U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment

DOI-BLM-AZ-C020-2018-0027-EA

AZA 9528

Mittry Lake North Shore Access Project

Yuma Field Office

7341 E. 30th Street

Yuma, AZ 85365

April 2018

Colorado River District, Arizona
 Mission Statements

The Mission of the U.S. Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our 

Nation's natural and cultural heritage and to honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and 

our commitments to island communities.

The Bureau of Land Management, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior, is 

responsible for the balanced management of the public lands and resources and their various 

values so that they are considered in a combination that would best serve the needs of the 

American people. 

Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; a combination of 

uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources. These resources include recreation; range; timber; mineral; watershed; fish 

and wildlife; wilderness; and natural scenic, scientific, and cultural values.

The mission of the Bureau of Land Management is to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Compliance for Section of the Rehabilitation Act

This document may not be fully Section 508 Compliant for all electronic readers. Contact the 

BLM Yuma Field Office at 928-317-3200 if assistance is required. We would try to assist you as 

best we can. This may include providing the information in an alternate (i.e., text only) format.
Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................................1

1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED.......................................................................................................................2

1.3 LAWS AND REGULATIONS.............................................................................................................................3

1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE .................................................................................................................................3

1.5 SCOPING AND ISSUES ....................................................................................................................................4

1.6 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................6

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................6

2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE – CONTINUE PRESENT ACCESS, MAINTENANCE, AND USE .................................6

2.2 PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................................................................6

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 ............................................................................................................................................9

2.4 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS/DESIGN FEATURES ...................................................................................10

2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION.....................................12

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................ 12

3.1 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ........................................................................................................13

3.2 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................13

3.3 FUELS / FIRE MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................................................14

3.4 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY....................................................................................................................15

3.5 INVASIVE AND NON-NATIVE SPECIES .........................................................................................................16

3.6 LANDS & REALTY.......................................................................................................................................17

3.7 MIGRATORY BIRDS.....................................................................................................................................18

3.8 NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS ................................................................................................18

3.9 RECREATION...............................................................................................................................................19

3.10 SOCIOECONOMICS.......................................................................................................................................19

3.11 SOILS ..........................................................................................................................................................20

3.12 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES..................................................................................................21

3.13 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................................................................23

3.14 VEGETATION...............................................................................................................................................24

3.15 VISUAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................................................24

3.16 WATER QUALITY, SURFACE/GROUND ........................................................................................................25

3.17 WETLAND/RIPARIAN ZONES.......................................................................................................................26

3.18 WILDLIFE....................................................................................................................................................26

3.19 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................27

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................... 29

5.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ........................................................................ 29

6.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................... 29
Page Intentionally Left Blank
1

1.0 Introduction

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

with the concurrence of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) proposes to construct a road, 

kayak/paddleboat launch, hazardous fuel reduction areas including fire breaks, a wildland fire emergency 

escape route, public information kiosks, and bathroom and trash facilities within the Mittry Lake Wildlife 

Area (MLWA). 

The MLWA is located on lands withdrawn for Reclamation activities. It is cooperatively managed by the 

AGFD, BLM, and Reclamation under Department Manual 613, 1972 Cooperative Agreement with 1982 

extension, the joint Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of July 15, 1991, and a Land Use Agreement.

This project is located in T. 7 S., R. 21 W., Sections 6, 7, and 18 and T. 7 S., R. 22 W., Sections 12 and 

13. It is located approximately 14 miles northeast of Yuma in Yuma County, Arizona along the lower 

Colorado River (LCR) between the Imperial and Laguna Dams within the MLWA (see map below). 

Map 1.0 - Project Area

1.1Background

In 1951, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) and the Secretary of the Interior entered into a 

lease and cooperative agreement to develop and manage a portion of the Mittry Lake area. This lease and 

cooperative agreement was for the stated purpose of establishing a public shooting area, waterfowl resting 

ground and for improving conditions for the propagation of fish. This lease and agreement was extended, 
2

with modifications, in 1961, 1971 and 1982. The 1982 agreement changed the period of the lease to 50 

years due to additional Reclamation project mitigation needs. These objectives are further outlined in 

detail through the subsequent MLWA management plan.

