short term and minor and 

would not adversely affect fish populations. The 

overall cumulative impact on lands in and around 

the developed areas from past, present, and future 

actions in combination with the impacts of 

alternative 2 would result in a minor to moderate, 

long-term adverse cumulative effect from 

development and use and long-term beneficial 

cumulative effects from wildlife habitat 

restoration efforts and removal of invasive 

species. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status 

Species. There are no known spawning areas or 

nearby rearing ponds for razorback sucker or 

bonytail chub along the shoreline of either 

developed area. No impacts on spawning habitat 

are expected. As noted under the wildlife impact 

topic, impacts from in-water work for extension 

of the existing Katherine Landing lunch ramp, 

formalizing and paving the launch at North 

Arizona Telephone Cove, and general 

construction near the lakeshore could create 

increased runoff, turbidity, or sedimentation of 

Lake Mohave, which is critical habitat for both 

species. Adverse impacts would be short term and 

local because of the small areas affected, the 

disturbing activities would be temporary, and 

mitigation measures would be used to minimize 

potential impacts. Similar temporary impacts from 

increased shoreline recreation are expected to 

continue to occur in areas already heavily used by 

visitors. Loss of substrate within the footprint of 

new in-water structures would occur, although 

the area affected would be limited. These shortand long-term impacts, may affect, but would not 

be likely to adversely affect razorback sucker, 

bonytail chub, or their critical habitat. 

Potential adverse impacts on the desert tortoises 

and banded Gila monster include temporary or 

permanent loss of suitable habitat from new 

development. Most impacts would occur on 

previously disturbed sites within the developed 

areas that are low quality habitat. Construction of 

new facilities on currently undeveloped sites 

would result in the permanent loss of 

approximately 7 acres at Cottonwood Cove and 

3 acres at Katherine Landing. Construction of 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

131 

flood-control structures would disturb 

approximately 9 acres at Cottonwood Cove and 

12 acres at Katherine Landing, although much of 

these areas have been previously disturbed. 

Approximately 13 additional acres of currently 

undisturbed desert shrub and wash habitat would 

be impacted by a new diversion dike and channel 

system in Ranger Wash, although surface 

restoration and revegetation of most of this 

acreage would occur following construction. 

There would be no disturbance to designated 

critical habitat for the desert tortoise. 

Harassment from increased human activity, noise, 

and ground vibrations from construction or from 

removal to a safe location during construction 

would also likely occur. Desert tortoise and 

possibly Gila monster individuals on the ground 

or in burrows within the construction limits could 

be killed or injured. Eggs could be destroyed. 

Indirect effects related to capture or harassment 

by construction personnel and attraction of 

predators like ravens to the construction area 

because of trash accumulation could also occur. 

Mitigation would reduce the likelihood of these 

impacts while construction is occurring. 

A 2010 programmatic biological opinion issued by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the 

threatened Mohave desert tortoise included 

infrastructure development and maintenance 

potentially associated with the development 

concept plan for Cottonwood Cove. Mitigation 

measures identified as part of the biological 

opinion would be implemented to minimize loss 

and long-term degradation and fragmentation of 

habitat, such as soil compaction, erosion, crushed 

vegetation, or introduction of nonnative invasive 

plants or weeds as a result of project activities. 

Protective measures for tortoise in all new 

construction projects would include preconstruction surveys, on-site monitoring, and 

removal of tortoises from harm’s way, as well as all 

other measures identified in chapter 2. Any 

additional measures identified during project level 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service would also be implemented. Any Gila 

monsters found within a construction area would 

also be relocated by a qualified biologist. With the 

implementation of mitigation, adverse impacts on 

desert tortoises and banded Gila monsters would 

be minimized. 

Removal of invasive riparian species such as 

tamarisk in Ski Cove as part of the development of 

a picnic area would have minimal effect to riparian 

vegetation that may be used by migrating 

Southwestern willow flycatchers. Tamarisk are 

considered low-quality habitat and replacement 

landscape planting would include native species 

such as willow. Some flycatchers may potentially 

be displaced or avoid the area because increased 

recreational use in this cove may overlap spring 

and fall migration periods. This would affect a 

relatively small area of the shoreline and there are 

other available shoreline riparian areas, typically 

dominated by tamarisk, that provide migratory 

habitat. Consequently, these short-term adverse 

impacts may affect, but would not be likely to 

adversely affect Southwestern willow flycatchers. 

Potential impacts on the Western burrowing owl 

include temporary or permanent loss of suitable 

habitat from new development and, since this is a 

ground-nesting bird, could include disturbance of 

breeding birds. Loss of individual burrowing owls 

including young is possible if construction occurs 

during the breeding season. Prior to construction, 

areas would be surveyed for nesting birds. Any 

nests would be avoided until the young fledge or 

collapsed while unoccupied prior to the nesting 

season. The individual areas impacted would be 

relatively small and the reproductive success of 

individual birds is not expected to be affected. 

Consequently, adverse impacts would include 

potential short-term disturbance from 

construction activities and long term local loss of 

habitat from new development. 

Cumulative effects — As described for the no-action 

alternative, there are several actions in and outside 

of the national recreation area that would 

contribute to cumulative effects. These past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would have short- and long-term adverse impacts 

on threatened, endangered, and special status 

species because of construction and other 

activities and uses. However, long-term beneficial 

effects would be anticipated as a result of 

implementing the exotic plant management plan, 

fire management plan, and the lake management 

plan that would improve terrestrial and aquatic 

habitat in the park through restoration of native 

plant communities, control of exotic plants, and 

improvement of lake water quality. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

132 

The overall cumulative impact on lands in and 

around the developed areas from past, present, 

and future actions in combination with the 

impacts of alternative 2 would result in an adverse 

cumulative effect from development and use and 

long-term beneficial cumulative effects from 

wildlife habitat restoration efforts and removal of 

invasive species. Alternative 2 would contribute 

local adverse impacts on desert tortoise, banded 

Gila monster, and burrowing owls because of 

construction and expansion of day use and 

administrative areas, and long-term beneficial 

effects from replacement of invasive nonnative 

landscaping and shoreline exotics with native 

plantings and restoration of some currently 

developed sites.

Conclusion — Alternative 2 may affect, but would 

not be likely adversely affect the Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, razorback sucker, bonytail 

chub, or their critical habitat. Alternative 2 would 

be likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise, 

banded Gila monster, and Western burrowing 

owls although impacts would be local. Potential 

impacts on the desert tortoise and banded Gila 

monster include temporary or permanent loss of 

suitable habitat from new development and 

incidental harassment and possibly loss of 

individuals from construction activities. There 

would be no disturbance to designated critical 

habitat for the desert tortoise. Potential impacts 

on Western burrowing owls would include shortterm disturbance from construction activities and 

long-term local loss of habitat from new 

development. The overall cumulative impact on 

lands in and around the developed areas from 

past, present, and future actions in combination 

with the impacts of alternative 2 would result in an 

adverse cumulative effect from development and 

use and long-term beneficial cumulative effects 

from wildlife habitat restoration efforts and 

removal of invasive species. 

Floodplains. Alternative 2 would mitigate the 

flood danger to people and facilities at 

Cottonwood and Katherine Washes from 

floodwaters up to the 500-year flood with 

structural protection that includes systems of 

channels and dikes. At Cottonwood Cove, some 

overnight facilities (i.e., National Park Service and 

concessioner housing) would be relocated out of 

the floodplain. Sections of the access roads to 

North and South Telephone Coves would also be 

relocated outside of the floodplains. The early 

warning detection system at Cottonwood Cove 

has been recently upgraded and a similar system 

would be installed in Katherine Wash to provide 

early identification and dissemination of warnings 

of an impending flood in this wash. A flood 

preparedness and evacuation plan would also be 

in effect. Signs would be developed and placed in 

strategic locations identifying flash flood zones 

and directing visitors and staff to move to higher 

ground. 

Moving structures out of the floodplain would 

provide the greatest protection. Structural flood 

protection would be the next best protection 

method, and warning systems would provide the 

least protection. The proposed structural flood 

mitigation measures would protect in place all 

development with overnight occupancy from 

flood inundation up to the 500-year flood. The 

structural protection would also provide 

protection for day-use areas and facilities as well, 

with the exception of the where channeled flood 

waters would empty across parking areas, 

shorelines, and launch ramps into the lake. 

Nonstructural flood mitigation would further 

decrease the flood hazard risk to National Park 

Service and concessioner staff and visitors within 

the primary developed areas. At the North and 

South Telephone Coves, day-use areas would 

have signs to inform visitors of flood hazards and 

evacuation procedures and an evacuation plan 

would be in effect for these areas as well. The 

possibility of injury or loss of life and damage or 

loss of facilities would be substantially reduced 

under this alternative. 

Protecting life and property in the floodplains is 

considered to be a higher priority than restoring 

natural floodplain values of these flash 

floodplains, which are the same qualities that 

endanger life and property. Thus, the natural 

floodplain values in both developed areas, such as 

natural flood flows, sedimentation processes, 

vegetation, or groundwater recharge have been 

and would continue to be highly altered by 

development. Construction of additional flood 

control structures that divert and channel flood 

flows would further alter these values, although 

most of these impacts would be to previously 

disturbed lands. Thus, this alternative would 

contribute minor to moderate additional adverse 

effects on floodplain values. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

133 

Cumulative effects — The cumulative actions are not 

expected to alter the flood hazard or floodplain 

values in the developed areas. Therefore, there 

would be no cumulative impacts on floodplains. 

Conclusion — Alternative 2 would greatly reduce the 

flood hazard at both developed areas through the 

use of structural and nonstructural protection, 

resulting in a long-term substantial benefit to 

safety for people and property in the floodplains. 

There would be a long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on floodplain values because of 

construction of additional flood control 

structures that divert and channel flood flows. 

There would be no cumulative impact on 

floodplains. 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological Resources. Alternative 2 proposes 

numerous actions involving ground disturbance in 

both developed areas and in the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing. Many of these proposed 

actions would take place in areas previously 

disturbed by construction, park operations, and 

visitor use. Reconfiguring traffic circulation 

patterns to reduce traffic congestion, 

consolidating intersections to streamline points of 

access, and increasing and delineating parking 

would most likely take place in previously 

disturbed locations. Providing better pedestrian 

connections through upgrading existing trails and 

constructing new trails and trailheads in the 

developed areas and the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing could impact archeological 

resources in undisturbed portions of the 

developed areas. However, recreation area staff 

would inventory these locations prior to ground 

disturbance and the trails would be sited to avoid 

sensitive or significant National Register 

resources. 

At Cottonwood Cove, flash flood mitigation 

measures would generally occur in previously 

disturbed portions of the developed area. 

Upgrading existing diversion dikes, features (e.g., 

deflectors), and channels in the lower 

campground, Lower Access Road Wash, Upper 

Access Road Channel, Dry Boat Storage Channel, 

and the Ranger Wash Diversion would have little 

to no effect on archeological resources. 

Campground restoration proposed for the lower 

campground and surface restoration proposed for 

Lower Access Road Wash would also occur in 

disturbed areas. Constructing new channels or 

extending existing channels could negatively 

impact archeological resources in undisturbed 

areas. 

Under this alternative, the identified archeological 

sites in the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing developed areas would be managed as 

though they were eligible for listing in the 

National Register. Ground-disturbing activities 

would be avoided in these site locations. 

In areas where archeological resources have not 

been inventoried, archeological surveys would be 

conducted to inform site-specific planning and 

design for proposed construction. Newly 

inventoried archeological resources would be 

evaluated for National Register significance. In 

both developed areas and the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing, National Register eligible or 

listed archeological resources would be avoided to 

the greatest extent possible. Because National 

Register eligible or listed archeological resources 

would be avoided to the greatest extent possible, 

any adverse impacts would be absent or negligible, 

permanent, and confined to the area of 

disturbance. If National Register eligible or listed 

archeological resources could not be avoided, an 

appropriate mitigation strategy would be 

developed in consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer(s), advisory council (as 

needed), and associated American Indian tribes. 

Cumulative impacts — Past development and landuse patterns within the Cottonwood Cove and the 

surrounding region have damaged/destroyed both 

prehistoric and historic archeological resources. 

Similarly, development in the Laughlin, Nevada, 

and Bullhead City, Arizona, area, outside of 

Katherine Landing, has negatively impacted 

archeological resources within the region. Sites 

also have been damaged by illegal pot hunting, 

off-road vehicle traffic, development of approved 

backcountry roads, burro trampling, power line 

corridors, and cell phone / communication 

towers. These past, present, and foreseeable 

future activities and development have and could 

result in direct and indirect, long term/permanent, 

minor to major adverse impacts on archeological 

resources locally and regionally. 

Many prehistoric and historic sites have been 

inundated by the impoundment of Lake Mohave 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

134 

and have been subject to natural and motorized 

equipment-related water movement, 

sedimentation, and changing lake levels. These 

past, present, and foreseeable actions in and 

around the developed areas have resulted in 

direct, minor to major, long term/permanent, 

local and regional, adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. 

In addition, some recreation area plans could 

result in adverse effects on archeological 

resources. Plant removal and revegetation carried 

out under the exotic plan management plan could 

adversely affect archeological resources if 

avoidance were not possible. Prescribed burns 

called for in the fire management plan could 

damage or destroy surface artifacts. Prior to any of 

these potentially ground-disturbing activities, the 

area(s) of potential effect would be surveyed and 

assessed for National Register significance (if not 

evaluated). Resources listed or eligible for listing 

would be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 

Projects outside of the recreation area also could 

adversely affect archeological resources. The 

proposed Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC. project 

would entail the construction of an access road, 

overhead transmission line, two electrical 

substations, a switchyard, and an 

operations/maintenance building in addition to 

the wind turbines. If avoidance were not possible, 

there could be negative impacts on archeological 

resources. These past, present, and future 

activities and development could result in direct 

and indirect, long term/permanent, minor to 

major adverse impacts on local archeological 

resources. 

As described above, implementation of alternative 

2 would result in no or negligible adverse effects 

in the area of disturbance on archeological 

resources because sensitive resources would be 

avoided to the greatest extent possible. These 

impacts, in combination with the minor to major, 

permanent, adverse impacts of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions would 

result in a permanent, moderate to major, adverse 

cumulative effect. The adverse effects of 

alternative 2, however, would potentially be an 

extremely small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact because sensitive resources 

would be avoided whenever possible. 

Conclusion — Under alternative 2, grounddisturbing activities would be sited away from 

known National Register eligible archeological 

resources and would be avoided to the greatest 

extent possible resulting in no negligible, local 

adverse impacts. Cumulative impacts would be 

indirect and direct, long-term/permanent, minor 

to major, and adverse; NPS contributions would 

be potentially extremely small. 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes that 

the actions under the alternative 2 for both 

developed areas and the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing would have no adverse effect 

on archeological resources because adverse 

impacts on resources listed or eligible for listing in 

the National Register would be avoided. 

Historic Structures. Under alternative 2, the 

proposed actions would have a range of impacts 

spanning from beneficial to adverse. At 

Cottonwood Cove, enhancing the campground 

amphitheater by rehabilitating the benches and 

adding landscaping would be a direct, long-term, 

beneficial impact for that portion of the 

campground because the structure’s function and 

appearance would be improved. For both 

developed areas and the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing, the construction of new 

housing and building construction, relocated 

picnic areas and beach accesses, new parking 

areas, new trails, and new or upgrades to 

spur/access roads would have no adverse impacts 

on historic structures because these actions would 

be sited to avoid affecting structures. In both 

developed areas, the campgrounds would be 

retained with minimal changes (modified only for 

ADA compliance), which would result in no 

adverse to negligible adverse impacts on the 

campgrounds. 

The proposed changes to the marinas (circulation, 

access, and parking) and pedestrian connections 

for both developed areas and the coves adjacent 

to Katherine Landing would have no effect on 

historic structures because they would not entail 

alterations to historic structures. The proposed 

flood mitigation measure for Cottonwood Cove, 

likewise, would have no effect on historic 

structures for the same reason. The installation of 

the early warning detection system in both 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

135 

developed areas also would have no effect on 

historic structures. The use of sustainable design 

and character would be employed in ways that 

would be sympathetic to the existing architecture 

and would be employed in accordance to the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. This would result 

in no adverse effects because architectural 

features contributing to the significance of these 

structures would not be altered. 

Some of the proposed actions could have adverse 

effects on historic structures. At Katherine 

Landing, expanding the restaurant and store, and 

removing the current ranger station and the 

amphitheater could have negative impacts. 

However, the National Register significance of 

these structures has not been assessed. Prior to 

any construction or remodeling, these structures 

would be evaluated for National Register 

significance. If any were found to be significant, 

implementation plans would be developed to 

avoid altering features contributing to the 

significance and integrity of the structures to the 

greatest extent possible and in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. This would result 

in long-term, direct, local, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts on significant historic structures. 

If alterations to National Register eligible 

structures could not be avoided, an appropriate 

mitigation strategy would be developed in 

consultation with the state historic preservation 

officer(s) and advisory council (as needed). 

Other actions would have adverse impacts that 

could range from minor to major in intensity. At 

Cottonwood Cove, the following structures are 

contributing elements to the Cottonwood Cove 

Developed Area Historic District:2

 NPS residences (201–203) 

 ranger station 

 campgrounds 

 

2

 The Cottonwood Cove Historic District determination of 

eligibility identifies the Concessionaire Public Use Area (which 

includes the concessioner store, restaurant, motel, boat launch 

area/marina, and trailer village) as contributing to the historic 

district, and then states that the store, restaurant, motel, boat 

launch area/marina, and trailer village “will be noncontributing 

resources; however, they do not compromise the integrity of 

the area since they fulfill the intent of the Mission 66 plan for 

the area.” This apparent contradiction needs clarification. 

 concessioner store 

 restaurant 

 motel 

 boat launch area/marina 

 trailer village 

 utility building 

 fire station 

 access road 

Converting the current ranger station to a 

campground office and expanding the motel, 

restaurant, dry storage, and marina have the 

potential for adversely impacting architectural 

features contributing to the significance of these 

structures. However, through sympathetic 

architectural design, the proposed 

expansions/remodeling could complement the 

original Mission 66 design and, with the exception 

of the ranger station, the structures’ original 

Mission 66 functions would continue. This could 

result in long-term, negligible to minor, direct, 

local, adverse impacts on these structures. In 

contrast, removing the current NPS housing, fire 

station, and maintenance utility building would 

result in local, permanent, direct, major, adverse 

impacts on these structures because the 

architectural features contributing to their 

significance would be destroyed. Recreation area 

staff would consult with the appropriate state 

historic preservation officer, advisory council, and 

representatives from the NPS Pacific West 

Region’s Historic American Building Survey / 

Historic American Engineering Record / Historic 

American Landscape Survey (HABS / HAER / 

HALS) to determine the appropriate 

documentation/mitigation strategy needed to 

reduce the intensity of adverse impacts on 

structures being removed. 

At Katherine Landing, the duplex and single 

family residence and an amphitheater are extant 

Mission 66 features (NPS 2007). Although historic 

structures in the developed area have not been 

formally assessed for National Register 

significance, portions of the developed area have 

been proposed as contributing properties in in a 

draft multiple-property Mission 66 National 

Register nomination (NPS 2007). The proposed 

removal of the campground amphitheater would 

be a direct, permanent, major adverse effect to a 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

136 

historic structure potentially eligible for listing in 

the National Register. Should they be determined 

eligible, the residences and amphitheater should 

be evaluated for National Register significance. If 

found to be significant, the park staff would 

consult with regional HABS / HAER / HALS staff, 

advisory council (as needed), and the Arizona 

state historic preservation office to determine the 

appropriate level of documentation/mitigation 

strategy needed to reduce the intensity of adverse 

impacts. 

Other historic structures in the developed areas, 

such as the Quartette Mine Railroad Grade at 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Mine Historic 

District at Katherine Landing, would not be 

affected by any of the actions proposed under 

alternative 2. 

Cumulative impacts — Cumulative impacts on 

historic structures within and around both 

developed areas would be similar to those 

affecting archeological resources. Regional 

development and land-use practices have 

damaged or destroyed mining and other historic 

structures outside the recreation area. Many 

historic structures located along the original river 

banks of the Colorado River (e.g., the Klondike 

Mill and Aerial Ferry) are inundated and are 

subject to water movement, changing lake levels, 

sedimentation, and impacts from recreation use. 

As described above, implementation of alternative 

2 would result in some beneficial to minor adverse 

impacts on some historic structures, but it also 

would result in major, permanent, adverse impacts 

on some of the structures in the Cottonwood 

Cove developed area. Proposed changes to or 

removal of historic structures at Katherine 

Landing could have adverse impacts should any 

be determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register. These impacts, in combination with the 

minor to major, permanent, adverse impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions would result in a direct, permanent, 

moderate to major, adverse cumulative impacts on 

historic structures within the developed areas and 

region. The NPS contribution to these adverse 

impacts would be substantive because this 

alternative calls for the removal of structures 

contributing to a property determined eligible for 

listing in the National Register at Cottonwood 

Cove and structures potentially eligible at 

Katherine Landing. 

Conclusions — Under alternative 2, structures 

contributing to the historic district (Cottonwood 

Cove) and structures potentially eligible for listing 

in the National Register (Katherine Landing) 

would be removed or altered/remodeled; resulting 

in permanent, direct, local, major adverse impacts 

on significant and potentially significant historic 

structures. Cumulative impacts would be direct, 

regional, long term/permanent, moderate to 

major, and adverse; NPS contributions would be 

substantial. 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s criteria of 

adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5), the National 

Park Service concludes that the actions under the 

alternative 2 would have adverse effects on historic 

structures in the Cottonwood Cove developed 

area and possibly the Katherine Landing 

developed area. Although the intensities of 

negative impacts could be reduced through 

mitigation under NEPA compliance, they would 

remain adverse under Section 106. 

Cultural Landscapes. Under alternative 2, the 

proposed actions also would have a range of 

impacts cultural landscape features spanning from 

beneficial to adverse. At Cottonwood Cove, 

enhancements to the campground amphitheater 

would be a direct, long-term, beneficial impact 

because this contributing feature would be 

upgraded. In both developed areas, the 

campgrounds would be retained with minimal 

changes (ADA compliance), which would result in 

no adverse effect or long-term, direct, local to 

negligible, adverse impacts on the campgrounds. 

Expanding the marina to 484 slips would slightly 

change the appearance of the marina, but would 

not impact the intended function of this portion 

of the developed. This would be a long-term, 

local, direct, and negligible impact on the 

Mission 66 landscapes. 

For both developed areas, new housing, building 

construction/remodeling, and new parking areas 

would add new architectural elements that would 

intrude on the landscapes’ original viewsheds and 

functions. Relocating picnic areas, beach accesses, 

amphitheater (Katherine Landing), and 

maintenance/fire facilities and removing 

structures that are contributing landscape 

elements would remove landscape fundamental 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

137 

components and functions. Converting the ranger 

station to a campground office (Cottonwood 

Cove) and restructuring the trailer villages into 

short-term recreational vehicle campsites 

(Katherine Landing) would also alter the function 

of landscape components. Constructing new 

trails, reconfiguring traffic circulation, and 

constructing new or upgrading spur/access roads 

would alter the landscapes’ designed circulation. 

These proposed actions would better serve 

visitors and improve safety. But from the 

perspective of the Mission 66 landscapes, these 

actions would have direct and indirect, local, 

moderate to major, long-term/permanent, adverse 

impacts on Cottonwood Cove and potentially at 

Katherine Landing. 

Prior to implementing these actions, recreation 

area staff would consult with the appropriate state 

historic preservation officer, advisory council, and 

representatives from the NPS Pacific West 

Region’s HABS / HAER / HALS staff to determine 

the appropriate level documentation/mitigation 

strategy needed to reduce the intensity of impacts 

on landscape features, and formalize that decision 

through a memorandum of understanding among 

the consulting parties. The mitigation strategy 

would be implemented prior to the new 

construction or structure removal. Collectively, 

the proposed actions would resulting in longterm, direct moderate to major adverse impacts 

on the determined eligible Mission 66 landscape 

at Cottonwood and the potentially eligible 

(undetermined) landscape at Katherine Landing. 

Cumulative impacts — Past, present, and foreseeable 

regional development and land-use practices 

outside of the developed areas will have little to 

no effect on the cultural landscapes. Past, present, 

and foreseeable future development outside 

Cottonwood Cove (Searchlight and the proposed 

Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC. project) lies well 

outside the boundaries of the developed area. In 

the Katherine Landing area, Laughlin/Bullhead 

City are encroaching the recreation area and 

could adversely impact the viewshed of the outer 

boundaries of the developed area. However, this 

would have little to no effect on the main core of 

the landscape. Because development would not 

impact the two developed areas, there would be 

no cumulative impacts on cultural landscapes 

under alternative 2. 

Conclusions — Under alternative 2, Landscape 

components contributing to a determined eligible 

cultural landscape (Cottonwood Cove) and 

components potentially National Register eligible 

(Katherine Landing) would be removed, altered 

or remodeled, and/or visually impacted, resulting 

in in permanent, long-term, local, direct, 

moderate to major adverse impacts. There would 

be no cumulative effect. 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR Part 800.5), the National Park 

Service concludes that the actions under the 

alternative 2 would have adverse effect on cultural 

landscape in the Cottonwood Cove developed 

area and possibly the Katherine Landing 

developed area. Although the intensities of 

negative impacts would be reduced through 

mitigation under NEPA compliance, they would 

remain adverse effect under Section 106. 

Ethnographic Resources. Ethnographic 

resources are often one in the same as 

archeological resources. Therefore, threats and 

impacts on these resources would be comparable. 

Moreover, the types of resources would generally 

be the same for both developed areas. Under 

alternative 2, the potential for negatively 

impacting ethnographic resources would be 

minimal. Any identified ethnographic resources in 

the developed areas would be managed as though 

they were eligible for listing in the National 

Register. Ground-disturbing activities and other 

proposed actions would be avoided in the 

locations of these sites to the greatest extent 

possible. 

Many of the proposed actions proposed under 

alternative 2 would have little to no effect on 

ethnographic resources. Expanding the marinas at 

both developed areas would have an extremely 

remote potential for disturbing resources not 

already disturbed. Similarly, reconfiguring traffic 

circulation patterns to reduce congestions, 

consolidating intersections to streamline points of 

access, increasing and delineating parking, and 

most flashflood mitigation measures would most 

likely take place in previously disturbed locations. 

Providing better pedestrian connection s through 

upgrading existing trails and constructing new 

trails and trailheads in the developed areas and the 

coves adjacent to Katherine Landing could impact 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

138 

ethnographic resources in undisturbed portions 

of the developed areas. However, recreation area 

staff would inventory these locations prior to 

ground disturbance and the trails would be sited 

to avoid sensitive or National Register significant 

resources. Overall, these actions would have no 

effect or negligible, local, direct, and adverse 

effect because undisturbed resources would not 

be present or would be avoided. 

In addition, ethnographic resources potentially 

existing in undisturbed areas outside the 

developed areas and coves adjacent to Katherine 

Landings would be inventoried (in conjunction 

with archeological resources), and assessed for 

National Register significance in consultation with 

the appropriate state historic preservation officer, 

tribal preservation officer, and/or culturally 

associated tribes. Ground-disturbing activities 

would be sited away from sensitive resources to 

the greatest extent possible. This would result in 

no or negligible adverse impacts on the areas of 

disturbance. 

Cumulative impacts — Past development and landuse patterns have damaged or destroyed 

ethnographic resources within the developed 

areas and surrounding region. Ethnographic 

resources that have been inundated by the 

impoundment of Lake Mohave have and would 

continue to be subjected to impacts from water 

movement, changing lake levels, sedimentation, 

and recreation. These past actions have resulted in 

direct, minor to major, long-term/permanent, 

local and regional, adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources. 

In addition, actions called for in park plans like 

the exotic plan management plan and fire 

management plan could have adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources if avoidance were not an 

option. These impacts have been and would 

continue to be direct, long-term/permanent, 

minor to major, and adverse. 

Future projects outside of the recreation area 

could also adversely affect ethnographic 

resources. The proposed Searchlight Wind 

Energy, LLC. project would entail the 

construction of the wind farm infrastructure and 

the wind turbines. Again, if avoidance were not 

possible, there could be negative impacts in the 

form of visual and physical intrusions on 

ethnographic resources. These present and future 

activities and development could result in direct 

and indirect, long-term/permanent, minor to 

major, adverse impacts on ethnographic resources 

locally and regionally. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 2 would result in no or negligible 

permanent, adverse effects to ethnographic 

resources because sensitive resources would be 

avoided to the greatest extent possible. These 

impacts, in combination with the minor to major, 

permanent, adverse impacts of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions would 

result in a permanent, moderate adverse 

cumulative effect. The adverse effects of 

alternative 2, however, would be a small 

component of the adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion — Under alternative 2, grounddisturbing activities would be sited away from 

National Register eligible ethnographic resources 

resulting in no or negligible, local, adverse 

impacts. Cumulative impacts would be regional, 

permanent, direct, minor to major, and adverse; 

NPS contributions would be minimal. 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR Part 800.5), the National Park 

Service concludes that the actions under the 

alternative 2 would have a no adverse effect on 

ethnographic resources because the National Park 

Service would avoid damaging these resources. 

Visitor Use, Experience, and Safety 

Under alternative 2, various renovations and 

expansions would take place to facilities at both 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing. 

At Cottonwood Cove, a second story would be 

added to the existing motel, thereby doubling the 

capacity of visitors. The number of marina slips 

would also be increased by almost 40% from 

current capacity. To better accommodate this 

increase, alternative 2 would improve access, 

circulation, and parking. The main access road 

east of the existing ranger station would be 

widened, adding a new launch/ready lane to 

reduce congestion at the launch point and 

expedite visitor access to the lake, therefore, also 

reducing conflicts and frustration among visitors. 

In addition, new pedestrian connections to areas 

of interest — such as along the shoreline, to and 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

139 

from remote parking areas, and to both visitor 

service and remote beach areas — would increase 

convenience for visitors. It would also provide 

better access to less-frequented areas, which 

would distribute visitor use and further reduce 

crowding. Parking capacity would be increased in 

lower Cottonwood Wash to support the 

expansions and benefit visitors. 

Additional measures that would be undertaken to 

provide for increased visitation include expansion 

the dry storage area and of the restaurant located 

at the marina. These changes would result in 

moderate to major, long-term, and beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience. 

Other improvements to visitor experience at 

Cottonwood Cove would include a new 

visitor/ranger contact station near the launch site 

that disseminates important safety information to 

visitors. Orientation and interpretation services 

would also be added at the existing ranger station, 

and the amphitheater would be enhanced for use 

by potential interpretive programs. Because of the 

relatively small number of visitors who participate 

in interpretive programs, this would result in 

minor, long-term, and beneficial impacts on 

visitor experience and safety. 

At Katherine Landing, the number of marina slips 

would not be increased, and the motel would be 

renovated but not expanded. The campground 

would also be rehabilitated but not expanded, in 

this case to accommodate ADA campsites. The 

only action that would increase overnight lodging 

capacity would be the addition of 22 new shortterm RV sites, which would not result in a 

considerable intensification of crowding. In fact, 

the doubling of convenience store and restaurant 

capacity would reduce the sense of crowding felt 

by visitors at Katherine Landing, as would the 

extension of the courtesy dock and the low-water 

launch ramp. Overall, these actions would result 

in minor, long-term, and beneficial impacts on 

visitor experience. 

The creation of the new short-term RV sites 

would be part of a gradual conversion of the longterm trailer village into solely short-term use. This 

would result in a corresponding shift in 

demographics as long-term users are replaced by 

visitors staying for shorter timeframes. This 

gradual elimination of the trailer village and 

corresponding upgrades to the accommodations 

would provide more variety and increased 

opportunities of overnight accommodations 

available to all visitors. The result would be 

moderate, long-term beneficial impacts on visitor 

experience. 

Alternative 2 would also institute various changes 

to the parking situation at Katherine Landing. 

Overall, parking would be better organized and 

delineated. Although parking capacity would not 

be increased, parking lots would be relocated 

closer to the lakeshore for the convenience of 

visitors. Access and circulation would be slightly 

modified in the vicinity of Cabinsite Road. These 

actions would result in moderate, long-term, and 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience. 

Just as at Cottonwood Cove, this alternative 

would also create a new ranger / visitor contact 

station near the launch site. In addition visitors 

would see more wayside signs, which would 

replace the existing ranger station and would be 

placed at the Cabinsite Road junction as well. 

These actions would result in minor, long-term, 

and beneficial impacts on visitor experience and 

safety. 

Unlike at Cottonwood Cove, the existing picnic 

area at Katherine Landing would be removed 

entirely and water access at that site would be 

discouraged. This would result in moderate, 

short-term, and adverse impacts on visitor 

experience until visitors readjusted their use 

patterns to other areas. 

Visitor safety would be addressed at Cottonwood 

Cove with the relocation of the no-boat area to Ski 

Cove. By moving this area, highly used by 

swimmers, away from its current location near the 

boat launch at Cottonwood Cove, user group 

conflicts would be reduced and the safety of 

swimmers would be improved, resulting in 

moderate, long-term, and beneficial impacts on 

visitor experience and safety. The motel 

experience, however, would be affected by 

moderate, long-term, and adverse impacts 

because of the loss of the no-boat area directly 

adjacent to the facility. 

Since relocation of the no-boat area would shift 

many visitors to the new area, the picnic area 

would also be relocated to Ski Cove. New paved 

access would be constructed on a spur road to the 

Ski Cove area and a new parking area would be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

140 

added to accommodate this increase in visitation, 

although the parking lot would likely not be close 

by and visitors may be required to walk a 

considerable distance to reach Ski Cove from their 

cars. In addition, more shelters, tables, and grills 

would be placed at the picnic area for use by 

visitors. This would result in moderate, long-term, 

beneficial, and adverse impacts on visitor 

experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are several 

reasonably foreseeable projects, separate from 

these plans, that could further impact visitor 

experience at Lake Mohave. 

One proposal that would affect the visitor 

experience is the reconstruction of the Katherine 

Landing access road beginning at its intersection 

with the Davis Dam Highway and continuing to 

the boat launch ramp. Because of high visitation 

levels at Katherine Landing, this road is subject to 

heavy traffic volumes and in its current state is 

narrow and poorly paved, with inadequate 

drainage. Each of these problems, with the 

exception of traffic volume, would be corrected 

under the proposed reconstruction. Combined 

with the improved parking situation and the 

extension of the courtesy dock and launch ramp, 

this would result in major, long-term, and 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience and 

safety. 

The wireless telecommunication facilities plan 

identified Cottonwood Cove as a suitable site for 

the construction of a new cellular tower in the 

future. Improved communications within the 

coverage area would directly benefit those who 

choose to use this technology while in the 

recreation area. Moreover, some visitors may be 

more content and have peace of mind knowing 

that they can use a cell phone to contact help in 

case of emergency, especially in remote areas that 

receive less visitation. Construction of cellular 

towers would provide moderate, long-term, and 

beneficial impacts on safety resulting from 

improved communication services and increased 

emergency response time. Effects to visitor 

experience would be minor, long-term, and could 

be either beneficial or adverse, depending on the 

visitor’s views on the technology and its suitability 

to national parks. 

Another potential development that may affect 

visitors to the Cottonwood Cove area is the 

proposed installation of up to 161 wind turbine 

generators in the area between the community of 

Searchlight (where the Cottonwood Cove access 

road begins) and the Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area. This development would have a 

moderate, long-term, and adverse impact on the 

viewshed experienced by visitors entering the 

park via Cottonwood Cove. 

The Cottonwood Cove marina is also authorized 

to expand from approximately 300 slips to 

484 slips, per the lake management plan. This 

increase, if undertaken, would most likely increase 

visitation because of the increased capacity. The 

changes proposed under this alternative 

accommodate an increase in visitation, therefore, 

the result would be moderate, long-term, and 

beneficial impacts on visitors. 

The construction activities and related effects 

involved with these improvements would have 

minor to moderate, short-term, and adverse 

impacts on visitor experience. When combined 

with the impacts of alternative 2, however, the 

overall experience of visitors to developed areas 

would have moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts. 

Conclusion. Overall, the implementation of 

alternative 2 would result in minor to moderate, 

long-term, and beneficial impacts on visitor 

experience. There are some additional minor to 

moderate, short-term, and adverse impacts on 

visitor experience caused by construction 

activities associated with this alternative. 

Cumulative impacts on the overall experience of 

visitors to developed areas would have moderate, 

long-term, and beneficial. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

Impacts on the socioeconomic environment, 

including the commercial operators in the 

recreation area and nearby communities were 

considered. Impacts are partly based on estimates 

in the “Revised Alternatives Analysis” for both 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

(Dornbusch 2011a, 2011b). The following impact 

topics were developed to analyze impacts in 

alternatives 2 and 3. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

141 

Construction-related Economic Impacts. These

impacts on site-specific, local, and regional 

economic output and employment resulting from 

construction projects associated with each 

alternative. It is assumed that construction in each 

alternative occurs over an initial 2- to 3-year 

period.

Cottonwood Cove — Alternative 2 involves several 

changes to the concession operation at 

Cottonwood Cove. The marina would be 

expanded to 484 slips, and the dry storage area 

would be expanded to 500 spaces. A second story 

would be added to the waterfront motel, and it 

would double in size to 50 rooms. The restaurant 

would double in size and the fuel pumps would be 

relocated near the ranger station. The 

concessioner’s maintenance area would be 

expanded, and concession housing would be 

expanded in the high bluff area. There would be 

no changes to the trailer village, short-term RV 

park, or the NPS campgrounds under this 

alternative. 

Class C construction cost estimates for these 

changes to the concession total $8 million in 2013 

dollars (Dornbusch 2011a). The expansion of the 

marina ($3 million) and the motel ($2.9 million) 

are the two largest projects. 

Given the large capital investment required to 

complete all of the proposed construction and 

development projects under alternative 2, a typical 

10-year concession contract may not be 

financially feasible for a concessioner. Options 

such as longer contract terms or phasing in 

elements of alternative 2 over time may be 

necessary to ensure financial feasibility for a 

concessioner operating these services. 

The $8 million in construction spending proposed 

for Cottonwood Cove is projected to generate a 

total of $10.2 million in direct and indirect value 

added to the local economy in the short term. An 

estimated 27.5 full-time equivalent jobs and 

$2.7 million in labor income will be generated by 

construction in the short term (estimated to be a 

3-year period). 

Katherine Landing — Alternative 2 involves several 

changes to the concession operation at Katherine 

Landing. The marina docks would be replaced 

and the marina would be reconfigured to 

accommodate a greater proportion of large 

(longer than 30 ft) slips. The motel would be 

renovated and a pool would be added. The shortterm RV park would be expanded into the trailer 

village area, and the trailer village would gradually 

be removed over time. The convenience store and 

the restaurant would both be expanded, doubling 

their capacity. Concession housing would be 

replaced with permanent structures in the area 

near the concession maintenance facility. There 

would be no changes to the NPS campgrounds or 

the concessioner’s maintenance area under 

alternative 2. 

Class C construction cost estimates for these 

changes to the concession total $12.3 million in 

2013 dollars (Dornbusch 2011b). The replacement 

and reconfiguration of the marina ($7.2 million), 

the expansion of the short-term RV park 

($2 million) and upgrades to employee housing 

($1.2 million) are the largest projects. 

Given the large capital investment required to 

complete all of the proposed construction and 

development projects under alternative 2, a typical 

10-year concession contract may not be 

financially feasible for a concessioner. Options 

such as longer contract terms or phasing in 

elements of alternative 2 over time may be 

necessary to ensure financial feasibility for a 

concessioner operating these services. 

The $12.3 million in construction spending is 

projected to generate a total of $15.7 million in 

direct and indirect value added to the local 

economy in the short term. An estimated 42.3 jobs 

and $4.2 million in labor income will be generated 

by construction in the short term (estimated to be 

a 3-year period). See table 14 for more 

information on the construction-related 

economic impacts of alternative 2. 

TABLE 14. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 

Cottonwood 

Cove

Katherine 

Landing 

Construction 

Spending $8,000,000 $12,300,000 

Construction Value 

Added $10,240,000 $15,744,000 

Construction Jobs 27.5 42.3 

Construction Labor 

Income $2,722,000 $4,185,000 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

142 

Overall, the impact of construction at both 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing is 

projected to be local, minor, short-term, and 

beneficial. 

Visitor Spending-related Economic Impacts. 

These impacts on site-specific, local, and regional 

economic output and employment resulting from 

changes to visitor spending associated with each 

alternative. New or modified concession services 

would include changes to marinas, lodging 

options, and other commercial services including 

food and beverage and retail sales.

Cottonwood Cove — Based on current occupancy 

rates and estimates of unmet demand, the 

expanded marina is projected to increase slip 

rental revenue by $275,000 in 2013, and the 

expanded motel is projected to increase room 

revenue by $308,000. The increased number of 

boats in the marina and guests staying at the hotel 

will lead to increased retail and food and beverage 

revenues. Gift shop/convenience store revenue is 

projected to increase by $559,000 and restaurant 

revenue is projected to increase by $184,000. Dry 

storage revenue is also projected to increase by 

$59,000 in 2013, bringing the total projected 

increase in revenue in 2013 to approximately 

$1.4 million (Dornbusch 2011a). 

After subtracting additional expenses associated 

with these service expansions, annual concession 

profit is projected to increase by approximately 

$200,000 annually. 

The $1.4 million annual increase in visitor 

spending (revenue) at Cottonwood Cove is 

projected to generate $2.1 million in direct and 

indirect value added to the local economy 

annually. This spending is projected to support 

12.7 additional full-time jobs for the concessioner 

and generate $407,000 annually in labor income. 

The indirect spending effects are projected to 

support 6.1 additional jobs in the local economy 

and generate an additional $195,000 in labor 

income. 

Katherine Landing — Based on current slip 

occupancy rates and estimates of unmet demand, 

the reconfigured marina is projected to increase 

slip rental revenue by $501,000 in 2013 dollars. 

The renovated motel is projected to increase 

revenue by $34,000. Expansion of the short-term 

RV park and the removal of 10% of the existing 

trailer village units will result in a net reduction of 

RV/trailer village revenue of $22,000. The 

expansion of the retail store is projected to 

increase revenue by $148,000, and the expansion 

of the restaurant is projected to increase revenue 

by $46,000. The total projected increase in 

revenue is $706,000 in 2013 dollars (Dornbusch 

2011b). 

After subtracting additional expenses associated 

with these changes in services, annual concession 

profit is projected to increase by approximately 

$200,000 annually. 

The $706,000 annual increase in visitor spending 

(revenue) at Katherine Landing is projected to 

generate $1 million in direct and indirect value 

added to the local economy annually. This 

spending is projected to support 6.4 additional 

full-time jobs for the concessioner and generate 

$205,000 annually in labor income. The indirect 

spending effects are projected to support 3.1 

additional jobs in the local economy and generate 

an additional $99,000 in labor income. See table 15 

for more information on visitor spending-related 

economic impacts of alternative 2. 

TABLE 15. VISITOR SPENDING-RELATED 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 

 

Cottonwood 

Cove

Katherine 

Landing 

Increased Revenue $1,400,000 $706,000 

Visitor Spending 

Value Added $2,072,000 $1,044,880 

New Concession 

Jobs 12.7 6.4 

Concession Labor 

Income $407,000 $205,000 

Indirect Jobs 6.1 3.1 

Indirect Labor 

Income $195,000 $99,000 

Overall, the impact of increased visitor spending 

at both Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

is projected to be local, negligible, long-term, and 

beneficial. 

Impacts on Other Park Concessions and Local 

Businesses. These impacts on other marina 

concessioners were considered, but because of the 

long distances between marinas in the area, these 

impacts are expected to be minor. Impacts on 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

143 

lodging and retail establishments in nearby 

communities were also considered. 

The expanded motel at Cottonwood Cove could 

slightly reduce demand for motel style lodging in 

Searchlight and Cal-Nev-Ari. The expansion of 

the Cottonwood Cove marina would increase 

traffic through Searchlight and have a minor, 

beneficial impact on lodging, retail sales, and fuel 

sales in that community. 

The expansion of the Cottonwood Cove marina 

and the reconfiguration of the Katherine Landing 

marina could shift some demand between both 

concessions, but the net effect would be 

negligible. Given the distance between these 

marinas and other similar concessions within 

recreation area, the impact on other concession 

operations will be negligible. 

Overall, the impact of alternative 2 on other park 

concessions and local businesses is projected to be 

local, minor, long-term, and beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts. Growth in the surrounding 

communities and region is expected to support 

continued economic growth and increased 

visitation to the recreation area. Impacts from 

these actions in conjunction with alternative 2 

would result in primarily beneficial but 

imperceptible effects on the Cottonwood Cove 

and Katherine Landing concessions and the 

economy of nearby communities and the region. 

Conclusion. Construction and increased visitor 

spending would result in minor, short- and longterm, beneficial impacts for concession-operated 

facilities. Effects on local communities and the 

region would be beneficial, but negligible to minor 

because the park is a small part of the overall 

regional economy. 

Impacts associated with spending and 

employment shifts would be expected to occur 

over the duration of concession contracts, the 

length of which would be 10 years with the 

potential for contract extensions or renewals. 

Short-term impacts would include construction 

spending, which would occur over an estimated 

2 to 3 years. See table 16 for a summary of 

socioeconomic impacts of alternative 2. 

Cumulative impacts would be beneficial, but 

generally imperceptible. 

Park Operations 

Cottonwood Cove. The marina and motel 

expansion at Cottonwood Cove would increase 

visitation to the area, impacting interpretive, 

maintenance, law enforcement and natural 

resources staff. While the concessioner would be 

responsible for the construction of the motel 

addition and the expansion of the marina, 

recreation area maintenance staff would monitor 

these projects. 

TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 

Construction Visitor Spending

Population, 

Housing, and Equity

Concessions and 

Local Businesses

Cottonwood Cove

Impact Type Beneficial Beneficial Neutral Beneficial

Impact Context Local Local Local Local

Impact Intensity Minor Negligible Negligible Minor

Impact Duration Short Term Long Term Long Term Long Term

Cumulative Impact Imperceptible Imperceptible Imperceptible Imperceptible

Katherine Landing

Impact Type Beneficial Beneficial Neutral Beneficial

Impact Context Local Local Local Local

Impact Intensity Minor Negligible Negligible Minor

Impact Duration Short Term Long Term Long Term Long Term

Cumulative Impact Imperceptible Imperceptible Imperceptible Imperceptible 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

144 

NPS construction projects at Cottonwood Cove 

under alternative 2 would include 9,300 linear feet 

(lf) of concrete channels for flood control, as well 

as low-flow road crossings and road realignment. 

Additional road improvements would be made to 

reconfigure circulation throughout the area. The 

main access road would be widened to include a 

new launch/ready lane. A new paved spur road 

would be created to the Ski Cove area. Parking 

capacity would be increased by a total of 392 

spaces, and parking would be better organized 

and delineated throughout Cottonwood Cove. 

New picnic areas would be developed in Ski Cove, 

and new trails would be developed to areas of 

interest. A new visitor contact/ranger station 

would be built near the launch ramp. 

Campground restrooms would be rehabilitated, 

and the NPS housing and maintenance areas 

would be relocated. All of these construction and 

development projects would involve supervision 

and/or labor by recreation area maintenance staff. 

The new maintenance area would provide a 

minor, beneficial impact on maintenance staff. 

Relocated area housing would provide a minor, 

beneficial impact on NPS staff living at 

Cottonwood Cove. 

A new no-boat area in Ski Cove would require 

additional enforcement from area staff. The 

existing ranger station would be adapted into an 

orientation/interpretation center that may not 

require much staffing; however, the new visitor 

contact/ranger station near the launch ramp 

would attract an increased number of guests, 

requiring additional staffing. 