In addition to the MLWA management objectives, in 2017 the Secretary of the Interior wrote in Order 

No. 3356 to continue “the Department’s efforts to enhance conservation stewardship; increase outdoor 

recreation opportunities for all Americans, including opportunities to hunt and fish; and improve the 

management of game species and their habitats for this generation and beyond.” It directs several 

components of the Department to assess past and ongoing implementation of the recommendations set 

forth in Executive Order 13443, ‘Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation,’ to inform 

how best to enhance and expand public access to lands and waters administered by the Department- lands 

and waters owned by all Americans-for hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, and other forms of 

outdoor recreation... In addition, it directs greater collaboration with state, tribes, and territorial partners.

Recreational uses at MLWA include fishing, camping, boating, bird-watching, photography, and hunting. 

Hunting is primarily for waterfowl, but quail, dove, and other game species are also taken. Results of 

BLM visitor counts indicate that the MLWA experiences approximately 11,500 recreation use visits 

annually, totaling approximately 134,000 visitor-hours.

Currently, the entirety of land-based, motorized access on MLWA is contained in the southern and 

eastern portions of the wildlife area. There is no designated public route providing vehicle access to the 

north side of Mittry Lake, the floodplain, Old River Channel, or Teal Alley. In addition, due to changes in 

the system, there is no longer a launch site for a paddleboat / kayak on the north side of Mittry Lake or in 

Teal Alley due to over sedimentation. This resulted in underutilized opportunities in the proposed project 

area for waterfowl and small game hunting, wildlife viewing and photography, fishing, and the other 

wildlife-oriented, recreational activities which are enjoyed by the general public and are identified as 

objectives for the management of MLWA. 

Poor access for firefighting personnel and equipment along with thick, unbroken fuel has also contributed

in the destruction of valuable riparian habitat during wildland fires. Catastrophic wildfires destroy native 

riparian vegetation and associated wildlife species, potentially jeopardizing the integrity of MLWA. Lack 

of access and heavy fuel loads in these areas make suppression efforts difficult. 

1.2Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of this project is for the BLM to update AZA 9528 and authorize the proposed project under 

the current lease. This project has two purposes. The first purpose is to comply with Secretarial Order 

No. 3356 and improve access to the floodplain within MLWA and expand existing opportunities of 

wildlife-oriented recreation for the general public, specifically waterfowl and small game hunting and 

wildlife viewing. 

The second purpose is to create wildland fire preventative control measures to assist in protecting the 

public, valuable natural habitat, and restoration areas present in the area. This includes establishing fire 

breaks, stabilizing soils, and possibly reconnecting an access road from the site to SR-24. 

The Need for this project is driven by the public’s request for access to their public lands, and the safety 

concerns related to the increase in the wildland fire frequency within the lower Colorado River system. 
3

1.3Laws and Regulations

1.3.1 Conformance with Land Use Plan

The Proposed Action is in conformance with the Yuma Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

which was approved in January 2010. It is specifically provided for in the following RMP decisions:

FM-030: Reduce and or remove hazardous fuels in recreation sites to improve public safety in 

coordination with the BLM Fire Management Program.

RR-003: Ample recreation opportunities are provided on BLM-administered lands within the 

100-year floodplains of the lower Colorado and Gila rivers.

1.3.2 Other Related Laws, Regulations, Plans, and NEPA Documents

Betty’s Kitchen Wildlife and Interpretive Area: EA-AZ-055-95-031

Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Plan Amendment: DNA-AZ-050-2004-0026

August 15, 2016 Record of Decision (ROD) for Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, 

and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement.

Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States 

(2007)

Herbicide Application within Wildland Urban Interface, Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Recreation Sites, 

and Revegetation Projects in the Yuma Field Office: AZ-320-2005-026

Laguna Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment: DOI-BLM-AZ-C020-

2011-0018-EA

Mittry South Bermuda Grass Prescribed Fire: DOI-BLM-AZ-C020-2011-0007-EA

Mittry Lake Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation: EA-AZ-050-2003-0039

Mittry Lake Wildlife Area Management Plan (AGFD, 1997)

Mittry Lake Hazard Fuels Reduction and Riparian Restoration: EA-AZ-050-2002-0002

Secretary of the Interior Order No. 3356, “Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife 

Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories” (2017)

1.4Decision to be Made

The Mittry Lake Wildlife Area is cooperatively managed by The Bureau of Land Management, Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, and Bureau of Reclamation. The BLM, with concurrence from BR, would 

determine whether or not to approve the FONSI. This decision would be based on a determination that all 

potential impacts are either not significant or can be reduced to not significant levels through the 

implementation of mitigation measures. If any potential impacts are considered significant and cannot be 

avoided or reduced to not significant levels, the preparation and processing of an Environmental Impact 
4

Statement is required to implement the proposed project. If determined sufficient, then a decision record 

would be signed and final approval for the project would be provided through an authorization and 

associated project stipulations. 

1.5 Scoping and Issues

1.5.1 External Scoping and Partners met:

AGFD originally proposed an improvement project on a portion of the current proposed project area that 

included youth dove hunting, waterfowl ponds, and flood irrigated native riparian habitat. A concurrence 

memo from Reclamation for that proposal was received by BLM on February 13, 2013 that covered 256 

of the 300 acres of the proposed project area. On May 25, 2017 during the Lower Colorado Coordination 

Meeting, AGFD presented the Mittry Lake North Shore Access Project to BLM and Reclamation. On 

June 5, 2017, the BLM and Reclamation received an updated request from AGFD to amend their Land 

Use Authorization (LUA / lease) for MLWA serialized AZA 9528. On June 20, 2017 representatives 

from AGFD, BLM, and Reclamation met to discuss the updated conceptual MLNSA project design, 

wildlife area rules, and scoping for the project. On December 8, 2017 Bureau of Reclamation received 

BLM YFO’s letter requesting an updated project concurrence based on the updated concept plan. 

Since the initial introduction and conceptual layout of the project, the interdisciplinary team has met 

multiple times throughout the NEPA process to discuss the proposed action, other potential projects, 

alternatives, environmental consequences, management of the area, and mitigation requirements. 

1.5.2 Issue Identifications

The following resources or issues were considered for analysis by the Interagency Interdisciplinary Team 

(ID Team). Those resources identified by the team as present and potentially affected by the proposed 

action or alternatives are discussed in chapter 3:

Resource or Issue Present

Yes/No

Affected

Yes/No Rationale

Air Quality and 

Climate Change Yes Yes See Section 3.1

Areas of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern 

No No The project is not within or adjacent to any 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.

Cultural Resources Yes Yes See Section 3.2

Environmental 

Justice Yes Yes

Implementation of the proposed action has 

been evaluated in accordance with CEQ 

guidelines and no disproportionately high 

and/or adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority and low-income 

populations are anticipated

Farm Lands No No There are no prime or unique farmlands in the 

project area.

Floodplains Yes Yes Potential flood flows would be unimpeded.

Fuels/Fire 

Management Yes Yes See Section 3.3
5

Resource or Issue Present

Yes/No

Affected

Yes/No Rationale

Human Health and 

Safety Yes Yes See Section 3.4

Invasive and NonNative Species Yes Yes See Section 3.5

Lands and Realty Yes Yes See Section 3.6

Livestock Grazing No No The MLWA is not within any grazing 

allotments.

Migratory Birds Yes Yes See Section 3.7

Minerals No No There are no active mining claims or mineral 

authorizations within the project area.

Native American 

Religious Concerns Yes Yes See Section 3.8

Paleontological Yes No

The geologic layer for this area is Holocene 

River Alluvium which is low density for 

Paleontology

Recreation Yes Yes See Section 3.9

Socioeconomics Yes Yes See Section 3.10

Soils Yes Yes See Section 3.11

Threatened and 

Endangered Species Yes Yes See Section 3.12

Travel Management Yes Yes See Section 3.13

Vegetation, Native 

and Invasive

Yes Yes See Section 3.14

Visual Resources Yes Yes See Section 3.15

Water Quality, 

Surface/Ground

Yes Yes See Section 3.16

Wetlands/Riparian 

Zones

Yes Yes See Section 3.17

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers No No There are no wild and scenic rivers within the 

project area.

Wild Horses and 

Burros No No The project is