Katherine Landing. At Katherine Landing, the 

gradual conversion of the trailer village to a shortterm RV park (which would have significantly 

fewer spaces) would likely reduce demands on 

law enforcement personnel. 

NPS construction projects at Katherine Landing 

under alternative 2 include rehabilitation of 

existing diversion dikes and construction of a new 

concrete channel along South Katherine Wash, a 

new paved access road from Cabinsite Road to the 

new NPS maintenance area, and the relocation of 

parking closer to the lakeshore. A new paved 

access road would be constructed between North 

and South Arizona Telephone Coves, and a 

concrete two-lane launch ramp would be 

developed at North Arizona Telephone Cove. The 

NPS maintenance area would be relocated to the 

northwest of the developed area, the existing 

picnic area would be removed, the campground 

would be rehabilitated, the courtesy dock would 

be extended, and the existing launch ramp would 

be extended for low-water launching. The existing 

ranger station and visitor contact station would be 

converted to waysides, and a new modest 

ranger/visitor contact station would be created 

near the launch ramp. All of these construction 

and development projects would involve 

supervision and/or labor by area maintenance 

staff. 

The new maintenance area would have a minor, 

beneficial impact on maintenance staff. Additional 

volunteer sites in the campground would be 

developed. More volunteers would reduce 

demands on NPS staff, providing a minor, 

beneficial impact. 

The existing ranger station and visitor contact 

station would be converted to waysides, and a 

new modest ranger/visitor contact station would 

be created near the launch ramp. Overall staffing 

for these sites would likely be similar to the noaction alternative. 

Cabinsite Point would be closed to boat 

launching. This might require additional 

monitoring and could have a minor, adverse effect 

on law enforcement. 

Cumulative Impacts. On a site-specific basis, 

these proposed changes will have a noticeable 

impact on park operations. Several facilities would 

be relocated or reconfigured, and area staff would 

have increased responsibilities related to 

monitoring new no-boat zones and launch areas. 

Conclusion. Overall, alternative 2 would increase 

demands on NPS staff at both Cottonwood Cove 

and Katherine Landing. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

145 

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: 

ENHANCE VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND 

PARK OPERATIONS 

(PREFERRED) 

Natural Resources 

Native Plant Communities and Soils. Similar to 

alternative 2, most construction activities 

associated with rehabilitation, replacement, or 

redesign of facilities at both developed areas 

would occur within or adjacent to previously 

disturbed areas and currently developed sites and 

would have minimal additional impacts on soils or 

native vegetation that is a mixture of native and 

nonnative plants. Some individual native plants or 

small remnant areas of Mohave desert scrub may 

be removed or trampled or desert soils compacted 

or disturbed in areas surrounding these 

construction sites. 

Desert shrub vegetation and soils would be lost or 

altered by construction of new visitor or park 

administrative facilities on currently undeveloped 

sites that would expand the periphery of the 

overall development footprint. While portions of 

these new development sites have been impacted 

to some degree by visitor use or administrative 

roads, much of the impact would be new 

disturbance. Addition of a shoreline picnic area 

and parking at Ski Cove, development of a trail 

along the lakeshore to connect these facilities to 

Cottontail Cove, expansion of the maintenance 

area at Katherine Landing, and construction of a 

helipad at Princess Cove would impact 

approximately 3 acres. Extension of utility lines 

and access road to Ski Cove would result in 

additional impacts along a corridor that is 

estimated at 1,500 ft in length. There would also 

be an undetermined amount of new disturbance 

to vegetation and soils from development of lake 

access trails, which would be minimized by 

strategic location and design. 

Alternative 3 includes redesign of the internal 

road circulation at both developed areas. Most of 

the impacts associated with these actions are 

expected to affect previously disturbed lands and 

impacts on native plant communities would be 

minor. 

American threefold, a species of interest to the 

recreation area, may occur along rocky slopes and 

washes near the shoreline between Katherine 

Landing and Princess Cove. Expansion of facilities 

at Cabinsite Point or South Telephone Cove and 

development of lakeshore trails could result in the 

destruction of individual plants. To avoid impact 

on plants, areas would be surveyed to allow siting 

of facilities outside of any populations. 

Impacts because of the construction of flood 

control structures would be the same as under 

alternative 2, impacting approximately 9 acres at 

Cottonwood Cove and 12 acres at Katherine 

Landing with much of the disturbance to soils and 

vegetation occurring in areas previously disturbed 

by existing roads, channels, dikes, or other manmade facilities and uses. Approximately an 

additional 13 acres of currently undisturbed 

desert shrub and wash vegetation and soils would 

be impacted by the construction of a new 

diversion dike and channel system in Ranger 

Wash west of Cottonwood Cove. Although the 

local topography would be altered, surface 

restoration/revegetation of most of the disturbed 

area would occur. Construction access to the site 

would be provided via the wash bottom, where 

scouring during flood events would rework the 

soils in the wash compacted by construction 

equipment access. 

Overall, vegetation and soils would be removed 

within the immediate footprint of new structures, 

roads, parking areas, trails, etc. Disturbance of 

desert soils and vegetation around the 

construction zones may result in impacts such as 

changes in plant production and species 

composition, introduction and spread of 

nonnative plants and noxious weeds, compaction 

and loss of soil because of increased susceptibility 

of soils to wind and water erosion, reduced soil 

moisture and infiltration rates, and changes in soil 

temperatures and increased evaporation rates. 

Implementation of mitigation measures during 

construction such as erosion controls and 

revegetation would minimize the loss and enhance 

the reestablishment of native vegetation and 

desert soils. As under alternative 2, an increase in 

the amount of disturbed ground would increase 

the potential for the spread or introduction of 

exotic vegetation, although alternative 3 would 

result in slightly fewer acres of new ground 

disturbance. Mitigation measures such as pressure 

washing of construction equipment would reduce 

the risk of introducing new exotic species. Post-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

146 

construction revegetation, monitoring, and 

treatment would also reduce the risk of spreading 

existing populations and introducing new exotic 

species. 

Given the disturbance to soils and vegetation that 

has already occurred in most of the areas that 

would be impacted by proposed construction and 

visitor use and the application of appropriate 

mitigation measures to minimize additional 

impacts, the alteration of native plant species’ 

populations and desert soil structure would be 

local and long-term adverse impacts are expected 

to be primarily minor. Development of new sites, 

road relocation, and construction of structural 

flood protection would result in greater 

disturbance to native plant communities and soils 

and would likely have long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts. 

Some local beneficial effects to native plant 

communities and soil resources would also occur 

as the result of alternative 3. The replacement of 

existing invasive nonnative landscaping with 

native plantings as facilities are rehabilitated, 

replaced, or redesigned would remove a source of 

seeds and propagules that spread nonnative plant 

species to surrounding native plant communities. 

Existing exotic shoreline plants such as tamarisk 

would be removed during development of the 

new picnic area in Ski Cove and development of 

visitor facilities near the Katherine Landing 

shoreline. Some currently disturbed sites (i.e., 

maintenance area at Cottonwood Cove and 

existing satellite parking lot C located at Katherine 

Landing) would also be restored or partially 

restored. Enhanced interpretive and educational 

facilities and programs are expected to help 

educate and deter visitor caused impacts, such as 

social trailing or other vegetation damage. 

Cumulative effects — As described for the no-action 

alternative, there are several actions in and outside 

of the recreation area that would contribute to 

cumulative effects. These past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would have 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on soils and native plant communities 

because of construction and other activities and 

uses. However, long-term beneficial effects to 

native plant communities would be anticipated as 

a result of implementing the exotic plant 

management plan and fire management plan, both 

of which seek to restore native plant communities 

and control exotic plants. Alternative 3 would 

contribute both long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts because of construction and 

expansion of visitor day use and administrative 

areas, and long-term beneficial effects from 

replacement of invasive nonnative landscaping 

with native plantings and restoration of some 

currently developed sites. The overall cumulative 

impact from past, present, and future actions in 

combination with the impacts of alternative 3 

would result in a minor to moderate, long-term 

adverse cumulative effect on native plant 

communities and soils from development and use 

and long-term beneficial cumulative effects from 

native plant community restoration efforts and 

removal of invasive species. 

Conclusion — Alternative 3 would primarily result in 

minor, long-term adverse impacts on native plant 

communities and soils from facility construction 

and associated visitor use that would affect 

previously disturbed areas. Approximately 37 

acres of local, long-term, minor to moderate, and 

adverse impacts would result from development 

of additional lands and construction of flood 

control structures. Local beneficial effects would 

also result from the selective removal of existing 

nonnative invasive species and restoration of 

some currently developed sites. Cumulative 

impacts on vegetation and soils from alternative 3 

in conjunction with past, present, and future 

projects would result in long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative effects from 

development and use and long-term beneficial 

cumulative effects from native plant community 

restoration efforts and removal of invasive 

species.

Wildlife. Wildlife populations and their habitats in 

the developed areas have been altered by past 

human actions. These areas have marginal habitat 

value. Similar to alternative 2, the rehabilitation, 

replacement, or redesign of facilities would 

primarily occur within existing areas of 

concentrated human use and development and 

not in areas of continuous, undisturbed habitat. 

Construction of new facilities on currently 

undeveloped sites would result in the additional 

loss or alteration of desert shrub communities, 

which provides habitat for species such as reptiles, 

birds, and small mammals. The overall 

development and use footprint of these 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

147 

developments would encompass approximately 

2 acres at Cottonwood Cove and 4 acres at 

Katherine Landing. While portions of these new 

development sites have been impacted to some 

degree by visitor use or administrative roads, most 

of the impact would be new disturbance and 

permanent. 

Impacts from construction of flood control 

structures would be the same as for alternative 2. 

Approximately 9 acres at Cottonwood Cove and 

12 acres at Katherine Landing would be disturbed. 

Much of this acreage has been previously 

disturbed by existing roads, channels, dikes, or 

other man-made facilities and uses. 

Approximately 13 acres of currently undisturbed 

desert shrub and wash habitat would be impacted 

by a new diversion dike and channel system in 

Ranger Wash. Surface restoration and 

revegetation of most of this acreage would occur 

following construction. 

Loss or fragmentation of habitat from proposed 

ground-disturbing activities and noise and visual 

intrusions associated with construction activity 

would affect wildlife species using these areas for 

foraging, nesting, and shelter and could result in 

direct loss of some individuals during 

construction activities. However, the majority of 

mammals, birds, and reptiles that are currently 

using habitat within or adjacent to these areas 

would be displaced to nearby habitat. Some may 

abandon nests or dens if construction occurred 

during critical phases of their breeding cycles. 

Generalist species like gulls, ravens, and coyotes 

would likely continue to be attracted to, and adapt 

to human habitation. Impacts should be 

minimized by the fact that planned projects would 

likely be implemented throughout multiple years 

and it is unlikely that at any one time, construction 

would be occurring in more than a few areas. 

In addition to disturbance and loss of habitat from 

construction, new and existing facilities would 

accommodate larger numbers of visitors, which 

could increase disturbance to adjacent habitat. 

However, increased visitation is expected to 

primarily occur within the existing developed 

areas, areas currently degraded because of highdisturbance levels from existing developments 

and human use. In general, wildlife would either 

become accustomed to human activity or relocate 

outside of the developed areas because of noise, 

visual intrusions, or habitat alteration. Local 

increased mortality to some wildlife such as 

lizards and small mammals could occur from 

increase in visitor traffic. 

Mitigation measures developed for minimizing 

impacts on soils and vegetation such as replanting 

areas with native species, pressure washing of 

construction equipment, etc., as described in 

chapter 2, would also aide in minimizing impacts 

on the quality of wildlife habitat. To reduce 

impacts on birds, land clearing or other surface 

disturbance would be conducted outside the avian 

breeding season or a qualified biologist would 

survey the area prior to clearing. If a migratory 

bird nest were found with nestlings present, 

impacts would be avoided until birds fledge. In 

addition, enhanced interpretive and educational 

facilities and programs are expected to help deter 

visitor caused impacts on wildlife and wildlife 

habitat, such as social trailing, littering, and 

unauthorized collection of small animals. 

Most actions would occur in areas extensively 

disturbed by existing development and associated 

use. Areas that are typically avoided by most 

wildlife and that have marginal habitat value. 

Alternative 3 would result in temporary or 

permanent loss of up to approximately 37 acres of 

natural habitat, although the disturbed areas are 

small relative to the desert shrub and wash habitat 

found in the park and region. Individual projects 

would also likely be implemented periodically 

throughout multiple years and would not occur 

simultaneously. Mitigation measures would 

minimize damage during construction and replant 

areas as appropriate. Therefore, the adverse 

impact on wildlife would be long term and minor, 

affecting individuals from wildlife populations in 

local areas, but not resulting in loss of population 

viability for these species. 

The replacement of existing invasive nonnative 

landscaping and exotic shoreline plants with 

native plantings and the restoration of previously 

disturbed sites at Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing would improve local wildlife 

habitat conditions. Thus, some local beneficial 

effects to wildlife habitat would occur as the result 

of alternative 3. 

Impacts from in-water work for construction of 

new fishing piers at both developed areas, 

potential improvement of existing launch ramps, 

as well as from general construction near the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

148 

lakeshore could create increased runoff, turbidity, 

sedimentation, or introduction of pollutants (e.g., 

petroleum products from construction 

equipment) to nearby aquatic environments. 

Noise and visual disturbances during construction 

could cause fish to move from the area of 

disturbance. Generally, these adverse impacts 

would be short term and minor because of the 

small areas affected, the disturbing activities 

would be temporary, and mitigation measures 

would be used to minimize potential impacts. 

Heavy shoreline recreational use during periods 

of high use can also temporarily cause similar 

local, minor impacts. Lake substrates would also 

be lost within the footprint of the in-water 

structures, although this area would be very 

limited, and impacts would be minor. 

Consequently, these impacts would not be large 

enough to adversely affect fish populations. 

Increased sport fishing may occur with the 

addition of a fishing piers and improved shoreline 

trailheads and trails that accommodate access by 

fishermen, but it is expected that NPS monitoring 

and the AZGFD and NDOW regulation of the 

fisheries would prevent adverse impacts on the 

recreation area’s fish populations. 

Cumulative effects — As described for the no-action 

alternative, there are several actions in and outside 

of the recreation area that would contribute to 

cumulative effects. These past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would have 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat because of 

construction and other activities and uses. 

However, long-term beneficial effects would be 

anticipated as a result of implementing the exotic 

plant management plan and fire management 

plan, both of which seek to restore native plant 

communities and control exotic plants. 

Management actions associated with the lake 

management plan would improve water quality 

and the lake’s aquatic habitat through the 

reduction of the amount of waste fuels and human 

wastes in the lake. 

The overall cumulative impact on lands in and 

around the developed areas from past, present, 

and future actions in combination with the 

impacts of alternative 3 would result in a minor to 

moderate, long-term adverse cumulative effect 

from development and use and long-term 

beneficial cumulative effects from wildlife habitat 

restoration efforts and removal of invasive 

species. Alternative 3 would contribute both longterm minor adverse impacts because of 

construction and expansion of day-use areas, and 

long-term beneficial effects from replacement of 

invasive nonnative landscaping and shoreline 

exotics with native plantings and the restoration 

of some currently developed sites.

Conclusion — Alternative 3 would result in 

temporary or permanent loss of approximately 

37 acres of terrestrial habitat. The adverse impact 

on wildlife would be long term and minor, 

affecting individuals from wildlife populations in 

local areas, but not resulting in loss of population 

viability for these species. Impacts from in-water 

work and from construction near the lakeshore 

would be short term and minor and would not 

adversely affect fish populations. The overall 

cumulative impact on lands in and around the 

developed areas from past, present, and future 

actions in combination with the impacts of 

alternative 3 would result in a minor to moderate, 

long-term adverse cumulative effect from 

development and use and long-term beneficial 

cumulative effects from wildlife habitat 

restoration efforts and removal of invasive 

species. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status 

Species. There are no known spawning areas or 

rearing ponds for razorback sucker or bonytail 

chub along the shoreline of either developed area. 

No impacts on spawning habitat are expected. As 

noted in the “Wildlife” section above, impacts 

from in-water work for potential improvement of 

existing lunch ramps and government dock 

construction at Katherine Landing and 

construction of new fishing piers at both 

developed areas as well as from general 

construction near the lakeshore could create 

increased runoff, turbidity, or sedimentation of 

Lake Mohave, which is critical habitat for both 

species. Adverse impacts would be short term and 

local because of the small areas affected, the 

disturbing activities would be temporary, and 

mitigation measures would be used to minimize 

potential impacts. Similar temporary impacts from 

increased shoreline recreation are expected to 

continue to occur in areas already heavily used by 

visitors. Loss of substrate within the footprint of 

new in-water structures would occur, although 

the area affected would be limited. Enhancement 

of fishing opportunities may result in a slight 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

149 

increased risk of taking a listed fish, however, the 

potential would be low and information on the 

presence of native species would continue to be 

posted at the developed areas. Overall, impacts 

would be short term and long term, and not likely 

to adversely affect razorback sucker, bonytail 

chub, or their critical habitat. 

Potential impacts on the desert tortoise and 

banded Gila monster include temporary or 

permanent loss of suitable habitat from new 

development. Most impacts would occur on 

previously disturbed sites within the developed 

areas that are low-quality habitat. Construction of 

new facilities on currently undeveloped sites 

would result in the permanent loss of 

approximately 2 acres at Cottonwood Cove and 

4 acres at Katherine Landing. Construction of 

flood control structures would permanently 

impact an approximately 9 acres at Cottonwood 

Cove and 12 acres at Katherine Landing, although 

much of this acreage has been previously 

disturbed by existing roads, channels, dikes, or 

other man-made facilities and uses. 

Approximately 13 acres of currently undisturbed 

desert shrub and wash habitat would be impacted 

by a new diversion dike and channel system in 

Ranger Wash, although surface restoration and 

revegetation of most of this acreage would occur 

following construction. There would be no 

disturbance to designated critical habitat for the 

desert tortoise. 

Harassment from increased human activity, noise, 

and ground vibrations from construction or from 

removal to a safe location during construction 

would also likely occur. Desert tortoise and 

possibly Gila monster individuals on the ground 

or in burrows within the construction limits could 

be killed or injured. Eggs could be destroyed. 

Indirect effects related to capture or harassment 

by construction personnel and attraction of 

predators like ravens to the construction area 

because of trash accumulation could also occur. 

Mitigation would reduce the likelihood of these 

impacts while construction is occurring. 

A 2010 programmatic biological opinion issued by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the 

threatened Mojave desert tortoise included 

infrastructure development and maintenance 

potentially associated with the development 

concept plan for Cottonwood Cove. Mitigation 

measures identified as part of the biological 

opinion would be implemented to minimize loss 

and long-term degradation and fragmentation of 

habitat, such as soil compaction, erosion, crushed 

vegetation, or introduction of nonnative invasive 

plants or weeds as a result of project activities. 

Protective measures for tortoise in all new 

construction projects would include preconstruction surveys, on-site monitoring, and 

removal of tortoises from harm’s way, as well as all 

other measures identified in chapter 2. Any 

additional measures identified during project level 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service would also be implemented. Any Gila 

monsters found within a construction area would 

also be relocated by a qualified biologist. With the 

implementation of mitigation, adverse impacts on 

desert tortoises and banded Gila monsters would 

be minimized. 

Removal of invasive riparian species such as 

tamarisk in Ski Cove and Cottontail Cove as part 

of the development of a picnic area and the 

redevelopment of the shoreline at Katherine 

Landing would have minimal effect to riparian 

vegetation that may be used by migrating 

Southwestern willow flycatchers. Tamarisk is 

considered low-quality habitat and landscape 

planting would include native species such as 

willow. Some flycatchers may potentially be 

displaced or avoid the area because increased 

recreational use in these coves may overlap spring 

and fall migration periods. This would affect a 

relatively small area of the shoreline and there are 

other available shoreline riparian areas, typically 

dominated by tamarisk, that provide migratory 

habitat. Consequently, these short-term adverse 

impacts may affect, but would not be likely to 

adversely affect Southwestern willow flycatchers. 

Potential impacts on the Western burrowing owl 

include temporary or permanent loss of suitable 

habitat from new development and, since this is a 

ground-nesting bird, could include disturbance of 

breeding birds. Loss of individual burrowing owls 

including the young is possible if construction 

occurs during the breeding season. Prior to 

construction, areas would be surveyed for nesting 

birds. Any nests would be avoided until the young 

fledge or collapsed while unoccupied prior to the 

nesting season. The individuals areas impacted 

would be relatively small and the reproductive 

success of individual birds is not expected to be 

affected. Consequently, adverse impacts would 

include potential short-term disturbance from 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

150 

construction activities and long-term, local loss of 

habitat from new development. 

Cumulative effects — As described for the no-action 

alternative, there are several actions in and outside 

of the recreation area that would contribute to 

cumulative effects. These past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would have 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on threatened, endangered, and special 

status species because of construction and other 

activities and uses. However, long-term beneficial 

effects would be anticipated as a result of 

implementing the exotic plant management plan, 

fire management plan, and the lake management 

plan that would improve terrestrial and aquatic 

habitat in the recreation area through restoration 

of native plant communities, control of exotic 

plants, and improvement of lake water quality. 

The overall cumulative impact on lands in and 

around the developed areas from past, present, 

and future actions in combination with the 

impacts of alternative 3 would result in a longterm adverse cumulative effect from development 

and use and a long-term beneficial cumulative 

effect from wildlife habitat restoration efforts and 

removal of invasive species. Alternative 3 would 

contribute both short- and long-term adverse 

impacts on desert tortoise, banded Gila monster, 

and burrowing owls because of construction and 

expansion of day use and administrative areas, 

and long-term beneficial effects from replacement 

of invasive nonnative landscaping and shoreline 

exotics with native plantings and restoration of 

some currently developed sites.

Conclusion — Alternative 3 may affect, but would 

not be likely to adversely affect the Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, razorback sucker, bonytail 

chub, or their critical habitat. Alternative 3 would 

be likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise, 

banded Gila monster, and Western burrowing 

owls although impacts would be local. Potential 

impacts on the desert tortoise and banded Gila 

monster include temporary or permanent loss of 

suitable habitat from new development and 

incidental harassment and possibly loss of 

individuals from construction activities. There 

would be no disturbance to designated critical 

habitat for the desert tortoise. Potential impacts 

on Western burrowing owls would include shortterm disturbance from construction activities and 

long-term, local loss of habitat from new 

development. The overall cumulative impact on 

lands in and around the developed areas from 

past, present, and future actions in combination 

with the impacts of alternative 3 would result in an 

adverse cumulative effect from development and 

use and long-term beneficial cumulative effects 

from wildlife habitat restoration efforts and 

removal of invasive species. 

Floodplains. Similar to alternative 2, the flood 

danger to people and facilities in Cottonwood 

Cove and Katherine Washes from floodwaters up 

to the 500-year flood would be mitigated with 

structural protection that includes systems of 

channels and dikes. The early warning detection 

system at Cottonwood Cove has been recently 

upgraded and a similar system would be installed 

in Katherine Wash to provide early identification 

and dissemination of warnings of an impending 

flood in these washes. A flood preparedness and 

evacuation plan would also be in effect. Signs 

would be developed and placed in strategic 

locations identifying flash flood zones and 

directing visitors and staff to move to higher 

ground. 

The proposed structural flood mitigation 

measures would protect in place all development 

with overnight occupancy from flood inundation 

during the 500-year flood. The structural 

protection would also provide protection for the 

day-use areas and facilities as well with the 

exception of the where channeled flood waters 

would empty across parking areas and launch 

ramps into the lake. Nonstructural flood 

mitigation would further decrease the flood 

hazard risk to the National Park Service and 

concessioner staff and visitors within the primary 

developed areas. At the North and South 

Telephone Coves, day-use areas would have signs 

to inform visitors of flood hazards and evacuation 

procedures. 

Protecting life and property in the floodplains is 

considered to be a higher priority than restoring 

natural floodplain values of these flash 

floodplains, which are the very qualities that 

endanger life and property. Thus, the natural 

floodplain values in both developed areas, such as 

natural flood flows, sedimentation processes, 

vegetation, or groundwater recharge have been 

and would continue to be highly altered by 

development. Construction of additional flood 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

151 

control structures that divert and channel flood 

flows would further alter floodplains above and 

through the developed areas as would paving of 

the parking area in lower North and South 

Telephone Cove wash. However, most of these 

new impacts would be to previously disturbed 

lands. Thus, this alternative would have a longterm minor to moderate adverse effect on 

floodplain values. 

Cumulative impacts — The cumulative actions are 

not expected to alter the flood hazard or 

floodplain values in the developed areas. 

Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion — Alternative 3 would greatly reduce the 

flood hazard at both developed areas through the 

use of structural and nonstructural protection, 

resulting in a long-term substantial benefit to 

safety for people and property in the floodplain. 

There would be a long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on floodplain values because of 

construction of additional flood control 

structures that divert and channel flood flows. 

There would be no cumulative impact on 

floodplains. 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological Resources. Alternative 3 also 

proposes ground disturbance in both developed 

areas and in the coves adjacent to Katherine 

Landing. At Cottonwood Cove, grounddisturbing activities would include the 

construction of a spur road, restrooms, and picnic 

facilities at Ski Cove; construction of a new road 

along the southern edge of the developed area; 

addition of a boat launch lane; and alteration to 

many existing structures. At Katherine Landing 

and the adjacent coves, major ground-disturbing 

activities would include expanding the access road 

to three lanes; construction, enhancement, and/or 

reconfiguring roads within the developed areas; 

the removal of some existing structures and 

construction of new structures/waysides. Many of 

these proposed actions would take place in areas 

previously disturbed by construction, park 

operations, and visitor use. 

Expanding the marina, reconfiguring traffic 

circulation, and upgrading/constructing new trails 

would have the same low probability of negatively 

impacting archeological sites in the developed 

areas and coves as described under alternative 2. 

At Cottonwood Cove, flashflood mitigation 

measures and campground restoration activities 

described under alternative 2 would also take 

place under alternative 3 and would have the same 

low potential for negatively impacting 

archeological resources. 

As with alternative 2, the prehistoric and historical 

archeological site recorded in and around 

Cottonwood Cove and the prehistoric and 

historic archeological sites recorded in the 

Katherine Landing developed areas would be 

managed as though they were eligible for listing in 

the National Register. Ground-disturbing 

activities would be avoided in these site locations. 

In areas where archeological resources have not 

been inventoried, archeological surveys would be 

conducted to inform site-specific planning and 

design for proposed construction. Newly 

inventoried archeological resources would be 

evaluated for National Register significance. In 

both developed areas and the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing, National Register eligible or 

listed archeological resources would be avoided to 

the greatest extent possible. Therefore, any 

adverse impacts would be absent or negligible, 

permanent, and confined to the area of 

disturbance. If National Register eligible or listed 

archeological resources could not be avoided, an 

appropriate mitigation strategy would be 

developed in consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer(s), advisory council (as 

needed), and associated American Indian tribes. 

Cumulative impacts — Cumulative impacts on 

archeological resources under alternative 3 would 

be the same as those for alternative 2. As detailed 

under alternative 2, past, present, and foreseeable 

future impacts entail 

 regional development around the developed 

areas in Searchlight (Cottonwood Cove) and 

Laughlin/Bullhead City area (Katherine 

Landing) 

 pot hunting, off-road vehicle traffic, 

development of approved backcountry roads, 

burro trampling, power line corridors, and 

cell phone / communication towers 

 inundation and recreation-related wave 

action and changing lake levels 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

152 

 recreation area revegetation and fire 

management plans 

 proposed Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC. 

project 

These past, present, and future activities and 

development could result in direct and indirect, 

long-term/permanent, minor to major adverse 

impacts on archeological resources locally and 

regionally. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 3 would result in no or negligible 

adverse impacts that would be permanent, and 

confined to areas of disturbance because sensitive 

archeological resources would be avoided to the 

greatest extent possible. These impacts, in 

combination with the minor to major, permanent, 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would result 

in a permanent, moderate to major, adverse 

cumulative impacts. The adverse effects of 

alternative 3, however, would potentially be an 

extremely small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact because sensitive resources 

would be avoided whenever possible. 

Conclusion — Under alternative 3, grounddisturbing activities would be sited away from 

known National Register eligible archeological 

resources and would be avoided to the greatest 

extent possible resulting in no to negligible, local, 

adverse impacts. Cumulative impacts would be 

indirect and direct, long-term/permanent, minor 

to major, and adverse; NPS contributions would 

be potentially extremely small. 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR Part 800.5), the National Park 

Service concludes that the actions under the 

alternative 3 for both developed areas and the 

coves adjacent to Katherine Landing would have 

no adverse effect on archeological resources 

because adverse impacts on resources listed or 

eligible for listing in the National Register would 

be avoided. 

Historic Structures. Under alternative 3, the 

proposed actions also would have a range of 

impacts spanning from beneficial to adverse. At 

Cottonwood Cove, enhancing the campground 

amphitheater by rehabilitating the benches and 

adding landscaping would be a direct, long-term, 

beneficial impact for that portion of the 

campground because the structure’s function and 

appearance would be enhanced. Retaining the 

lower campground at Cottonwood Cove would 

also be a direct, long-term, beneficial impact 

because it would preserve the configuration of 

this historic district contributing element. For 

both developed areas and the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing, new building construction, 

relocated picnic areas and beach accesses, new 

parking areas, new trails/trailheads, and new or 

upgrades to spur/access roads would have no 

adverse impacts on historic structures because 

these actions would be sited to avoid affecting 

structures. 

The changes to the marinas (circulation, access, 

and parking) and pedestrian connections for both 

developed areas and the adjacent coves would 

have no effect on historic structures because they 

would not entail alterations to historic structures. 

The proposed flood mitigation measure for 

Cottonwood Cove, likewise, would have no effect 

on historic structures for the same reason. The 

installation of the early warning detection system 

in both developed areas also would have no effect 

on historic structures. The use of sustainable 

design and character would be employed in ways 

that would be sympathetic to the existing 

architecture and would be employed in 

accordance to the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 

This would result in no adverse effects or 

negligible long-term effect s because architectural 

features contributing to the significance of these 

structures would not be altered. 

Some of the proposed actions could have adverse 

effects on historic structures. At Katherine 

Landing, redeveloping the restaurant and store 

into a combined visitor /commercial services 

center, replacing the motel with a parking lot, 

removing the existing picnic facilities and 

amphitheater, rehabilitating campgrounds, 

converting the trailer village into a recreational 

vehicle campground, and constructing 

cabins/park models in the lower campground 

could have negative impacts. However, the 

National Register significance of these structures 

has not been assessed. Prior to any removal, 

construction, or remodeling, the affected 

structures would be evaluated for National 

Register significance. If any were found to be 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

153 

significant, implementation plans would be 

developed to avoid altering features contributing 

to the significance and integrity of the structures 

to the greatest extent possible and in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties. If alterations 

to National Register eligible structures could not 

be avoided, an appropriate mitigation strategy 

would be developed in consultation with the state 

historic preservation officer(s) and advisory 

council (as needed). 

Other actions would have adverse impacts that 

could range from minor to major in intensity. As 

noted at Cottonwood Cove, the following 

structures are contributing elements to the 

Cottonwood Cove Developed Area Historic 

District:3

 NPS residences (201–203) 

 campgrounds/trailer village 

 ranger station 

 concessioner store 

 restaurant 

 motel 

 boat launch area/marina 

 trailer village 

 utility building 

 fire station 

 access road 

Reconfiguring the upper campgrounds to 

accommodate RV campers and house volunteers, 

redesigning the trailer village as a RV 

campground, and establishing a combined 

visitor/commercial services center would alter 

architectural and design features contributing to 

the significance of these structures. This would be 

particularly true for the upper campgrounds 

because the Mission 66 character-defining, 

herringbone pattern of the campground would be 

significantly altered. However, retaining the 

 

3 The Cottonwood Cove Historic District determination of 

eligibility identifies the Concessionaire Public Use Area (which 

includes the concessioner store, restaurant, motel, boat launch 

area/marina, and trailer village) as contributing to the historic 

district, and then states that the store, restaurant, motel, boat 

launch area/marina, and trailer village “will be noncontributing 

resources”; however, they do not compromise the integrity of 

the area since they fulfill the intent of the Mission 66 plan for 

the area.” This apparent contradiction needs clarification.

original configuration of one of the campground 

loops would lessen some of the adverse impacts 

on this contributing feature. Converting the trailer 

village into a RV campground and the combined 

visitor/commercial services center would have 

adverse impacts that could be mitigated through 

the use of architectural and design elements that 

harmonize with the original Mission 66-defining 

features. These actions would result in local, 

permanent, direct, minor to moderate, and 

adverse impacts on these structures because the 

architectural features contributing to their 

significance would be altered. Recreation area 

staff would consult with the appropriate state 

historic preservation officer, advisory council, and 

representatives from the NPS Pacific West 

Region’s HABS / HAER / HALS staff to determine 

the appropriate documentation/mitigation 

strategy needed to reduce adverse impacts on 

structures. 

As with alternative 2, the Katherine Landing 

duplex and single-family residence and an 

amphitheater are extant Mission 66 features (NPS 

2007). Although historic structures in the 

developed area have not been formally assessed 

for National Register significance, portions of the 

developed area have been proposed as 

contributing properties in a draft multipleproperty, Mission 66, National Register 

nomination (NPS 2007). The proposed 

redevelopment of the store and restaurant into a 

combined visitor/commercial services center, 

removal of original picnic facilities and the 

amphitheater, removal of the motel, and 

upgrading some campground loops to 

accommodate RV campers would have a direct, 

local, permanent, and major adverse effect to 

historic structures potentially eligible for listing in 

the National Register. Should they be determined 

eligible, recreation area staff would consult with 

regional HABS / HAER / HALS staff, the Arizona 

State Historic Preservation Office, and advisory 

council (as needed) to determine appropriate level 

documentation/mitigation strategy needed to 

reduce adverse impacts. 

Other historic structures in the developed areas, 

such as the Quartette Mine Railroad Grade at 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Mine Historic 

District at Katherine Landing, would not be 

affected by any of the actions proposed under 

alternative 3. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

154 

Cumulative impacts — Cumulative impacts on 

historic structures within and around both 

developed areas would be similar to those 

affecting archeological resources. Regional 

development and land-use practices have 

damaged or destroyed mining and other historic 

structures outside the recreation area. Many 

historic structures located along the original river 

banks of the Colorado River (e.g., the Klondike 

Mill and the Aerial Ferry) are inundated and are 

subject to water movement, changing lake levels, 

and impacts from recreation use. 

As described above, implementing alternative 3 

would result in some beneficial impacts on the 

amphitheater, but it would also result in moderate 

to major, permanent, direct, and local adverse 

impacts on National Register eligible structures in 

Cottonwood Cove. Proposed changes to or 

removal of historic structures in Katherine 

Landing could have adverse impacts should any 

be determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register. These impacts, in combination with 

other regional past, present, or foreseeable future 

the adverse impacts of would result in a direct, 

permanent, moderate to major, adverse 

cumulative effect to historic structures. The NPS 

contribution to these adverse cumulate impacts 

would be substantive because this alternative calls 

for the removal or alteration of structures 

contributing to a property determined eligible for 

listing in the National Register at Cottonwood 

Cove and structures potentially eligible at 

Katherine Landing. 

Conclusions — Under alternative 3, structures 

contributing to the historic district (Cottonwood 

Cove) and structures potentially eligible for listing 

in the National Register (Katherine Landing) 

would be removed or altered/remodeled; resulting 

in permanent, direct, local, moderate to major, 

and adverse impacts. Cumulative impacts would 

be direct, regional, long-term/permanent, 

moderate to major, and adverse; NPS 

contributions would be substantial. 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR Part 800.5), the National Park 

Service concludes that the actions under the 

alternative 3 would have an adverse effects on 

historic structures in the Cottonwood Cove 

developed area and possibly the Katherine 

Landing developed area. Although the intensities 

of negative impacts could be reduced through 

mitigation under NEPA compliance, they would 

remain adverse under Section 106. 

Cultural Landscapes. Under alternative 3, the 

proposed actions also would have a range of 

impacts spanning from beneficial to adverse. At 

Cottonwood Cove, enhancements to the 

campground amphitheater would be a direct, 

long-term, and beneficial impact because this 

contributing feature would be upgraded. 

Preserving the present configuration of the 

Cottonwood Cove lower campground and 

retaining the ranger station would also be 

beneficial effects because they would preserve the 

integrity of these landscape-contributing 

elements. 

For both developed areas, new housing, building 

construction/remodeling, new parking areas, and 

reconfigured vehicle circulation patterns would 

add new architectural and circulation elements 

that would intrude on the landscapes’ original 

viewshed and function. At Cottonwood Cove, 

redesigning the trailer village as a RV campground 

would alter the appearance and somewhat change 

the function of the landscape component. Adding 

an additional structure adjacent to the motel and 

converting the restaurant and store into a 

combined visitor/commercial services center 

would add visual intrusions and alter the 

appearance and original Mission 66 functions of 

these structures. Sympathetic architecture and 

design that harmonized with Mission 66 

landscape features could reduce the intensities of 

these impacts. Rehabilitating the upper 

campground to accommodate RV campers and 

volunteer staff would greatly compromise the 

character-defining herringbone design of the 

Mission 66 campground. Retaining one of the 

historic loops in its original configuration would 

somewhat lessen the negative impacts on 

landscape features. Collectively, these proposed 

actions would have direct and indirect, local, 

moderate to major, long-term/permanent, and 

adverse impacts on the cultural landscape at 

Cottonwood Cove. 

Expanding the marina to 484 slips would slightly 

change the appearance of the marina, but would 

not impact the intended function of this portion 

of the developed area or significantly alter its 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

155 

appearance. This would be a long-term, local, 

direct, and negligible impact on the Mission 66 

landscapes. In contrast, reconfiguring the 

circulation patterns, streamlining intersections, 

increasing parking, and adding new pedestrian 

connections (trails and trailheads) would alter the 

cultural landscapes’ appearance and functions and 

would result in the moderate to major adverse 

impacts similar to those described under 

alternative 2. 

Although the actions proposed under alternative 3 

for Cottonwood Cove would better accommodate 

contemporary visitor uses and needs, they would 

result in adverse effects on features contributing 

to the significance of the Mission 66 cultural 

landscape. Recreation area staff would consult 

with the appropriate state historic preservation 

officer, advisory council, and representatives from 

the NPS Pacific West Region’s HABS / HAER / 

HALS staff to determine the appropriate level 

documentation/mitigation strategy needed to 

reduce the intensity of impacts on landscape 

features, and formalize that determination 

through a memorandum of understanding among 

the consulting parties. 

At Katherine Landing, several of the actions 

proposed under this alternative could have 

adverse impacts. The developed area is potentially 

eligible for listing in the National Register as a 

Mission 66 designed cultural landscape and/or a 

contributing component to a multiple property 

Mission 66 National Register nomination under 

development. Many actions would remove/alter 

the appearance of structures and features 

potentially contributing to the landscape, change 

the structure’s/feature’s original Mission 66 

function, alter designed circulation patterns, 

and/or introduce visual intrusion into the 

landscape’s viewshed. Notable among these are 

the proposed 

 removal of the motel, original picnic facilities, 

and campground amphitheater 

 remodel of the restaurant and store into a 

combined visitor/commercial services center 

 rehabilitation of the existing ranger station 

into office space for the campground, and 

conversion of the trailer village into a RV 

campground 

 construction of cabins in the campground 

area 

 redesign of campground loop D to 

accommodate volunteer court and large RV 

campers, and the addition of a 

laundry/shower facility 

 addition of a new administrative loop road 

While many of these actions would improve, 

enhance, and update the developed area to meet 

contemporary visitor uses and needs, they could 

result in long-term, direct, local, moderate to 

major, adverse effects to features contributing to a 

potentially significant Mission 66 cultural 

landscape. To accommodate the need for change, 

recreation area staff would need to consult with 

the Arizona state historic preservation officer and 

National Park Service HABS / HAER / HALS staff 

to assess whether the developed area would be 

determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register. If determined eligible, recreation area 

staff and the consulting parties would develop a 

memorandum of understanding containing 

mitigation strategies designed to appropriately 

document Mission 66 landscape features prior to 

any remodeling, removal, or alteration of existing 

structures or addition of new landscape features. 

Cumulative impacts — Past, present, and foreseeable 

regional development and land-use practices 

outside of the developed areas will have little to 

no effect on the cultural landscapes. Ongoing and 

proposed development outside Cottonwood Cove 

(Searchlight and the proposed Searchlight Wind 

Energy, LLC. project) lies well outside the 

boundaries of the developed area. In the 

Katherine Landing area, Laughlin/Bullhead City 

are encroaching on the recreation area and could 

adversely impact the viewshed of the outer 

boundaries of the developed area. However, this 

would have little to no effect on the main core of 

the landscape. Because this development would 

not impact the two developed areas, there would 

be no cumulative impacts on cultural landscapes. 

Conclusions — Under alternative 3, landscape 

components contributing to a determined eligible 

cultural landscape Cottonwood Cove) and 

components potentially eligible (Katherine 

Landing) would be removed, altered or 

remodeled, and/or visually impacted. This would 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

156 

result in local, permanent, direct, major, and 

adverse impact on cultural landscape features. 

There would be no cumulative impacts. 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR Part 800.5), the National Park 

Service concludes that the actions under the 

alternative 3 would have adverse effects on cultural 

landscape in the Cottonwood Cove developed 

area and possibly the Katherine Landing 

developed area. Although the intensities of 

negative impacts could be reduced through 

mitigation under NEPA compliance, they would 

remain adverse effect under Section 106. 

Ethnographic Resources. As with the other 

alternatives, ethnographic resources are often one 

in the same as archeological resources. Therefore, 

threats and impacts on these resources would be 

comparable. The types of resources would 

generally be the same for both developed areas. 

Under alternative 3, the potential for negatively 

impacting ethnographic resources would be 

minimal within the developed areas. Any 

identified ethnographic resources in the 

developed areas would be managed as though 

they were eligible for listing in the National 

Register. Ground-disturbing activities and other 

proposed actions would be avoided in the 

locations of these sites to the greatest extent 

possible. 

Expanding the marinas, reconfiguring traffic 

circulation, and implementing other flashflood 

mitigation measures described under alternative 2, 

would be the same under alternative 3 and would 

have the same low potential for negatively 

impacting ethnographic resources. 

In addition, ethnographic resources potentially 

existing in undisturbed areas outside the 

developed areas and coves adjacent to Katherine 

Landings would be inventoried (in conjunction 

with archeological resources), and assessed for 

National Register significance in consultation with 

the appropriate state historic preservation officer, 

tribal preservation officer, and/or culturally 

associated tribes. Ground-disturbing activities 

would be sited away from sensitive resources to 

the greatest extent possible. 

Ethnographic resources that are not archeological 

resources could include mountains and vistas, and 

other physical features that these serve as 

important landmarks and wayfinding aids 

punctuating traditional and pilgrim routes 

throughout the Colorado River valley. These 

resources continue to play important ceremonial 

functions among contemporary tribes (Cleland 

2011). Visual intrusions development, might 

intrude upon traditional viewsheds. 

The National Park Service would avoid impacts 

on these sensitive resources through proper siting, 

site-specific planning, and design. Because 

National Register eligible or listed ethnographic 

resources would be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible; any adverse impacts would be absent or 

negligible, permanent, and confined to the area of 

disturbance or intrusion. 

If National Register eligible or listed ethnographic 

resources could not be avoided, an appropriate 

mitigation strategy would be developed in 

consultation with the state historic preservation 

officer(s) and associated American Indian tribes. 

Cumulative impacts — Past development and landuse patterns have damaged or destroyed 

ethnographic resources within the developed 

areas and surrounding region. Ethnographic 

resources that have been inundated by the 

impoundment of Lake Mohave have and would 

continue to be subjected to impacts from water 

movement, changing lake levels, sedimentation, 

and recreation. These past actions have resulted in 

direct, minor to major, long-term/permanent, and 

local and regional adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources. 

In addition, actions called for in-park plans like 

the exotic plan management plan and fire 

management plan could have adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources if avoidance were not an 

option. These impacts have been and would 

continue to be direct, long-term/permanent, 

minor to major, and adverse. 

Future projects outside of the recreation area 

could also adversely affect ethnographic 

resources. The proposed Searchlight Wind 

Energy, LLC. project would entail the 

construction of the wind farm infrastructure and 

the wind turbines. Again, if avoidance were not 

possible, there could be negative impacts in the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

157 

form of visual and physical intrusions on 

ethnographic resources (e.g., vistas). These 

present and future activities and development 

could result in direct and indirect, 

long-term/permanent, and minor to major, 

adverse impacts on ethnographic resources locally 

and regionally. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 3 would result in no adverse effect or 

negligible to minor, permanent, and adverse 

effects to ethnographic resources because 

sensitive resources would be avoided to the 

greatest extent possible. These impacts, in 

combination with the minor to major, permanent, 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would result 

in a permanent, moderate to major, and adverse 

cumulative impacts. The adverse effects of 

alternative 3, however, would potentially be an 

extremely small component of the cumulative 

adverse impact. 

Conclusion — Under alternative 3, grounddisturbing activities would be sited away from 

National Register eligible ethnographic resources, 

resulting in no or negligible, local, adverse 

impacts. Cumulative impacts would be regional, 

permanent, direct, minor to major, and adverse; 

NPS contributions would be minimal. 

Section 106 — After applying the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effects (36 CFR Part 800.5), the National Park 

Service concludes that the actions under the 

alternative 3 would have no adverse effect on 

ethnographic resources because the National Park 

Service would avoid damaging these resources. 

Visitor Use, Experience, and Safety 

Under alternative 3, the preferred alternative, the 

existing motel at Cottonwood Cove would be 

expanded to double the current capacity and the 

facility would be renovated in such a way as to 

make it more suitable for conferences and retreats 

in the hope of better meeting visitor needs and 

bringing in more business. Additional “premier” 

accommodations would also be constructed 

including rental cabins and RV sites that 

accommodate larger vehicles. This increased 

range of overnight facilities would better reflect 

visitor preferences and would enhance the visitor 

experience. The marina would also be expanded 

to 484 slips, the upper campground would be 

rehabilitated, and the lower campground would 

become day use only in the summer but would 

operate as a campground for the winter season. 

Because of these actions, visitors would 

experience major, long-term, and beneficial 

impacts. 

To improve circulation and to reduce congestion 

at Cottonwood Cove, a new paved access loop 

road would be constructed to prove an alternate 

route to the motel, and would include a spur to 

the Ski Cove area. A new launch/ready lane would 

also be created from the campground to the 

launch ramp. This would significantly improve the 

visitor experience and reduce conflicts and wait 

times. Parking capacity would also be increased by 

converting portions of the short-term recreational 

vehicle and trailer village to expand the marina 

parking. By reducing congestion and improving 

circulation, visitor frustration and conflicts will 

decrease and result in major, long-term, and 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience. 

Other improvements to visitor experience at 

Cottonwood Cove would include a rehabilitated 

and enhanced commercial services facility that 

would combine the retail stores and restaurant 

and would also incorporate some visitor 

information and educational/interpretive exhibits 

into its design. This consolidation of visitor 

services would have moderate, long-term, and 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience. 

Visitors would also experience expanded day-use 

areas. The existing no-boat areas to the north of 

launch ramp and in front of the hotel would 

remain, but new no-boat areas would be created 

at both Ski and Cottontail Coves. Additionally, a 

new fishing pier would be constructed adjacent to, 

but separate from, the no-boat area to the north of 

the launch ramp. New pedestrian connections to 

areas of interest would be installed between the 

fishing pier and Cottontail Cove. The existing 

picnic area would be enhanced and expanded, 

adding additional shelters, tables, and grills and 

configuring individual and group sites. The same 

type of picnic area would also be designed at Ski 

Cove to provide for the new no-boat area users 

there. This expansion of day-use areas would have 

moderate, long-term, and beneficial impacts on 

visitor experience. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

158 

Overnight accommodation at Katherine Landing 

would change significantly. The motel would be 

removed entirely, yet this type of accommodation 

can readily be found just outside the boundary of 

the recreation area. Additional “premier” 

accommodations would be constructed, including 

rental cabins and RV sites. The campground and 

long-term trailer village would both be converted 

into cabins and RV sites, and although the number 

of sites would be reduced to retain the current 

footprint, upgrades would be made to 

accommodate larger vehicles and hookups. Some 

tent camping sites would be retained, and the 

amphitheater would be relocated to the 

campground. This diversification of 

accommodations, and the improvements that 

would be made, would better meet the needs of 

current visitors and would result in major, longterm, and beneficial impacts on visitor experience. 

Circulation would also be improved around 

Katherine Landing. The existing two-lane access 

road to the entrance station would be widened, 

turnouts would be paved, and the right-turn lanes 

would be extended back to Cabinsite Road. The 

extension of the right-turn lane in particular 

would improve traffic circulation for those going 

to satellite sites such as Princess Cove, as well as 

improve safety by minimizing backups. Although 

parking capacity would not increase, lots would 

be relocated closer to the lakeshore to improve 

convenience. This would be made possible by 

converting the motel site into parking spaces close 

to the launch ramp and marina. The parking area 

to the north of the access road would be 

expanded to serve the marina, picnic area, 

amphitheater, and combined commercial services 

/ visitor contact facility. These changes would 

result in major, long-term, and beneficial impacts 

on both visitor experience and safety by greatly 

reducing the causes of visitor conflict and 

improving the accessibility of high-use areas. 

Similar to Cottonwood Cove, alternative 3 at 

Katherine Landing would also include a 

rehabilitated and enhanced facility that combines 

commercial services with some elements of 

education/interpretation and visitor information. 

The store and restaurant site, as well as part of the 

picnic area, would be redesigned to include not 

only commercial services but also a point of visitor 

contact with interpretive components such as 

waysides. 

Day-use areas would also be expanded, including 

a new picnic area along the waterfront (although 

physically separated to discourage water access) 

and new picnic areas that would be integrated into 

the existing fishing point. The trail system would 

also be expanded and enhanced, with formal 

trailheads at Fisherman’s Trail and Lakeview 

Trail. A new Lakeshore Trail along the waterfront 

would be developed, and possibly an additional 

short trail to access Princess Cove from Katherine 

Landing. These expansions would result in minor 

to moderate, long-term, and beneficial impacts on 

visitor use. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are several 

reasonably foreseeable projects, separate from this 

plan that could further impact visitor experience 

at Lake Mohave. 

One proposal that would affect the visitor 

experience is the reconstruction of the Katherine 

Landing access road beginning at its intersection 

with the Davis Dam Highway and continuing to 

the boat launch ramp. Because of high visitation 

levels at Katherine Landing, this road is subject to 

heavy traffic volumes and in its current state is 

narrow and poorly paved, with inadequate 

drainage. Each of these problems, with the 

exception of traffic volume, would be corrected 

under the proposed reconstruction. Combined 

with the improvements that would be made to 

circulation and access at Katherine Landing in 

alternative 3, this would result in major, longterm, and beneficial impacts on visitor experience 

and safety. 

The wireless telecommunication facilities plan 

identified Cottonwood Cove as a suitable site for 

the construction of a new cellular tower in the 

future. Improved communications within the 

coverage area would directly benefit those who 

choose to use this technology while in the 

recreation area. Moreover, some visitors may be 

more content and have peace of mind knowing 

that they can use a cell phone to contact help in 

case of emergency, especially in remote areas that 

receive less visitation. Construction of cellular 

towers would provide moderate, long-term, and 

beneficial impacts on safety resulting from 

improved communication services and increased 

emergency response time. Effects to visitor 

experience would be minor, long-term, and could 

be either beneficial or adverse, depending on the 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

159 

visitor’s views on the technology and its suitability 

to national parks. 

Another potential development that may affect 

visitors to the Cottonwood Cove area is the 

proposed installation of up to 161 wind turbine 

generators in the area between the community of 

Searchlight (where the Cottonwood Cove access 

road begins) and the Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area. This development would have a 

moderate, long-term, and adverse impact on the 

viewshed experienced by visitors entering the 

park via Cottonwood Cove. 

The Cottonwood Cove marina is also authorized 

to expand from approximately 300 slips to 

484 slips, per the lake management plan. This 

increase, if undertaken, would most likely increase 

visitation because of the increased capacity. The 

changes proposed under this alternative 

accommodate an increase in visitation, therefore, 

the result would be moderate, long-term, and 

beneficial impacts on visitors. 

The construction activities and related effects 

involved with these improvements would have 

minor to moderate, short-term, and adverse 

impacts on visitor experience. When combined 

with the impacts of alternative 3, there would be 

moderate to major, long-term, beneficial impacts 

on visitor experience. 

Conclusion. Overall, the implementation of 

alternative 3 would result in moderate to major, 

long-term, and beneficial impacts on visitor 

experience and safety. The main issues affecting 

visitor use, experience, and safety — congestion, 

circulation, access, parking, and overnight 

accommodations — would be all addressed in this 

alternative in reasonable and effective ways that 

would significantly improve current conditions. 

By resolving the causes of visitor conflict and by 

meeting the needs of overnight visitors, the 

changes would be readily apparent to all visitors 

and the effects would be felt in a positive manner. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

Impacts on the socioeconomic environment, 

including the commercial operators in the 

recreation area and nearby communities were 

considered. Impacts are partly based on estimates 

in the “Revised Alternatives Analysis” for both 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

(Dornbusch 2011a, 2011b). The following impact 

topics were developed to analyze impacts in 

alternatives 2 and 3. 

Construction-related Economic Impacts. These

impacts on site-specific, local, and regional 

economic output and employment resulting from 

construction projects associated with each 

alternative. It is assumed that construction in each 

alternative occurs over an initial 2- to 3-year 

period.

Cottonwood Cove — Alternative 3 involves several 

changes to the concession operation at 

Cottonwood Cove. As in alternative 3, the marina 

would be expanded to 484 slips. The motel would 

double in size to 50 rooms, and a 4,000 square foot 

conference/retreat space would be added to the 

motel. The trailer village would be removed and 

replaced with a new short-term RV park and new 

rental cabins. The upper campground would be 

rehabilitated and operated by the concessioner, 

while the lower campground would feature 

renovated group sites and restrooms. A new 

combined commercial services/visitor contact 

facility would be constructed near the site of the 

existing restaurant, and would include an 

expanded restaurant and retail store. 

Concessioner housing would be relocated to part 

of the existing upper campground area. The 

concessioner’s maintenance area would be 

expanded. 

Class C construction cost estimates for these 

changes to the concession total $15.6 million in 

2013 dollars (Dornbusch 2011a). The expansion 

of the motel/conference center ($2.9 million), 

marina ($3 million), construction of the shortterm RV park ($2.8 million), new commercial 

services building ($1.8 million), and campground 

($1.8 million) are the largest projects. 

Given the large capital investment required to 

complete all of the proposed construction and 

development projects under alternative 3, a typical 

10-year concession contract may not be 

financially feasible for a concessioner. Options 

such as longer contract terms or phasing in 

elements of alternative 3 over time may be 

necessary to ensure financial feasibility for a 

concessioner operating these services. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

160 

The $15.6 million in construction spending is 

projected to generate a total of $20 million in 

direct and indirect value added to the local 

economy in the short term. An estimated 53.6 fulltime equivalent jobs and $5.3 million in labor 

income will be generated by construction in the 

short term (estimated to be a 3-year period). 

Katherine Landing — Alternative 3 involves several 

changes to the concession operation at Katherine 

Landing. The marina docks would be replaced 

and the marina would be reconfigured to 

accommodate a greater proportion of large 

(longer than 30 ft) slips. The motel and trailer 

village would be removed, and the concessioner 

would construct and operate a new campground 

featuring upgraded RV spaces and cabins. 

The existing restaurant and retail store would be 

demolished and replaced with a new commercial 

services facility with expanded space for each of 

these services. Concessioner housing would be 

consolidated at the current site of the trailer 

village, and the concessioner’s maintenance area 

would be expanded. 

Class C construction cost estimates for these 

changes to the concession total $16.7 million in 

2013 dollars (Dornbusch 2011b). The replacement 

and reconfiguration of the marina ($7.2 million), 

development of the upgraded campground, cabins 

and short-term RV park ($3.2 million), new 

employee housing ($3 million), and the new 

commercial services facility ($2.9 million) are the 

largest projects. 

Given the large capital investment required to 

complete all of the proposed construction and 

development projects under alternative 3, a typical 

10-year concession contract may not be 

financially feasible for a concessioner. Options 

such as longer contract terms or phasing in 

elements of alternative 3 over time may be 

necessary to ensure financial feasibility for a 

concessioner operating these services. 

The $16.7 million in construction spending is 

projected to generate a total of $21.4 million in 

direct and indirect value added to the local 

economy in the short term. An estimated 57.4 fulltime equivalent jobs and $5.7 million in labor 

income will be generated by construction in the 

short term (estimated to be a 3-year period). See 

table 17 for more information on constructionrelated economic impacts of alternative 3. 

TABLE 17. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3

Cottonwood 

Cove

Katherine 

Landing

Construction Spending $15,600,000 $16,700,000

Construction Value 

Added $19,968,000 $21,376,000

Construction Jobs 53.6 57.4

Construction Labor 

Income $5,307,000 $5,681,000 

Overall, the impact of construction at both 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing is 

projected to be local, minor, short-term, and 

beneficial. 

Visitor Spending-related Economic Impacts. 

These impacts on site-specific, local, and regional 

economic output and employment resulting from 

changes to visitor spending associated with each 

alternative. New or modified concession services 

would include changes to marinas, lodging 

options, and other commercial services including 

food and beverage and retail sales.

Cottonwood Cove — Based on current occupancy 

rates and estimates of unmet demand, the 

expanded marina is projected to increase slip 

rental revenue by $275,000 in 2013, and the 

expanded motel is projected to increase room 

revenue by $318,000. The new commercial 

services facility is projected to increase retail and 

food and beverage revenue by $748,000. Revenue 

from new cabins is projected to be $140,000, and 

campground revenue is projected to be $164,000. 

The closure of the trailer village will result in a loss 

of $978,000 in revenue. The net increase in 

revenue in 2013 is projected to be $666,000 

(Dornbusch 2011a). 

After subtracting additional expenses associated 

with these changes to services, annual concession 

profit is projected to increase by approximately 

100,000 annually. 

The $666,000 annual increase in visitor spending 

(revenue) at Cottonwood Cove is projected to 

generate $986,000 in direct and indirect value 

added to the local economy annually. This 

spending is projected to support 6.1 additional 

full-time jobs for the concessioner and generate 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

161 

$194,000 annually in labor income. The indirect 

spending effects are projected to support 

2.9 additional jobs in the local economy and 

generate an additional $93,000 in labor income. 

Katherine Landing — Based on current slip 

occupancy rates and estimates of unmet demand, 

the reconfigured marina is projected to increase 

slip rental revenue by $501,000 in 2013 dollars. 

The removal of the motel is projected to decrease 

revenue by $336,000. Development of the 

campground, RV park, and cabins and the 

removal of the trailer village units will result in a 

net increase in revenue of $254,000. The removal 

of the fuel pumps will reduce revenue by 

$103,000. The total projected net increase in 

revenue is $315,000 in 2013 dollars (Dornbusch 

2011b). 

After subtracting additional expenses associated 

with these changes in services, annual concession 

profit is projected to increase by approximately 

$100,000 annually. 

The $315,000 annual increase in visitor spending 

(revenue) at Katherine Landing is projected to 

generate $466,000 in direct and indirect value 

added to the local economy annually. This 

spending is projected to support 2.9 additional 

full-time jobs for the concessioner and generate 

$92,000 annually in labor income. The indirect 

spending effects are projected to support 

1.4 additional jobs in the local economy and 

generate an additional $44,000 in labor income. 

See table 18 for more information on the visitor 

spending-related economic impacts of 

alternative 3. 

TABLE 18. VISITOR SPENDING-RELATED 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3 

Cottonwood 

Cove

Katherine 

Landing

Increased Revenue $666,000 $315,000

Visitor Spending Value 

Added $986,000 $466,000

New Concession Jobs 6.1 2.9

Concession Labor Income $194,000 $92,000

Indirect Jobs 2.9 1.4

Indirect Labor Income $93,000 $44,000 

Overall, the impact of increased visitor spending 

at both Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

is projected to be local, negligible, long-term, and 

beneficial.

Impacts on Other Park Concessions and Local 

Businesses. These impacts on other marina 

concessioners were considered, but because of the 

long distances between marinas in the area, these 

impacts are expected to be minor. Impacts on 

lodging and retail establishments in nearby 

communities were also considered. 

The expanded motel at Cottonwood Cove could 

slightly reduce demand for motel style lodging in 

Searchlight and in Cal-Nev-Ari. The expansion of 

the Cottonwood Cove marina would increase 

traffic through Searchlight and have a minor, 

beneficial impact on lodging, retail sales, and fuel 

sales. 

The expansion of the Cottonwood Cove marina 

and the reconfiguration of the Katherine Landing 

marina could shift some demand between both 

concessions, but the net effect would be 

negligible. Given the distance between these 

marinas and other similar concessions within the 

recreation area, the impact on other concession 

operations will be negligible. 

Overall, the impact of alternative 3 on other park 

concessions and local businesses is projected to be 

local, negligible, long-term, and beneficial. 

Cumulative Impacts. Concession operations at 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing would 

benefit from increased services and facilities. 

Growth in the surrounding communities and 

region is expected to support continued economic 

growth and increased visitation to the recreation 

area. Impacts from these actions in conjunction 

with the alternative 3 would result in primarily 

beneficial effects on the Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing concessions and the economy 

of nearby communities and the region. From the 

standpoint of the region as a whole, the impact of 

alternative 3 relative to the cumulative impact on 

the socioeconomic environment would be 

imperceptible. 

Conclusion. Construction and increased visitor 

spending would result in minor, short- and longterm, beneficial impacts for concession-operated 

facilities. Effects on local communities and the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

162 

region would be beneficial, but negligible to minor 

because the recreation area is a small part of the 

overall regional economy. 

Impacts associated with spending and 

employment shifts would be expected to occur 

over the duration of concession contracts, the 

length of which would be 10 years with the 

potential for contract extensions or renewals. 

Short-term impacts would include construction 

spending, which would occur over an estimated 

2 to 3 years. See table 19 for a summary of 

socioeconomic impacts of alternative 3. 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

and Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.

There are no anticipated unavoidable adverse 

impacts or irreversible and irretrievable impacts 

on the socioeconomic environment from any of 

the elements of any of the alternatives. 

Park Operations 

Cottonwood Cove. The marina and motel 

expansion at Cottonwood Cove would increase 

visitation to the area, impacting interpretive, 

maintenance, law enforcement, and natural 

resources staff. The removal of the trailer village at 

Cottonwood Cove would likely reduce demands 

on law enforcement staff. The redevelopment of 

the upper campground, to be managed by the 

concessioner, will eliminate NPS campground 

staffing. While the concessioner would be 

responsible for the construction of the motel 

addition and the expansion of the marina, area 

maintenance staff would monitor these projects. 

As in alternative 2, flood mitigation construction 

projects would include construction of 9,300 lf of 

concrete channels, low-flow road crossings, and 

road realignment. Additional road improvements 

would be made to reconfigure circulation 

throughout the area. The main access road would 

be widened to include a new launch/ready lane. A 

new paved spur road would be created to the Ski 

Cove area, and a new paved loop road would 

provide an alternate route to the motel area. 

Parking capacity would be increased by a total of 

392 spaces, and parking would be better organized 

and delineated throughout Cottonwood Cove. 

New day-use areas, including picnic areas, would 

be developed in both Ski Cove and Cottontail 

Cove. Pedestrian connections would be 

developed to both of these coves as well as to a 

new fishing pier in Cottonwood Cove. A new 

visitor contact facility would be located in the 

combined commercial services facility on the 

current site of the store/restaurant. NPS 

maintenance staff will be involved in all of these 

projects. 

The proposed new no-boat areas in Ski Cove and 

Cottontail Cove would require additional 

monitoring and enforcement. 

The existing helipad, ranger station, and fire 

station would be relocated and combined into a 

law enforcement / emergency service center near 

the existing ranger station. This new center would 

likely have a minor, beneficial impact on NPS 

operations at Cottonwood Cove. 

TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3 

Construction Visitor Spending

Population, Housing, 

 and Equity

Concessions and 

Local Businesses

Cottonwood Cove

Impact Type Beneficial Beneficial Neutral Beneficial

Impact Context Local Local Local Local

Impact Intensity Minor Negligible Negligible Minor

Impact Duration Short Term Long Term Long Term Long Term

Cumulative Impact Imperceptible Imperceptible Imperceptible Imperceptible

Katherine Landing

Impact Type Beneficial Beneficial Neutral Beneficial

Impact Context Local Local Local Local

Impact Intensity Minor Negligible Negligible Minor

Impact Duration Short Term Long Term Long Term Long Term

Cumulative Impact Imperceptible Imperceptible Imperceptible Imperceptible 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

163 

NPS housing would be rehabilitated; this would 

have a minor, beneficial impact on recreation area 

staff. A new employee picnic facility would be 

built near the entrance station on County 

Road 164, which would also have a minor, 

beneficial impact. 

Katherine Landing. The demolition of the motel 

and the expansion of the campground/RV park 

would net out in terms of visitors and have a 

neutral impact on park operations. The removal of 

the trailer village would reduce demands on law 

enforcement personnel. 

NPS construction projects at Katherine Landing 

under alternative 3 include rehabilitation of 

existing diversion dikes and construction of a new 

concrete channel along South Katherine Wash, a 

new paved access road from Cabinsite Road to the 

new NPS maintenance area, a new paved loop 

serving administrative areas, the widening of the 

existing paved access road to the entrance station, 

and the relocation of parking closer to the 

lakeshore. A new picnic area and enhanced trail 

system, including a new Lakeshore Trail, would 

be developed. 

A new paved access road would be constructed 

between North and South Arizona Telephone 

Coves, and paved, formalized parking areas would 

be developed at North Arizona Telephone Cove 

and Princess Cove. All of these construction and 

development projects would involve supervision 

and/or labor by area maintenance staff. 

A combined commercial services/visitor contact 

facility would likely increase the need for 

interpretive staffing, as a greater number of 

visitors would visit this facility as compared to the 

current ranger station. 

The campground would be operated by 

concessioner, reducing the need for campground 

employees. The existing ranger station would be 

converted to a campground office for the 

concessioner. Law enforcement/emergency 

functions would be located in consolidated offices 

near the NPS maintenance area along with 

interpretation/maintenance offices. This 

consolidation of services would likely have a 

minor, beneficial impact on NPS operations. 

Existing NPS housing would be rehabilitated, 

providing a minor, beneficial impact on recreation 

area staff. 

A helipad for emergency evacuations would be 

developed at Princess Cove. This will improve the 

efficiency of rescue services in the more remote 

areas. North Arizona Telephone Cove would be 

closed to motorized launching, but boats would 

be allowed to continue to beach there. This might 

require additional monitoring by law enforcement 

staff. A picnic area would be developed at North 

Arizona Telephone Cove with tables, grills, and 

shelters. 

Cumulative Impacts. On a site-specific basis, 

these proposed changes will have a noticeable 

impact on park operations. Several facilities will 

be relocated or reconfigured, and area staff would 

have reduced responsibilities related to the 

campground, and increased responsibilities 

related to monitoring new no-boat zones and 

launch areas. 

Conclusion. Overall, alternative 3 would increase 

demands on NPS staff at both Cottonwood Cove 

and Katherine Landing, although certain NPS 

responsibilities would be shifted to the 

concessioner.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are the 

environmental consequences of an action that 

cannot be avoided either by changing the nature 

of the action or through mitigation if the action is 

taken. Therefore, these environmental 

consequences would remain throughout the 

duration of the action. 

All action alternatives (alternatives 2 and 3) would 

result in unavoidable adverse impacts on the 

vegetation; soils; wildlife habitat; and threatened, 

endangered, and special status species. These 

adverse impacts would be primarily minor and 

would not have adverse effects beyond the local 

area. The no-action alternative would continue to 

have adverse effects associated with public health 

and safety because of the potential dangers 

associated with the flash flooding. 

Under alternatives 2 and 3, the potential for 

unavoidable adverse impacts on archeological and 

ethnographic resources would be very small 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

164 

because these resources would be avoided to the 

greatest extent possible. The remodeling and/or 

removal of structures and cultural landscape 

features called for under these alternatives would 

have a substantial potential for the unavoidable 

loss of historic fabric of structures determined 

eligible for the National Register at Cottonwood 

and those potentially eligible at Katherine 

Landing. Similarly, the removal of design 

landscape plantings, reworking of traffic 

circulation, revamping of the herringbone 

campgrounds (alternative 3), and other alterations 

to the designed landscapes would have 

considerable potential for unavoidable adverse 

impacts on historic structures and the cultural 

landscapes in the developed areas. Mitigation 

through documentation would lessen the intensity 

of these unavoidable impacts. 

Under the no-action alternative, the existing 

footprint for construction and visitor use in both 

developed areas and the coves adjacent to 

Katherine Landing would remain the same. No 

historic structures would be removed or 

remodeled. The campgrounds and cultural 

landscape plantings, circulation, viewshed, and 

other cultural landscape features would remain 

the same. This would result in no unavoidable 

adverse impact on cultural resources. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources 

This determination identifies whether the 

proposed action or alternative would result in 

effects or impacts that could not be changed over 

the long term or would be permanent. An effect 

on a resource would be irreversible if the resource 

could not be reclaimed, restored, or otherwise 

returned to conditions that existed before the 

disturbance. An irretrievable commitment of 

resources involves the effects on resources that 

once gone, cannot be replaced or recovered (NPS 

2000). 

For all alternatives, the materials and energy used 

for facility improvements or maintenance would 

be irretrievably lost. The funds expended for labor 

and materials for facility improvements and 

maintenance would be irreversibly and 

irretrievably committed. New site development 

would cause the irretrievable commitments to soil, 

vegetation, and wildlife habitat resources. This 

impact would be reduced with implementation of 

mitigation measures. 

Under alternatives 2 and 3, there would be a small 

potential for the irreversible/irretrievable loss of 

archeological and ethnographic resources because 

these resources would be avoided to the greatest 

extent possible. Alternative 2 would have some 

potential for the irreversible/irretrievable loss of 

historic structures and cultural landscape features 

because some structures would be 

remodeled/removed, there would be minor 

modifications to the campgrounds, traffic 

circulation would be changed, designed landscape 

plantings would be removed, and other features 

contributing the cultural landscapes would be 

altered. Under alternative 3, the potential these 

irreversible/irretrievable losses would be greater 

because there would be more extensive changes to 

the cultural landscapes in the developed areas. 

Under the no action alternative, there would be a 

small potential for the irreversible/irretrievable 

loss of archeological and ethnographic resources 

because the current areas of disturbance would 

largely go unchanged. The potential commitment 

of resources for historic structures and the 

cultural landscape would be limited the loss of 

historic fabric and landscape features resulting 

from routine maintenance. 

Relationship of Short-term 

Uses and Long-term Productivity 

The intent of this determination is to identify 

whether the proposed action would trade off the 

immediate use of the land or resources for any 

long-term management possibilities, adversely 

affecting the productivity of the resources in the 

recreation area. This determination also discloses 

whether the proposed action or alternatives 

would be a sustainable action that could continue 

over the long term without causing environmental 

problems. 

None of the alternatives would result in 

substantial loss of natural resources or ecosystems 

in the recreation area as a consequence of their 

implementation. Actions proposed under the 

alternatives would not result in widespread loss of 

long-term productivity because the areas 

impacted are relatively small in size and low in 

productivity compared with the remaining 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

165 

unaffected areas within the recreation area. The 

extent of impacts on natural resources, such as 

soils and vegetation, that would be removed 

because of construction or visitor use is local and 

would not adversely affect the overall quality and 

productivity of the Mohave desert ecosystem 

within the recreation area. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

166 

This page intentionally blank 
C o n s u l t a t i o n a n d

C o o r d i n a t i o n
168 

Back of Divider 
169 

CHAPTER 5: 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

The National Park Service conducted both 

internal and external scoping with appropriate 

park staff, agencies, American Indian tribes, 

concessioners, and the public. This scoping 

process was used to define the project purpose 

and need, identify issues and impact topics, and to 

outline alternative actions. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Initial NPS planning team meetings were held 

with Lake Mead National Recreation Area staff 

and concessioners from the Forever Resorts at 

Cottonwood Cove and Seven Crown Resorts at 

Katherine Landing in late October and early 

November 2007, to identify current operational 

issues and concerns. 

The formal public scoping process for the 

development concept plans for Cottonwood Cove 

and Katherine Landing was initiated on August 13, 

2008, with the publication of the Notice of Intent 

to prepare an environmental impact statement in 

the Federal Register. The Federal Register notice 

was also posted on the NPS Planning, 

Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) 

website. The public comment period extended to 

October 14, 2008. 

In September 2008, a scoping press release was 

sent to television stations, newspapers, magazines, 

and radio stations in southern Nevada, Arizona, 

and southern California announcing a series of 

public scoping meetings in the area inviting the 

public to share their ideas concerns, and future 

visions for enhancing the Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing areas of Lake Mohave. During 

that time a flyer was made available at the 

recreation area notifying the public of the Draft 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

Development Concept Plans/ Environmental Impact 

Statement (DCPs/EIS) and a newsletter describing 

the process and outlining an initial list of issues to 

be addressed by the planning process was posted 

to the Lake Mead NRA website and on the PEPC 

website and over 400 copies were distributed to 

the public. The scoping comment period 

extended from September 11, 2008, to 

November 15, 2008. 

Three public meetings using the open house 

format were held between October 27 and 

October 29, 2008 in Bullhead City, Arizona; 

Searchlight, Nevada; and Boulder City, Nevada. A 

total of 65 people attended the public meetings, 

including individuals, one business, and 

representatives from Laughlin City Manager’s 

Office, Searchlight Town Advisory Board, Clark 

County Comprehensive Planning, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Colorado River Heritage Greenway 

Trails, Lake Mohave Boat Owners Association, 

Cottonwood Cove Trailer Owners Association, 

Forever Resorts, and Seven Crown Resorts. 

Comments were recorded on flip charts at the 

meetings. In addition, approximately 110 public 

comment letters and comments posted to the 

PEPC website were also received. The most 

frequent input were letters from trailer owners at 

Cottonwood Cove expressing support for 

including the trailer village in part of the plan. The 

public also identified a variety of issues and 

concerns on topics such as marina and launch 

ramp conditions, congestion, provision of 

nonmotorized visitor / no-boat opportunities, 

enhancement of visitor facilities and services, and 

protection of the Cottonwood Cove viewshed and 

motel character. The Laughlin Chamber of 

Commerce provided a copy of a 2003 report 

outlining a range of issues and recommendations 

for improving the lower Lake Mohave area. 

A flyer further soliciting public input was 

distributed in September 2009. Twenty-seven 

responses were posted to the PEPC website. A 

second newsletter was mailed out and posted on 

the PEPC website describing the key issues and 

different options or actions that could be taken to 

address the identified issues. The public comment 

period for this newsletter extended from 

March 11, 2010 to July 31, 2010. During the public 

comment period, eight comments were received 

through the PEPC website. The comments ranged 

from concerns on the trailer village to area trails.

AGENCY CONSULTATION 

American Indian Tribes 

There are numerous Yuman-speaking Indian 

tribes with interest in this area of Lake Mead 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

170 

National Recreation Area. Letters and newsletters 

were sent to these tribes to inform them of the 

planning process and to invite their input. Tribal 

consultation has also been conducted through 

participation and sharing of project updates by the 

park’s American Indian liaison during routine 

government-to-government consultation 

meetings. Consultation will continue with the 

American Indian tribes throughout the planning 

and implementation of the development concept 

plans to ensure that any potential concerns are 

addressed. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act, consultation letters were sent from 

the National Park Service to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in September 2008. The USFWS 

Arizona Ecological Services provided comments 

during the scoping meetings and in response to 

newsletter 2. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

referenced the biological opinion issued for the 

2003 Lake Mead NRA Lake Management Plan / 

Final Environmental Impact Statement), which 

included critical habitat for the Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, bonytail chub, razorback 

sucker, and desert tortoise. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service also recommended that the Yuma 

clapper rail, bald eagle, and Gila monster be 

addressed. Based on the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act of 1918, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also 

suggested that land clearing or other surface 

disturbances be conducted outside the avian 

breeding season or a qualified biologist survey of 

the area be conducted prior to any clearing. They 

wished to remain involved with the project. Their 

primary concerns in responses to newsletter 2 

were for potential effects of changes in marina 

locations, boat launch ramps, and other 

infrastructure that could affect the razorback 

sucker, bonytail chub, and critical habitat for both 

species in Lake Mohave. 

A programmatic biological opinion issued by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in February 2010 

included an evaluation of potential effects on the 

threatened Mohave desert tortoise (Gopherus 

agassizii) and its designated critical habitat from 

programmatic activities in the Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area in Clark County, 

Nevada. Programmatic activities addressed in that 

document included infrastructure development 

and maintenance as part of the implementation of 

a development concept plan for Cottonwood 

Cove. The programmatic biological opinion is in 

effect for a 10-year period. The general terms and 

conditions that are included in that document 

would be implemented as part of the proposed 

actions to minimize the effects and incidental take 

of desert tortoise. Additional project-specific 

terms and conditions may be identified based on 

the specifics of any individual project and will be 

determined during project-level consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Specific 

projects associated with the implementation of a 

development concept plan for Cottonwood Cove 

would be appended to the programmatic 

biological opinion. 

Nevada and Arizona State 

Historic Preservation Officer 

Scoping letters were sent to the Nevada and 

Arizona State Historic Preservation Offices on 

September 24, 2008. Newsletter updates have 

been sent to these offices as part of an ongoing 

agency coordination and public involvement 

during the project. To continue coordination, the 

draft development concept plans will be 

submitted to the Nevada and Arizona State 

Historic Preservation Offices for comment. 

Arizona and Nevada State 

Natural Resources Agencies 

In addition to consultation with federal agencies, 

the National Park Service sent letters to the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department and the 

Nevada State Department of Wildlife to gather 

species information and additional concerns 

regarding the planning process. 

The Arizona Game and Fish Department provided 

input that they wished to be actively involved as a 

stakeholder and cooperating agency in the 

conservation planning and environmental impact 

analysis process for the development concept 

plans. They also wanted to be kept informed 

about the planning process. 

The Nevada State Department of Wildlife 

provided written input and participated in one of 

the public meetings. They also indicated that the 

state was interested in ensuring accessibility and 

security of their vessels and equipment, avoiding 

impacts on aquatic habitats essential to the 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

171 

razorback sucker, and increasing available areas 

for shoreline angling access by no-boat users. 

INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION 

The following people were contacted for 

information and assistance in identifying issues, 

developing alternatives, and analyzing impacts: 

Colleen Carter 

General Manager, Cottonwood Cove Resort 

Interview at Cottonwood Cove on May 13, 

2010 

Roxanne Dey 

Concessions Management Specialist, Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area 

Interview at Katherine Landing on May 12, 

2010 

Horace Schuler 

General Manager, Lake Mohave Resort 

Interview at Katherine Landing on May 12, 

2010 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

172 

CONSULTATION LETTERS AND RESPONSES 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

LAME (137227) 

September 24, 2008 

Mr. Don Klima 

Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

1100 Pennsylvania Ave, Suite 809 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Subject: Scoping Notice - Preparation of Development Concept Plans / Environmental Impact Statement 

for Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing at Lake Mead National Recreation Area and the 

Use of the NEPA Process for Section 106 Purposes 

Dear Mr. Klima: 

The National Park Service is preparing development concept plans (DCPs) and accompanying 

environmental impact statement for the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing developed areas on 

Lake Mohave within Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The purpose of the DCPs is to revisit the 

implementation strategies identified in the 1986 General Management Plan and 2003 Lake Management 

Plan for the national recreation area. Each DCP will provide an integrated plan for development with site 

specific guidance for the extent, type, and location of facilities and services that is consistent with the 

management direction and intent established in both previous plans. 

Although planning is in the preliminary stages, we believe that eventual implementation of the project 

could affect properties included in or that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places. In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations, 36 CFR 

Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties, the National Park Service is required to comply with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended). This scoping notice serves 

to officially initiate Section 106 consultation with your office. Section 106 consultations have also been 

initiated with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, 

and associated Indian tribes and scoping is underway with other federal and state agencies and interested 

publics. 

In addition, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.8(c): Use of the NEPA process for Section 106 purposes, 

this letter also serves to notify your office of our intention to use the NEPA process for all subsequent 

Section 106 consultation on this project. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

601 NEVADA WAY 

BOULDER CITY, NEVADA 89005 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

173 

We look forward to your participation in this planning process and will continue to seek your input during 

various stages of the process. A copy of the scoping newsletter has been enclosed to provide some 

additional information on the planning process and preliminary issues. 

We would appreciate any preliminary input you may have by November 15, 2008. Comments can be sent 

to: 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

ATTN: DCP-EIS 

601 Nevada Way 

Boulder City, NV 89005 

If you have questions about the project or would like more information please contact Jim Holland, Park 

Planner, at 702-293-8986 or by email at jim_holland@nps.gov. 

Sincerely, 

William K. Dickinson 

Superintendent 

Enclosure 

CC: 

Holland, LAME 

Boyles, LAME 

Jackson-Retondo, PWR 

Koch, PWR 

Rideout, DSC -DC 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

174 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

LAME (137227) 

September 24, 2008 

Mr. Ronald M. James 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Nevada Office of Historic Preservation 

100 North Stewart Street 

Carson City, NV 89701 

Subject: Scoping Notice - Preparation of Development Concept Plans / Environmental Impact Statement 

for Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing at Lake Mead National Recreation Area and the 

Use of the NEPA Process for Section 106 Purposes 

Dear Mr. James: 

The National Park Service is preparing development concept plans (DCPs) and accompanying 

environmental impact statement for the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing developed areas on 

Lake Mohave within Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The purpose of the DCPs is to revisit the 

implementation strategies identified in the 1986 General Management Plan and 2003 Lake Management 

Plan for the national recreation area. Each DCP will provide an integrated plan for development with site 

specific guidance for the extent, type, and location of facilities and services that is consistent with the 

management direction and intent established in both previous plans. 

Although planning is in the preliminary stages, we believe that eventual implementation of the project 

could affect properties included in or that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places. In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations, 36 CFR 

Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties, the National Park Service is required to comply with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended). This scoping notice serves 

to officially initiate Section 106 consultation with your office. Scoping has also been initiated with the 

other federal and state agencies, associated Indian tribes, and interested publics. 

In addition, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.8(c): Use of the NEPA process for Section 106 purposes, 

this letter also serves to notify your office of our intention to use the NEPA process for all subsequent 

Section 106 consultation on this project. 

We look forward to your participation in this planning process and will continue to seek your input during 

various stages of the process. A copy of the scoping newsletter has been enclosed to provide some 

additional information on the planning process and preliminary issues. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

601 NEVADA WAY 

BOULDER CITY, NEVADA 89005 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

175 

We would appreciate any preliminary input you may have by November 15, 2008. Comments can be sent 

to: 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

ATTN: DCP-EIS 

601 Nevada Way 

Boulder City, NV 89005 

If you have questions about the project or would like more information please contact Jim Holland, Park 

Planner, at 702-293-8986 or by email at jim_holland@nps.gov. 

Sincerely, 

William K. Dickinson 

Superintendent 

CC: 

Holland, LAME 

Boyles, LAME 

Jackson-Retondo, PWR 

Koch, PWR 

Rideout, DSC -DC 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

176 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

LAME (137227) 

September 24, 2008 

Mr. James Garrison 

Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer 

Arizona State Parks 

1300 West Washington 

Phoenix, Arizona 85007 

Subject: Scoping Notice - Preparation of Development Concept Plans / Environmental Impact Statement 

for Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing at Lake Mead National Recreation Area and the 

Use of the NEPA Process for Section 106 Purposes 

Dear Mr. Garrison: 

The National Park Service is preparing development concept plans (DCPs) and accompanying 

environmental impact statement for the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing developed areas on 

Lake Mohave within Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The purpose of the DCPs is to revisit the 

implementation strategies identified in the 1986 General Management Plan and 2003 Lake Management 

Plan for the national recreation area. Each DCP will provide an integrated plan for development with site 

specific guidance for the extent, type, and location of facilities and services that is consistent with the 

management direction and intent established in both previous plans. 

Although planning is in the preliminary stages, we believe that eventual implementation of the project 

could affect properties included in or that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places. In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations, 36 CFR 

Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties, the National Park Service is required to comply with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended). This scoping notice serves 

to officially initiate Section 106 consultation with your office. Scoping has also been initiated with the 

other federal and state agencies, associated Indian tribes, and interested publics. 

In addition, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.8(c): Use of the NEPA process for Section 106 purposes, 

this letter also serves to notify your office of our intention to use the NEPA process for all subsequent 

Section 106 consultation on this project. 

We look forward to your participation in this planning process and will continue to seek your input during 

various stages of the process. A copy of the scoping newsletter has been enclosed to provide some 

additional information on the planning process and preliminary issues. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

601 NEVADA WAY 

BOULDER CITY, NEVADA 89005 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

177 

We would appreciate any preliminary input you may have by November 15, 2008. Comments can be sent 

to: 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

ATTN: DCP-EIS 

601 Nevada Way 

Boulder City, NV 89005 

If you have questions about the project or would like more information please contact Jim Holland, Park 

Planner, at 702-293-8986 or by email at jim_holland@nps.gov. 

Sincerely, 

William K. Dickinson 

Superintendent 

Enclosure 

CC: 

Holland, LAME 

Boyles, LAME 

Jackson-Retondo, PWR 

Koch, PWR 

Rideout, DSC -DC 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

178 

Arizona ® 

State Parks 

Janet Napolitano 

Governor 

State Parks 

Board Members 

Chair 

William C. Scalzo 

Phoenix 

Arlan Colton 

Tucson 

Reese Woodling 

Tucson 

Tracey Westerhausen 

Phoenix 

William C. Cordasco 

Flagstaff 

Larry Landry 

Phoenix 

Mark Winkleman 

State Land 

'"Me~rutglna cmd ~Oil9etvlng n;;~t;ur.•l. Cltlt:ural ;~nd reGrll"Dl.IOnYI t·csources' 

October 15,2008 

William K. Dickinson Superintendenr 

National Park Service 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

601 Nevada Way 

Boulder City, NV SCJ005 

ln reply refer to SHIJ'0-2008-1638 

M ore information required 

RE: Preparation of Development Concept Plans/Environmental Impact Statement for 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing at Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

and the Use of the NEPA Process for Section 106 Purposes 

NPS- LAME (137227) 

SHP0-2008-1638 (37927) 

Dear Mr. Dickinson: 

Thank you for informing us about the above referenced federal undertaking. 

We look forward to continuing consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800. We: understand that 

the agency intends to use the NEP A process for Section I 06 purposes. 

We appreciate your continued cooperation with our office in complying with the 

requirements of historic preservation. 

Commissioner Sincerely, 

Kenneth 

Ariz

Executive 

ona 

E

State 

. Travous Director 

Parks 

~ g-._,.-L..t:..t'A ~ 

1300 W. Washington Anne Medley 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 Compliance Specialis cbaeolo · t 

Tel & TTY: 602.542.4174 State Historic Prese ation Office www.azstateparks.com 

800.285.3703 from 

(520 & 928) area codes 

General Fax: 

602.542.4180 

Director"s Office Fax: 602.542.4188 
A pp e n d i x e s
180 

BACK OF DIVIDER 
181 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 

Public Law 88-639 

88th Congreea, S. 653 

October 8, 1964 

S!n 2lct 711 STl't, lC J ... 

'1'\t pn,..l•'-" •• • ....,_., • ..._ ... rc edM*ft~IJII,..tW.. -t ,.,. l Ab NNd x.ran.-1 

n"""'..._ .&. ...... An: .... aM s .. ,..._ . ... , rw '"'...,... .-~ 

8_, it '"''"f'fl lly tAr. &!'t~te •Hflllot~_.. ,,f R'l!!!""'"!"';,.,~ •l !It' 

UruJJ Stnl, .. ol .... Pit~i'IM I ll f!fJfllgHIA lf»IMMIYI. n.at, m ff'OO$!JUI llllt 

of the nalio.•ai' significanee of thfl J..nke )lr;td ~•tlonalllt<'t'fation Art~~., in tho StaiN of Arianna and Ne.,•nda. nnd in nt'\kor to sa1Jll8h n more ~nate basi" f« efecrin adminitcr:uion uf tiUrb • ...,.. forth~ 

pu.blie bt:tWfit. the Set-mary of th4- JntHior IW1"'fSfttr a•r .. ~iw the 

funrtiona and f'a"J' out the adi,·iti•Jlf'ftC"ri'-"1 J.ty- this .. \Cf. 

Sa:. i. l•ke )lt>ad Nuional Rt"Cn:ation .\rM ihftll compriM that 

particular land and water aru •hi<'h it' ~ho'"' on a nrt~tin n1ap. idt'n· tifted u ... bomw:lary map. RA-t.M-ror_.o...u, l'e"i""l .rul_y 11, 1!)6.1~ , 

whic.h it on JH• and •·hich shAll be anila.blt few p411J1ic m&&M'<'Iion i n the.o&e. of tM. National Park &"i<oe of the f)f,.P.U1lfM'nt of tb. I nit· 

rior. An.,..., copyofoudvnap shall~ ~led ...,.hIM l"«lftool R•gis· 

tu within thirt.r daY" following the •rruonl nf thi-~ .\a, anti an PJI:act fOJ)Y the.rtOf lhall Le avllilGbl• •'*> for rabHc in~inn in the 

heaclqual1ton olllee of d~ suporiul~htltnt o the aaic.a J..ake llt,ul 

Xational RtcrutM:m AftA.. 

n.&Srrretary of lite Jnttrior ia :wthnri ~ to "'"i~ rht homulariH 

of tutk national rPn"eation ·~ JOUbj«t to the l"f'qllift'eW'nt that tbt 

total ~""P of that. am, q ~iMcl, shall be no ~1ft" thaA tile 

,.,....nc IK'l'ft,n thtft'Of. Jn thee'"""' of IUC'h botmdiU')" ftYitioet. n1aps 

of the '"'":=uion arN, •• ~,·isrd, JlhAll two pr•rwu•td by tht "'"pnnment. of the Jnte-rior~ 1uul "ha ll bt fil~l in thl' JCanlP tullnnt r, •ntl J.~ha l 

be availablt fM public in~JM'C'I ion •h;o ia. ~tt'C!OI'\ IIn<"t with the" ftu·Naitl 

p.I'O('WlurM 1nd nquimnrnrs rrlatin;- to the lilinf. and At'liJa~iliey or 

rnll.e'- n .. S.CI"dary_ .,.1 M'C"f'JM: 1lfM1alionlt of and and intfTfWhJ in 

land witl•h• the f!'J:tnior bound:i.no. nf SlK'ft. ar"N,. w ...c-h proptf'tT 

m~~y be proturtd by the Sf.tmary in 1ueh m:uuwr as ht shall C'Oftl.ilkf. 

to be in the public int~. 

In Ul'rt'itmg his authority to acqu irt [_lropt•t1y lly txchan~. 1 hf' ~. 

ntal')' may a«e-r: title to any non •~eclf"nl t'rop•rtyloe;atf'd within 

the bnandaritso the rec..,.._tion ..... anti ronny tu thf' ~ntnr ol ;l.tl<l•h 

propt-rty ••Y ftderall.r ownfd pr"'fW't1)" Mutln t1w jwa....JinM.t of tl'" 

Sec:ret1ry, n.otwithsta1Ktin;r an.1 othe-r prn,.ision of law. Tbt (M'OIWI1iN ao urit•n.grc-1 Mall be•pprosnnat•ly tt·lu:tl in lair mukf'l valuto: / 'n,.. 

•itled, n ·ia.t tfm Secretary may ft('('f'r.l C'rtJIJI from Qr pa\· r:l~l fO the ~antor in aucl1 an c-xdianz;e in ore er I() tqUAii&e tbe \·aluN nf 1ht 

proponliftt~·~~pl. · • t ~ ~- ~ · f •· id • 1 Efta) ~c. or N•aiiOIIt 0 h1e -lhuUIM 0 h-.: A llAhCMU 

rec:r.tion area., u btnio prt:~~tn"bt-t:l, thall not aff«e adY"t"rwly any 

nlirl riJrhfl in the an., nor shall it atTf'C't the nlidity of .-ithdraw.fl' 

heretofore mad8 for nocla•N.tion or ~wtr purposa, AU lancts iu tht" 

recnat-ion ••• wltieh hA\-e been withdra. ar lt'f\Uirtd. b\' the,l tnihoJ 

Statts for l"f"e1amation pur~ Mftll ftnu\i11 aubjtc:t to "rhe priman ua t.hoenof for rerlamat ion a.nd powt.r purpo~a ItO ta-us=- as they a A: 

withdrawn or~ fwAXI'l puiJ)OIC!IL nw.rethall bef'U1t..tcod front 

tM aid na.tionall'K&'ft.tKm area by tlte: S«rnary of the lntui« an1' 

pro_porly for IDIAO~Illfnl orp«>tKtion bv tM Burt .. or Rec-lamation, 

wh.ac:.h would be &:ubiect otherwjae 10 inC")usW>n iu the said ...CR~tt i4'm ana, and whieb the Secr'ftary of &.110 Interior con.&i•ltra in the nat ionnl 

inlueotthould b .. xeludtd l~rdrom. 

&c. &. "n-. autbcwi tMa~tftnted by thia Act shall be sub~ to the 

follo..n.,_ n~ and qulilicauona wbtn ex~ wttb rtiJ>OU 

t&kt 11c&4 

)ll;tio .. l ~"­

auon ,,....._. 

J.da1 N •-t.,.. \ I Oft. 

rs 11"' wt"' '•de-l .... u ..... 

a..,, .. •t ....... 
APPENDIXES

182 

P11b . Law 88-639 

78 STAT . )040. 

- l - October 8, 1964 

Reoreational 

purposes. 

Aotivitiea. 

Hunting, fhhoo 

ina, trapp1na. 

Resulattorw. 

tu . .,., • • llml or alloflt'(l l:uul:oc of tht• Hualapai lt~clinm: that may he 

indu.lo•d within the cxh•rim· hmmcl:u·il's uf I ht' La kt! :\lt'acl :'\ :u icma 1 

lh'Ct'\'ntion .\rt'n : (:t) Tiu• inrlusionl)f lwlian l:uuls within the rxlc•rior hmnularit•s n f 

th~ anon shall not Le elft'<'tiw until nppmn d by tiH• Ilnnlapai Tt·ihal 

Counril. 

(h) )linl'l'lll cii'\'Ciopnwnts m· n~· nf tlw Jntlian Janel:-: shall he• pt•t·· 

mittetl tmh in n•'f!ord:uwt• with tht' lnws thnt t'l•lntt• In lncl ian lamls. 

{c) LeaSes nnd pel'naits fur brenl'rnl t~l1'ntinnn1 "'*'

· husinl's.<; :;itcs, home sit~.s, vnrnt ion c•nhin sill'S, nntl ~n1zinl! sha 11 he I'Xt'('IIINI in 

accordnnre with the lnws relntinl! to lt•aSI's of Indian lands. pt·n,·i!lt•cl 

thnt nil de,·eloptnl'nt. nn'<l impt'O\'t•utrnt. lt•IISI'S so j!I'IIIIINI slmll t'l)llform 

to the development pt·ogt·nm nnd stllnthn·ds pt-efir. ibt d for the Lnkc 

:\lend Nntionnl Recl't':ttion Area. 

(d) Nothing in this Act shall tler.rh·e thr mNnhrrs of thr Hualapai 

Tribe of hunting and fi hin~ pt·ivtl<'l!t'S prt'scntly I'Xerrist-11 by them, 

nor diminish those rights nnd prh ill'~e~ of t h nt. part of the T('st>T\'nt ion which is induded in the Lake :\lead Recn•nt ion .\t'(':l. SEC. 4. {n) Loke l\lead Nnti01ml Rerrcntion .\rrn sh:tlll,.. 111hnini;;. 

tcred by the Secretary of the Intcrinr fot· l..' n~rnl Jmrpo~ of puhlic t-ecl't'atton, benefit, llnd use, nncl inn mnnnl'r thut wil pt·eser,·c, c.le,·elop. 

nnd ~Jlhance, so far as prnctil'ablc, the l'('('rPntion pot l'nt ial. nntl in :L 

mnnner that. will presen·e the !;('t'uic. hi tori , S<·ient ifir. anti othl'r 

importnnt fentures of the nrt'a, consi!'tently with appli<'ahlc ~Sf'rYutions and limitations relntin~ to such an•n ·nnd with other aut horized 

uses of the lands llnd propt•rtit'S within stwh nn•n. (b) In carrying out the functions prescribed by this Act, in addition 

to other related activities thnt mny he pf'tmitted ln-t-e1mder, the Secre- tary may provide for the. follo"·inJ! nl'ti,·ities, suhjl'cl to surh limit n· 

tions, conditions, or regulnt ions as ht' mny prescribe. nnd to !:uch extent 

as will not be inconsistent with either the recreational usc or the pri· mary use of that portion of the tU"ell heretofore withdrnwn for reclnmallon purposes: 

{1) Genernl recreation use, such nR b:tl hin~, bout in:,!, cnmping, 

. and picnicking; 

(2) Grazing; 

(a) Mineral lensing; 

( 4) Vacation cabin site use, in nc<'onlnnce with exist in~ polirics 

of the Department oft he lntt'riur relating to finch u~, or t\!1 su~h 

policies mny be revised hercnftt'r hy the Secrrtnry. 

S•:c. 5. The Secretnry of the lnh•rior shaH permit hunting, fishinl!, 

und trnpping on the lands and wntrn; undPr his jurisdiction within thc 

l'('!Crention area in accordance with the npplicnblc lnws nncl regulations 

of the Unitt>1l States nnd the l"t'SJ>CCtive States: l'rO'I:irlrd. Tiutt the 

tiecretary, aftcr consultation with the respective Stnte lil'h :mel gnmu 

commissions, mny issue reJntlat ions d~ip nating zonf!S whe1-e and establishing periods when no hunting, tishm~. or tr11ppiug ~hnll be permiUed for reasons of public safety, udnunistration, or public use antl 

enjoyment. 

Sr.c. 6. Such national recreation at·cn shnll continue to be administered in accordance 'vith regulations hfl'l!tofore issued by the Secretary 

of the Interior relating to such areo.s, and the Secretary may revise such 

regulations or issue new regulations to cnrry out the purJ>OEi!!IS of this Act. In his administrntion and rei(Ulation of the area, the ~ret y 

shall exercise authority, suojeet. to the provisions and limitations of 

this Act, comparable to his general administrative nuthority relatillg 

to areas of the national park system. 
Appendix A 

183 

O ctober 8, 1964 - 3 - Pub. Law 88-639 

78 ST.\T. 1041. 

111e SliJM.'ri llh' IHII' III, ('RJ'\'I Itk('J');, nflil'l'r.-,111· m llj!l'I'S nf Ktll'h n'l'l't'RI ion AM'U'h. 

nrea nre nulhoril'.e1lto mnke urn'Sts fm· \'iolat iun of 1111\" uf I h• rt'~ulut ions Rl_)Jlli('nble tot hi.' Rrea or tn-est•rilll'tlpursunnt to tliis .\t't, 1111d thPy 

may hrm~r the olfrndPr lll.'f01'\' the nl'ni?St t'Hnmti!l!'imtl'l", jmlge, or eoua·t 

of the United Stales lun-ing juriKtlit:l ion in 1 hi' t,remif;l•s. 

Any )K'I'SOil who \'iolnll'S n ntll.' or •·t·~uhtt ion ~<.-; e<l pursu:mt to this Violations. 

-~ct. slutll be ~tnihy of R misdt>ml'nnm·, ltllll llllt.}' I.e \mnish<'tl by a line 

of not more tha11 ~~.or by impriHOnmtml not exrHt ing six mont h.-, oa· by both such fine nnd imprisonment. 

Szc. 7. Nothing in this Act sltnll tll'prin Any St:1IP, ot· nny politil•nl Jurild1ot1on. 

subdivision thtreof, of its civil nnd erimimtl j111·i!Miit•t ion o\·ea· the lnmls 

within the Mid nahonnl rt'Crealion 1H't'll1 nr of its a-i~hts to tux Jll'I'IIOIIH, 

corporutions, franchises, or propt'rty on the hmds includl'd in Rudt 

tu-ea. Not lain~ in this A<"t shnll moclify or olht>rwise nlft'Ct the t'Xisting jurisdiction of the Ilnnlnpni Tribt\ oi· nltpr tlte stntns of indi,·idunl 

Hualapai Indians within thAt pnt·t of the llunlnpni Imlilw Reservntion included in said I...ake :Meud Nntionnl Rf't'J~ntion Aren. 

Szc. 8. Revt>nues and fees obtaim'll by the Fuitell ~lilies from opent- Revenuu and 

tion of the nationnl recrention aren slu11l be snhjel'l to the Mme stntu- r .... tory provisions coneeminp; the disposition thPreof as nre similar rf'l'e· 

nues collected in areas of the'Tuttionnl park sy~tl'm with the PX('eption. t'hat those particulRr revenues and fees including those from mmernl 

developments, "A·hich the St-emnry of the lnt~ ior fimls are ren110nnbly 

ttUributable to Indian lands slmll he pnid to the Jnditm owner of the 

land1 and with the further exception thnt olht>r ff'eS and revenues 

obtamed from minenl denlopmPnt Rnd from activities under other 

]Jublic land laws "A·ithin the recrention t\rea shnll be dis~ of in 

accordance with the J>roVisions of thr nppJicAhle Jnws. -

Sar:c. 0. A United States commi.<;..c;ion«>r shall be nppointf'() for thnt Hohave County, 

portion of the J .. ke Mead National Htcre~ttion Ar«>n thnt is t~ituntecl in Arh. 

Mohan County, Arizona. Such commissionpr shnll he npJ>Ointl'll by APPOirrt.ent or 

the United States district court having jurisdiction therPOver, and the o-1•stoner. 

oommiMione-r shall se"e as directed hy suda co11rt1 nR wellns pursuant 

to, and within the limits of, the authority of SAid court. 

TI1e functions of such eommiMioner slmll inclmlr. t.he trinl nntl sen- tencing ()f persons commit! ing petty offenses, ns defined in title 181 fl('e· 

tion 1, United States Code: Pro1Jidtd, 'fhnt any person chnrpd with a 

J!«.ty offense may elect to be tried in the difll.rjct r.ourt of tTte llnitt'd 

States, and the commii!Sioner sh111l npprise the defendnnt of hi!l ri~rht. 

to make such election, but shoJI not l?roceed to try the cnse unless thu 

defendant, after being so apprised, sagns a written cousent to be tried 

before the commissioner. The exc.m~ise of additionnl functions by th<l 

commissioner sha.ll be consistent with nnd be cnrried out in nccorttnnce 

with the authority, laws, llnd regulations, of general npplieation to 

United States commissioners. The provisions of title 18, section 3402, 

of the United States Code, and the rules of procedure nncl practice 62 Stat. en. 

preecribed by the Supreme Court pursuant· thereto, shall npply to all 

oue1 handled by such commissioner. Tite probation Jnws shall be Probation laa. 
APPENDIXES

184 

Pub. Law 88-639 

78 Sl!!· lMl. 

- 4- October 8, 1964 

Appropr1a1;1cm. 

:•pplic·uble to persons tried by the. commission~r and 'he shall have 

power to grant probation. The commissioner !'hall receive the fees, 

and none other, provided by 1""'" for like or similt\r services. 

Sr.c. 10. The1'8 are hereby authorized to be al!propriated not more than $1,200,000 for the acquisition of Jnnd and mterests in Janel pursuant to section 2 of this .\ct. 

Approved October 8, 1964. 

U:GISLAnVE IIISTORY: 

II)USE REPORT lfo. 1039 aooampaeying H. R. 4010 (C011111. on Interior & 

In~~ular Arfa.il'll). 

SEHATE REPORT No, 380 (c~. on Interior & Irwular Affairs). CO~RESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 109 (1963)1 Aus: 2, oonsidered &n4 pa.sed Senate, 

Vol. 110 (1964) 1 Aug. 31 oonaidered and passed House,lllllended, 

in lieu of H. R. 40100 

Se~. 28, Senate oonourred in House ••nanent. 
185 

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION MEASURES 

AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR FEDERALLY 

LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

issued a programmatic biological opinion, dated 

October 7, 2002 (USFWS 2002a), concerning the 

potential effects of the 2003 Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area Lake Management Plan / Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area to the desert 

tortoise and its critical habitat, the Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, the bonytail chub and its critical 

habitat, and the razorback sucker and its critical 

habitat. The conservation measures included in 

the 2005 biological opinion for the Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, bonytail chub, and razorback 

sucker applicable to Lake Mohave are included in 

the following information. Those portions of the 

2002 biological opinion (USFWS 2005)for the 

desert tortoise and its critical habitat were 

superseded by the programmatic biological 

opinion dated February 3, 2010 (USFWS 2010). 

The general terms and conditions that are 

included in the 2010 programmatic biological 

opinion are summarized below. 

A biological and conference opinion for the 

Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program was issued in 2005. NPS 

actions covered under the biological and 

conference opinion include riparian habitat 

restoration, fishery management, and boating 

access. The specific NPS actions included that are 

relevant to the Draft Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing Development Concept Plans / 

Environmental Impact Statement are the 

construction of new fishing docks and possibly 

associated fish-habitat structures and the 

maintenance and improvements of existing boats 

ramps. The general and specific conservation 

measures to avoid and minimize the effects of 

implementing the covered activities would be 

carried out. 

Additional project-specific measures and terms 

and conditions may be identified based on the 

specifics of any individual project and will be 

determined during project-level consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The National 

Park Service would submit the appropriate 

project-specific documentation that addresses the 

effects of individual projects and request the 

proposed project be appended to the appropriate 

programmatic biological opinion to fulfill NPS 

consultation requirements. 

The following measures, terms, and conditions 

would be implemented as applicable to any 

individual action included in the development 

concept plans. 

RAZORBACK SUCKER 

AND BONYTAIL CHUB 

 Surveys at the nine coves known to have 

spawning razorbacks at Lake Mohave and the 

two areas known at Lake Mead will continue. 

Surveys in Lake Mohave for bonytail chub 

will continue. The National Park Service 

cooperates in these surveys, but is not the 

prime funding source for the work. 

 Boat use of coves identified as native fish 

spawning areas during the spawning period 

will be monitored. If boat use increases 

dramatically or if the Native Fish Work Group 

recommends action, closures of the coves to 

boat use during the spawning period will be 

implemented. Areas adjacent to razorback 

sucker grow-out ponds on Lake Mohave will 

also be monitored. If vandalism to the ponds 

is documented, closures will be implemented. 

 Information about native fish in the lakes will 

be provided at marinas and with houseboat 

and other boat rentals. Information will 

encourage boaters not to use the spawning 

areas during the spawning season. 

 For the expansion of Cottonwood Cove 

Marina on Lake Mohave, razorback sucker 

surveys will begin this winter to assess any use 

of the expansion area. The site will also be 

added to the annual surveys during the 

breeding season. 

 All marinas will operate under the Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area Best Management 

Practices, Watercraft and Marina Operations 
APPENDIXES

186 

and Dry Boat Storage and Boat Repair Services

or subsequent revised versions of the 

document. This document provides for 

management that reduces the risk of toxic 

spills into the lakes by fueling or other marina 

operations. 

SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER 

 Surveys in known occupied habitats of the 

flycatcher by the National Park Service, 

Bureau of Reclamation, and contractors will 

continue. Surveys of potential habitats will be 

initiated by the National Park Service. 

 If breeding pairs are found, closures to restrict 

land and lake access by recreationists to the 

sites will be put in place. 

DESERT TORTOISE 

 An authorized desert tortoise biologist will be 

on-site at all times for the duration of the 

project. 

 Tortoise-proof fencing will be installed 

around the perimeter of the work area. Once 

exclusion fencing is installed, an authorized 

biologist (Authorized Biologist) would survey 

the area to ensure that no desert tortoises or 

active burrows are present within the fenced 

area. 

 A desert tortoise education program will be 

presented to all personnel on-site during 

construction. 

 All areas to be disturbed will have boundaries 

flagged before beginning the activity, and all 

disturbance and project activities would be 

confined to the flagged areas. 

 Before surface-disturbing activities, an 

authorized desert tortoise biologist will 

conduct a clearance survey to locate and 

remove tortoises using techniques providing 

full coverage of all areas. 

 All burrows located within areas proposed for 

disturbance, whether occupied or vacant, will 

be excavated by an authorized biologist and 

collapsed or blocked to prevent desert 

tortoise re-entry. 

 All located desert tortoises and desert tortoise 

eggs will be relocated off-site to 300 to 1,000 ft 

into adjacent undisturbed habitat. 

 The on-site biologist will record each 

observed or handled desert tortoise. 

 Project activities that may endanger a desert 

tortoise will cease if a tortoise is found on a 

project site. 

 All trenches and other excavations with side 

slopes steeper than a 1-ft rise to 3-ft length 

will be immediately backfilled, fenced, 

covered or constructed with escape ramps at 

each end of the trench and every 1,000 ft in 

between (at a minimum). If a desert tortoise is 

discovered within a trench, all activity 

associated with that trench will cease until an 

authorized biologist has removed the tortoise. 

 Trash and food items would be disposed of 

properly in predator-proof containers with 

resealing lids. 

 No imported topsoil (desert soil) or hay bales 

would be used during the projects, in an effort 

to avoid introduction of nonnative plant 

species or inappropriate genetic stock of 

native plant species. The contractor will be 

required to pressure-wash all equipment 

before being allowed into Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area. Reclaimed areas 

will be monitored to ensure establishment and 

spread of only native species. In areas of 

temporary disturbance, revegetation may be 

required at the discretion of NPS resource 

managers, and would consist solely of native 

plants and/or seeds. 

 If blasting is required, a 200-ft-radius area 

around the blasting site will be surveyed by an 

authorized biologist for desert tortoises prior 

to blasting and appropriate measures 

implemented to protect tortoises. 

 Vehicles will not exceed 20 miles-per-hour 

(mph) on access roads. Authorized desert 

tortoise biologists and/or approved monitors 

will ensure compliance with speed limits 

during construction. 

 Any vehicle or equipment on the right-of-way 

within desert tortoise habitat will be checked 
Appendix B 

187

underneath for tortoises before moving. If a 

desert tortoise is observed, an authorized 

biologist will be contacted. 

 All fuel, transmission or brake fluid leaks, or 

other hazardous materials, will not be drained 

onto the ground or into drainage areas. Waste 

leaks, spills, or releases will be reported 

immediately to National Park Service. The 

National Park Service or the project 

proponent will be responsible for spill 

material removal and disposal to an approved 

off-site landfill. Servicing of construction 

equipment will take place only at a designated 

area. 

 No pets will be permitted in any project 

construction area. 

 Any construction pipe, culvert, or similar 

structure will be inspected for tortoises before 

the material is moved, buried, or capped. 

 Only water or an alternative substance 

approved by the National Park Service will be 

used as a dust suppressant. Water application 

shall avoid pooling of water on roadways. 

 Any areas of water discharge will be designed 

to exclude potential predatory species of 

desert tortoises. 

 Payment of remuneration fees for 

compensation of the loss of desert tortoise 

habitat as a result of the proposed project will 

be made. The National Park Service will 

require a receipt of payment from each 

designated utility prior to issuing the Notice 

to Proceed. 

 Desert tortoises shall be handled in 

accordance with National Park Serviceapproved protocols. 
188 

APPENDIX C: FLOODPLAIN STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 

COTTONWOOD COVE AND KATHERINE LANDING DEVELOPMENT 

CONCEPT PLANS / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

 

Recommended: William Dickinson, Superintendent 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

Date 

 

 

Concurred: William Jackson, Chief 

Water Resources Division 

Date 

 

 

Approved: Christine Lehnertz, Regional Director 

Pacific West Region 

Date 

 
Appendix C

189 

INTRODUCTION 

In May 1977, Executive Order (EO) 11988, 

“Floodplain Management,” required the National 

Park Service (NPS) and other federal agencies to 

evaluate the likely impacts of actions in 

floodplains. The objectives of the executive order 

are to avoid to the extent possible the long-term 

and short-term adverse impacts associated with 

occupancy, modification, or destruction of 

floodplains and to avoid indirect support of 

development and new construction in such areas 

wherever there is a practicable alternative. NPS 

Director’s Order 77-2, Floodplain Management 

Procedural Manual provides NPS policies and 

procedures for complying with EO 11988. The 

purpose of this Floodplain Statement of Findings 

(SOF) for Executive Order 11988 is to present the 

rationale for the location of development at 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing in the 

floodplains, describe the amount of risk 

associated with the sites, and describe associated 

flood mitigation actions. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The preferred alternatives in the development 

concept plans (DCPs) for Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing would retain and improve 

both developed areas consistent with the 

management direction established in the 1986 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement and the 2003 Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area Lake Management Plan. A number 

of facilities including overnight accommodations 

/residences are proposed to remain or be replaced 

within the probable maximum floodplains (pmf). 

Some of these structures at Cottonwood Cove are 

contributing elements to a Mission 66 historic 

district determined to be eligible in the National 

Register of Historic Places in 2006. 

The following actions would occur within the 

probable maximum floodplains at Cottonwood 

Cove: 

 redevelop the trailer village site for short-term 

overnight visitor accommodations 

 retain and allow expansion of the motel 

 retain a portion of the upper campground for 

visitors and redevelop remainder of the 

campground for volunteer sites and employee 

housing 

 convert lower campground to summer day 

use and continue operation as a campground 

during the winter season 

 enhance existing picnic area 

 construct combined visitor contact / 

commercial services facility on the site of the 

existing store/café 

 increase parking capacity per the lake 

management plan and construct new loop 

road and ready lane 

 maintain launch ramp 

 retain NPS housing, maintenance, and 

emergency service facilities 

 expand existing concession maintenance area 

The following actions would occur at Katherine 

Landing within the probable maximum 

floodplains: 

 remove the motel and redevelop area for 

visitor parking 

 retain visitor parking east of the motel 

 maintain launch ramp 

 convert portion of trailer village to short-term 

campground 

 retain NPS maintenance area and consolidate 

NPS offices and operations 

 retain dry boat storage 

 maintain day-use areas at North and South 

Arizona Telephone Cove 

SITE AND FLOOD 

HAZARD DESCRIPTION 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing are two 

of the major developed areas on Lake Mohave. 
APPENDIXES

190 

The majority of development is located near the 

shoreline of the lake within Cottonwood Wash 

and North and South Katherine Washes, but for 

Katherine Landing the Draft Cottonwood Cove 

and Katherine Landing Development Concept Plans 

/ Environmental Impact Statement includes 

shoreline day-use areas in South and North 

Arizona Telephone Cove washes. The 

development sites in the wash bottoms are 

encompassed by the intervening ridges between 

the drainages. Consequently, there is limited, 

nonflood prone, developable land that provides 

access to the lake. As a result, almost all facilities at 

Cottonwood Cove and many of those at Katherine 

Landing are within the probable maximum 

floodplain. 

Both developed areas accommodate a wide variety 

of recreational activities and provide public 

launch facilities and commercial marina services, 

as well as other public use and support facilities. 

As such, the natural floodplain values have been 

largely altered by existing development and use. 

Desert washes drain from the surrounding 

mountain ranges across broad bajadas at their 

base and down into the lake. The washes are 

subject to flash flooding caused by intense 

thunderstorms over their drainages. The 

following washes/basins were identified for the 

purposes of calculating flood flows at both 

developed areas. Estimated flood depths at 

Cottonwood Cove are approximately 6 to 7 feet 

(ft) during the probable maximum floodplains and 

3 to 6 ft during the 100-year flood. At Katherine 

Landing, estimated flood depths are 

approximately 3 to 8 ft during the probable 

maximum floodplains and 1 to 6 ft during the 

100-year flood. The warning time, or time from 

the onset of rainfall until the maximum flood 

flows reach various facilities, varies between 

approximately 42 minutes for Ranger Wash to 8 

minutes for the Dry Boat Storage basin at 

Cottonwood Cove. At Katherine Landing, 

warning times vary between approximately 

7 minutes at the Dry Boat Storage Wash to 33 

minutes at the motel in South Katherine Wash. 

Warning times for South and North Arizona 

Telephone Coves are approximately 51 and 

79 minutes. See tables C-1 and C-2 for summaries 

of peak runoffs at Cottonwood Cove and 

Katherine Landing. 

Existing flood protection consists of earthen dikes 

and channels that provide various levels of flood 

protection, ranging from approximately 10- to 

100-year flows but that do not convey the pmf 

flows. At Cottonwood Cove, rain gauges located 

upstream of the developed area are used to 

monitor rainfall in real-time. An automated 

system consisting of flash flood hazard monitoring 

and warning equipment is in place to notify the 

public in the developed area of flood danger. All 

hydrologic data and siren activation/deactivation 

capability is also available at the emergency 

dispatch center in Boulder City, Nevada.

TABLE C-1. SUMMARY OF PEAK RUNOFF –

COTTONWOOD COVE

Wash/Channel 

100-year Peak 

(cfsa) 

pmf Peak 

(cfs) 

Ranger Residence 1,900 8,400 

Upper Access Road 600 2,500 

Dry Boat Storage 150 600 

Lower Access Road 2,200 11,000 

Lower Boat Storage 125 500 

Upper Campground 400 1,800 

cfs = cubic feet per second. 

TABLE C-2. SUMMARY OF PEAK RUNOFF –

KATHERINE LANDING

Wash/Channel 

100-year Peak 

(cfs) 

pmf Peak 

(cfs) 

North Katherine 

Wash 

230 1,500 

South Katherine 

Wash 

950 6,500 

Dry Boat Storage 

Wash 

350 1,730 

South Arizona 

Telephone Cove 

Wash 

1,400 8,150 

North Arizona 

Telephone Cove 

Wash 

4,500 25,500 
Appendix C

191 

JUSTIFICATION FOR 

THE USE OF FLOODPLAIN 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing were 

developed where drainages enter the Colorado 

River/lower Lake Mohave in order to provide 

recreation-related facilities. These developed 

areas were historically the only accessible point to 

lower Lake Mohave above Davis Dam. As such, 

they were logical locations to provide recreationrelated facilities. Facilities were developed over 

time that included overnight and day-use facilities, 

as well as boat launches and marinas. Both 

Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing were 

established prior to the 1964 enabling legislation 

formally establishing Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area and well before issuance of 

EO 11988 providing guidance for federal actions 

in floodplain locations. 

Facilities have to be located in the floodplains and 

retain public access, services, and support 

facilities. There are no adequate developable 

flood-free areas near the lakeshore because of the 

nature of the terrain that is comprised of washes 

and intervening ridges. The preferred alternative 

for the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing 

development concept plans includes actions 

necessary for the preservation of public access to 

Lake Mohave, improvements to visitor use and 

experience, and to protect historic resources. 

Therefore, although the facilities must be located 

within the floodplains, the protection of people 

and property is a major objective for the plans. 

FLOOD MITIGATION MEASURES 

The preferred alternative for each developed area 

would minimize potential hazards to human life 

and property within the probable maximum 

floodplains through a combination of structural 

and nonstructural measures. An improved system 

of diversion dikes and channels would be 

constructed to convey 500-year flows through the 

developed areas in Cottonwood Wash and North 

and South Katherine Washes (see figures 5, 8, and 

11 at the end of chapter 2). Flood warning signs 

would be posted at North and South Telephone 

Coves. An early warning detection system similar 

to the one at Cottonwood Cove would be installed 

at Katherine Landing to augment the structural 

flood protection system. Flood evacuation 

planning would be developed that would direct 

emergency actions and evacuations in the event of 

flooding. 

Beginning in the early 1980s, a series of flood 

studies at both developed areas were prepared. In 

2004, studies were completed to review and 

update the past flood mitigation 

recommendations (HDR 2004a, 2004b). 

Conceptual designs of the proposed structural 

flood protection were refined based on field 

observations, aerial survey data, and engineering 

judgment. Previous hydrologic calculations were 

used for flow estimates (NPS 1982). Hydraulic 

design criteria were also identified to provide the 

engineering background supporting the structural 

flood control components. Further updating of 

the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and 

refinement of the design would occur as part of 

the future stages of the project design process. 

The proposed structural flood protection would 

include the following elements. 

Cottonwood Cove 

 Diversion dike needed upstream of the 

developed area to intercept and redirect a 

majority of flood flows into parallel wash 

north of developed area 

 Maintenance and reinforcement of the 

existing diversion dikes 

 9,300 linear feet (lf) of concrete channels (up 

to 52 ft top width) 

 Deflector wall and concrete swale outlet at 

lake 

 Low-flow road crossings and road 

realignment 

Katherine Landing 

 Rehabilitate existing diversion dike (upstream 

of the developed area) that directs flows from 

North Katherine Wash around the developed 

area into South Telephone Cove Wash 

 Raise, extend, and rehabilitate existing 

diversion dike, directing flows into South 

Katherine Wash 
APPENDIXES

192 

 New concrete channel (up to 65 ft top width) 

along South Katherine Wash extends from 

borrow pit (proposed sediment basin) to 

beginning of launch ramp 

 Low-flow road crossings 

SUMMARY 

The National Park Service has determined that 

there is no practicable alternative to maintaining 

development at Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 

Landing within the floodplains. This 

determination was based on the decision to 

continue to maintain both developed areas as 

primary visitor use sites on Lake Mohave that 

provide lake access and provision for overnight 

and day-use facilities. Although these facilities are 

within areas subject to flooding, the proposed 

flood mitigation measures would reduce the risk 

to life or property. Structural flood protection 

would be designed to convey floods up to the 

500-year floodplain. Early warning/detection 

systems, flood warning signs, and evacuation 

plans would also be implemented.
193 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

AZGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department 

BMP best management practices 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

DCPs development concept plans 

dps double parking space 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

EIS environmental impact statement 

GMP general management plan 

HABS / HAER / HALS Historic American Building Survey / Historic American Engineering Record / 

Historic American Landscape Survey 

LMP lake management plan 

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NPS National Park Service 

NRA National Recreation Area 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

PEPC Planning, Environment, and Public Comment 

PL public law 

pmf probable maximum flood 

sps single parking space 

USC United States Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
194 

REFERENCES AND WORKS CONSULTED 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) 

2002 Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum cinctum). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by 

the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

5 pp. 

2010 Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage 

Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 11 pp. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

2010 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Upper Las Vegas Wash Conservation 

Transfer Area, Las Vegas, Nevada. Las Vegas Field Office. 

Clark County Desert Conservation Program 

2000 Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Las Vegas, NV. 

Cleland, James H. 

2011 “Ethnographic Trail Systems as Large-Scale Cultural Landscapes: Preservation and 

Management.” Exploring the Boundaries of Historic Landscape Preservation. The Alliance for 

Historic Landscape Preservation. 

Department of the Interior 

1995 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines 

for Preserving, Rehabilitating Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings by Kay D. 

Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage 

Preservation Series. Washington, D.C. 

Dornbusch Associates 

2011a Revised Development Concept Plan Alternatives Analysis for Cottonwood Cove. 

2011b Revised Development Concept Plan Alternatives Analysis for Katherine Landing. 

Drost, Charles A., and Hart, Jan 

2008 Mammal inventory of the Mojave Network parks; Death Valley and Joshua Tree National 

Parks, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Manzanar National Historic Site, and Mojave 

National Preserve. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1167. 74 p. 

EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 

2011 Cultural Resource Survey along the Katherine Landing Access Road, Lake Mead, National 

Recreation Area, Mohave County, Arizona, prepared by Jill Heilman, Diane Fenicle, and 

Helana Ruter. 

Ezzo, Joseph A. and Jeffrey H. Altschul 

1993 “Glyphs and Quarries of the Lower Colorado River Valley,” Technical Series 44. Tucson, AZ: 

Statistical Research, Inc. Press. ISBN - 1-879442-06-X. 

Faught, Michael K. and Andrea K.L. Freeman 

1998 Palioindian Complexes of the Terminal Wisconsin and Early Holocene. In Paleoindian and 

Archaic Sites in Arizona, by Jonathan B. Mabry, pp 33-54. Center for Desert Archaeology, 

Technical Report 97-7. Tucson, AZ, Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks. 
References and Work Consulted 

195

Flood Loss Reduction Associates (FLRA) 

1983 Flood Mitigation Alternatives for Temple Bar, Cottonwood Cove, and Katherine Landing, 

Lake Mead NRA. August. 

HDR Engineering, Inc. 

2004a Final Report, Evaluation of PMIS Statement - LAME 008998, Structural Flood Mitigation, 

Cottonwood Cove, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Arizona and Nevada. December 13. 

2004b Final Report, Evaluation of PMIS Statements – LAME-008924, Structural Flood Mitigation, Katherine 

Landing, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Arizona and Nevada. 

Hill, David 

2009 “Wrecking Ball to Swing on “Mission 66” Visitor Center.” Architectural Record.

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/090602mission66.asp (accessed June 2, 2009). 

Mabry, Jonathan B. and Michael K. Faught 

1998 Archaic Complexes of the Early Holocene. In Paleoindian and Archic Sites in Arizona, by 

Jonathan B. Mabry, pp 33-54, Center for Desert Archaeology. Technical Report 97-7. 

Tucson, AZ, Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks. 

McClellan, Carole, David A. Philips, Jr., and Mike Belshaw 

1980 “The Archeology of Lake Mead National Recreation Area: An Assessment.” Anthropology. 

Tucson, AZ: Western Archeological Center. 

McGuire, Randal H. and Michael B. Schiffer 

1982 “Problems in Culture History.” In Hohokam and Patayan Prehistory of the Southwestern 

Arizona, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Michael B. Schiffer, pp.153-222. New York: 

Academic Press. 

National Park Service (NPS) 

1982 Flood Hazard Mitigation, by Felton Brunson. April. 

1983 Comments and Estimates for Flood Loss Reduction Associates Report of August 1983, by Felton Brunson. 

1986 Lake Mead National Recreation Area General Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Vols. I and II– General Management Plan and Alternatives. Denver Service Center, 

Denver, CO. 

1993 Newberry Mountains Archeological Inventory 1993-1994: A Section 110 Planning Survey and 

Site Assessment, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Clark County, Nevada, by Gregory L. 

Fox. Western Archeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service. 

1994 Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design. Denver Service Center, Denver, CO. 

1998 NPS 28: Cultural Resources Management Guideline. Denver Service Center, Denver, CO. 

1999 Lake Mead National Recreation Area Resource Management Plan. Boulder City, Nevada. 

1999 Lake Mead NRA Business Plan. 

 2000 Directors Order 47: Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management. Washington, D.C., 

National Park Service 
REFERENCES AND WORK CONSULTED

196 

2001a Arizona State Museum Archaeological Site Card: AZ F:10:43 (ASM), prepared by Joseph 

Svinarich, Stephanie Velasquez, Chantell Walter, and Denyse Wyskup for Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area, National Park Service. 

2001b Lake Mead National Recreation Area Strategic Plan, 2000-2005. Boulder City, Nevada. 

2002 Lake Mead National Recreation Area Lake Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Boulder City, Nevada. 

2005 Determination of Eligibility: Cottonwood Cove Developed Area, Lake Mead National Recreation 

Center, prepared by Elaine Jackson-Retondo. Pacific West Regional Office, National Park 

Service. 

2005 Lake Mead National Recreation Area General Management Plan Amendment, 

Environmental Assessment. National Park Service, Boulder city, Nevada. 

2006 NPS Management Policies, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

2008 Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (IMACS) Site Form: 26CK8444, prepared by David 

Coate, Sami Seeb, Ian Gersten, and Jamie Westenfelder for Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area, National Park Service. 

2009 Katherine Mine Historic District National Register of Historic Place Nomination Form, prepared 

by Vida Germano and Jason Biscombe. Pacific West Regional Office, National Park Service. 

2010 Lake Mead National Recreation Area Exotic Plant Management Plan. Boulder City, Nevada. 

2011 Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation and Payroll, 2009. Natural 

Resource Program Center. 

2011 Archeological databases for Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing developed areas, 

email attachment received. April 20. 

Peterson, John E II 

2011 Lower Colorado Region, Bureau of Reclamation telephone conversation between the Former Regional 

Archeologist and DSC Cultural Resource Specialist Leslie Peterson described the location and condition 

of the geoglyph located on Bureau of Reclamation property adjacent to Lake of Las Vegas, Clark County, 

Nevada. February 24. 

Peterson, Leslie 

2011 Former Lake Mead National Recreation Area Cultural Resource Specialist described the Lower Colorado 

ceremonial network and its contemporary ethnographic importance to a Project Specialist conversation. 

February 24. 

Reid, Jefferson and Stephanie Whittlesey 

1997 The Archaeology of Ancient Arizona. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. 

Ruppert, D. E. 

1976 Lake Mead National Recreation Area: An Ethnographic Overview. Tucson, AZ: Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service. 

Schwartz, J., G. T. Austin, and C. L. Douglas 

1978 Amphibians, Reptiles and Mammals of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. LAME Technical 

Report #2, National Park Service. Las Vegas, NV: University of Nevada. 
References and Work Consulted 

197

URS Corporation 

2009 Scoping Summary Report, Searchlight Wind Energy Project Environmental Impact 

Statement, prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office, NV. April. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2002a Biological Opinion for the Lake Management Plan, Lake Mead National Recreation Area. 

Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office. 

Consultation Number 02-21-01-F-0263. October 7. 37 pp. 

2002b Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix, 210 and 

appendices A-O pp. 

2008 “Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus 

agassizii).” Region 8, California and Nevada. Sacramento, CA. 73, appendices pp. 

2010 Formal Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for Programmatic Activities on Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area, Clark County, prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada 

Fish and Wildlife Office. Consultation Number 84320-2009-F-0145. February 3. 37 pp. 

U.S. Geological Service (USGS) 

1981 “Potential Flood and Debris Hazards” by Otto Moosburner. Prepared for the National Park 

Service. April. 

Walters, Michael 

1982 “The Lowland Patayan Ceramics Typology.” In Hohokam and Patayan Prehistory of the 

Southwestern Arizona, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Michael B. Schiffer. New York: 

Academic Press. 537-570 pp. 

WORKS CONSULTED 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

2011a Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. (Accessed in March 2011). 

2011b Unemployment Rate by County. (Accessed in March 2011). 

Stynes, Daniel, et al. 

2009 Money Generation Model (MGM2). Michigan State University; in spreadsheet format. Updated. 

U.S. Census Bureau 

2011 American Community Survey 2005-2009. Population estimates for cities, towns, and counties. 
198 

PLANNING TEAM 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

Project Team 

William Dickinson Superintendent 

Gary Warshefski Deputy Superintendent 

Lizette Richardson Chief of maintenance 

Jim Holland Park Planner 

Kris Kirby Commercial Services Program Manager 

Rosie Pepito Cultural Resource Branch Chief 

Jennifer Haley Chief of Visitor Services 

Bruce Nyhuis Assistant Chief of Maintenance – Special Projects 

Michael Boyles Environmental Compliance Branch Chief 

Steve Daron Park Archeologist 

Mary Hinson Chief Park Ranger 

Dirk Murphy District Ranger 

Other Staff 

Dan Rose Maintenance Leader 

Jesse Hinojosa Deputy Director of Maintenance 

David Hughey Maintenance Worker 

Greg Oakleaf Park Ranger – Interpretation 

Linda Escalera Maintenance Worker 

Robin White Park Ranger – Interpretation 

Leisa Cook Concession Specialist 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

Michele D’Arcy (former) Project Manager 

Nancy Doucette Visitor Use Management Specialist 

Jim Corbett Visual Information Specialist 

Tom Gibney Landscape Architect 

Greg Jarvis Project Manager 

Leslie Peterson Cultural Resource Specialist 

Elaine Rideout Natural Resource Specialist 
Planning Team

199

PACIFIC WEST REGION 

Consultants 

Dornbush Associates 

RED, Inc. Communications 

PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AGENCIES, AND 

ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 

The National Park Service is circulating the Draft Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing Development 

Concept Plans / Environmental Impact Statement to the agencies and organizations listed below. A limited 

number of copies of the plan are available upon request by interested individuals. Copies of the document 

are also available for review at the park and on the internet at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/apis/. 

Federal Agencies 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Nevada Agency 

Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office 

Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip Field Office 

Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Resource Center 

Bureau of Land Management, Lake Havasu Field Office 

Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District Office 

Bureau of Land Management, National Training Center 

Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 

Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix Field Office 

Bureau of Land Management, Safford Field Office 

Bureau of Land Management, Tucson Field Office 

Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Field Office 

Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Dams Project Office 

Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region 

Death Valley National Park 

Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas EMS Laboratory 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 

Federal Highway Administration 

Grand Canyon National Park 

Grand Canyon - Parashant National Monument 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Toiyabe National Forest 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. George 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District- Los Angeles Office 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District- Phoenix Office 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Las Vegas 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Service 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Desert National Wildlife Range 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Fish & Wildlife Enhancement- Portland 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Fish & Wildlife Enhancement, Reno Field Station 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Flagstaff Ecological Services 

U.S. Geological Survey, Henderson 
PLANNING TEAM

200 

State Agencies 

Arizona Game & Fish Department, Kingman 

Arizona Game & Fish Department, Attn: Development Branch Chief 

Arizona Game & Fish Department, Boating Education Coordinator 

Arizona Game & Fish, Attn: Habitat Branch Chief 

Arizona Game & Fish Department, Region II- Flagstaff 

Colorado River Commission 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Las Vegas 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Mr. Glen Gentry 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Ms. Icyl Mulligan 

Nevada State Historic Preservation Office 

Nevada State Museum and Historical Society 

State of Nevada, Department of Administration- State Clearinghouse 

State of Nevada, Department of Conservation & Natural Resources 

State of Nevada, Department of Transportation- Las Vegas 

State of Nevada, Department of Transportation- Carson City 

State of Nevada, Department of Wildlife 

State of Nevada, Division of Forestry 

State of Nevada, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology 

State of Nevada, Division of State Parks 

State of Nevada, Land Use Planning Advisory Committee 

State of Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Attn: Mr. Glenn H. Clemmer 

State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources 

Valley of Fire State Park 

City and County Agencies 

Boulder City Chamber of Commerce 

City of Boulder City, City Council Offices 

City of Boulder City, Community Development & Planning 

City of Boulder City, Office of the City Manager 

City of Boulder City, Office of the Mayor 

City of Bullhead City, Office of the Mayor 

City of Henderson, City Manager’s Office 

City of Henderson, Department of Public Works 

City of Henderson, Office of the Mayor 

City of Henderson, Parks and Recreation Department 

City of Henderson, Planning Department 

City of Kingman, Office of the Mayor 

City of Las Vegas, City Council Chambers 

City of Las Vegas, Community Planning & Development 

City of Las Vegas, Department of Public Works 

City of Las Vegas, Office of the Mayor 

City of Las Vegas, Parks & Leisure Activities 

City of North Las Vegas, City Council Offices 

City of North Las Vegas, City Manager’s Office 

City of North Las Vegas, Community Planning & Zoning 

City of North Las Vegas, Office of Economic Development 

City of North Las Vegas, Office of the Mayor 

Clark County, Community & Economic Development 

Clark County Comprehensive Planning 

Clark County Conservation District 

Clark County, Office of the County Manager 
Planning Team

201

Clark County Commissioners 

Clark County Museum 

Community Association of Meadview 

Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce 

Las Vegas Historic Preservation Office 

Meadview Civic Association 

Mesquite Chamber of Commerce 

Moapa Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Mohave County, Kingman 

Regional Transportation Commission 

Commission on Tourism- Southern Nevada 

Lake Mead NRA Concessioners 

General Manager, Black Canyon/ Willow Beach River Adventures 

General Manager, Cottonwood Cove Resort 

General Manager, Temple Bar Marina 

Operations Manager, Lake Mead Ferry Service 

General Manager, Las Vegas Boat Harbor 

General Manager, Callville Bay Resort 

General Manager, Lake Mohave Resort 

General Manager, Echo Bay Resort 

General Manager, Lake Mead RV Village 

Elected Officials 

Nevada Elected Officials 

Honorable Shelley Berkley, US Representative 

Honorable John Ensign, US Senator 

Honorable Dean Heller, US Representative 

Honorable Brian Sandoval, Governor of Nevada 

Honorable Joe Heck, US Representative 

Honorable Harry Reid, US Senator 

Arizona Elected Officials 

Honorable Jeff Flake, US Representative 

Honorable Trent Franks, US Representative 

Honorable Raul Grijalva, US Representative 

Honorable David Schweikert, US Representative 

Honorable Ron Barber, US Representative 

Honorable Jon Kyl, US Senator 

Honorable John McCain, US Senator 

Honorable Jan Brewer, Governor- State of Arizona 

Honorable Ed Pastor, US Representative 

Honorable Paul Gosar, US Representative 

Honorable Ben Quayle, US Representative 

Libraries and Newspapers 

Arizona Republic 

Boulder City Library 

Clark County Community College, North Las Vegas 

Clark County Library, Las Vegas 

Laughlin Library 
PLANNING TEAM

202 

Las Vegas Public Library 

Meadview Community Library 

Mesquite Library 

Moapa Valley Library, Overton 

Mohave County Library, Kingman 

Mohave County Library, Lake Havasu City 

Searchlight Library 

Sunrise Public Library, Las Vegas 

The Arizona Daily Sun 

University of Arizona Library, Tucson 

University of Nevada- Las Vegas 

Washington County Library, St. George 

James I. Gibson Library, Henderson 

Sahara West Library, Las Vegas 

Green Valley Library, Henderson 

Non-Governmental Organizations 

Archeo-Nevada Society 

Arizona Preservation Foundation 

Arizona Wilderness Coalition 

Arizona Wildlife Federation 

Boulder City Museum and Historical Association 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Desert Bighorn Council 

Desert Research Institute 

Desert Tortoise Council 

East LV Citizen’s Advisory Council 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn 

Friends of Classic Las Vegas 

Friends of Nevada Wilderness 

Grand Canyon Trust 

Las Vegas Jeep Club 

Maricopa Audubon Society 

Metropolitan Water District 

Nevada Archaeological Association 

Nevada Wildlife Federation 

Nevada Wilderness Project 

Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 

Partners In Conservation, Elise McAllister 

Partners in Parks 

Preservation Association of Clark County 

Preserve Nevada 

Red Rock Audubon Society 

Sierra Club- Las Vegas 

Sierra Club- Grand Canyon Chapter 

Sierra Club- Flagstaff 

Sierra Club- Southern Nevada Field Office 

Sierra Club- Toiyabe Chapter 

Southern Nevada Environmental Forum 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

The Nature Conservancy- Great Basin Field Office 

The Nature Conservancy- Southern Nevada Project 
Planning Team

203

The Wilderness Society 

The Wilderness Society CA/NV 

Wilderness Watch 

Southern Nevada Water Authority, William Rinne 

Southern Nevada Water Authority, Marcus Jensen 

American Indian Tribes (Federally Recognized) 

Ak-Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation 

Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 

Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation 

Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation 

Hopi Tribe of Arizona 

Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Tribe Reservation 

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation 

Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes 

Las Vegas Paiute Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Colony 

Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa Indian Reservation 

Navajo Nation 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes) 

Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation 

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation 

Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation 

Non-Federally Recognized American Indian Tribe 

Pahrump Paiute Tribe 
204 

INDEX 

Arizona, viii–x, xiv, xvi, 3, 13, 23, 37, 40–42, 44, 49, 

50, 52–55, 59, 87, 91, 98, 102, 104, 105, 110, 112, 

114, 126, 130, 133, 136, 144, 153, 155, 163, 169, 

170, 172, 176, 189, 190, 193–197, 199, 200–203 

Clark County, xvi, 3, 11, 18, 20, 88, 102–104, 110, 

126, 169, 170, 194–197, 200–202 

cultural resources, iii, v, vi, x–xii, xiv, 3, 6–8, 10, 

13, 19, 36, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 85, 109, 110, 

114–117, 122, 133, 151, 164, 194, 195 

Lake Mead, iii–v, xv, xvi, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13–16, 18–20, 

57, 58, 85– 88, 94, 95, 98–102, 105, 110, 111, 116, 

120, 124, 140, 159, 169–177, 185, 186, 188, 189, 

191, 194–197, 201 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area, iii, iv, v, 

xv, xvi, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13–16, 18, 19, 20, 57, 58, 85–

87, 94, 95, 98–100, 102, 105, 111, 116, 120, 124, 

140, 159, 169–177, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 194–

197 

Lake Mohave, iii, v, ix, x, xv, xvi, 3, 13, 14, 15, 19, 

37, 41, 49, 58, 63, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 98–105, 110, 

120, 124, 125, 130, 133, 138, 140, 148, 156, 158, 

169, 170–172, 174, 176, 185, 189, 191, 192, 201 

Mohave County, xvi, 92, 102–104, 110, 194, 201, 

202 

natural resources, iii, x, xi, xiii, xiv, 9, 11, 13, 16, 

29, 36, 55, 56, 59, 61, 62, 109, 111–113, 117, 126, 

143, 145, 162, 164, 170, 199, 200 

Nevada, iv, xiv, xvi, 3, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 49, 59, 

86–88, 90, 91–93, 98, 102, 104, 110–112, 114, 

118, 133, 169, 170, 172–175, 177, 190, 193–197, 

199, 200, 201–203 

park operations, iii, v, vii–xi, xiv, 8, 12, 16, 24, 26, 

31, 38, 42, 50, 51, 54, 60, 64, 85, 109–111, 117, 

126, 133, 143, 144, 145, 151, 162, 163 

parking, v–ix, xi, 3, 6–9, 13, 19, 25–28, 30, 31, 34, 

36–39, 41, 42, 44–47, 49–52, 54–56, 63, 85, 90, 

96, 101, 102, 122, 127, 128, 132–134, 136–140, 

144–146, 150–152, 154, 155, 157–159, 162, 163, 

189, 193 

socioeconomic environment, iii, vii, x, xi, xiv, 12, 

63, 85, 117, 125, 126, 140, 159, 161, 162 

threatened, endangered, and special status 

species, vi, xiii, xiv, 9, 61, 120, 130, 131, 148, 

150, 163 

trails, 7, 11, 18, 43, 54, 92, 93, 97, 101, 126, 127, 

133, 134, 137, 144, 145, 148, 151, 152, 155, 169 

visitor center, 59, 94, 97, 102, 195 

visitor use, experience, and safety, vi, xi, xiv, 11, 

63, 85, 116, 123, 138, 157, 159 
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use 

of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving 

the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historic places; and providing for 

the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island 

territories under U.S. administration.

NPS ###/###### March 2013/Printed on recycled paper.
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior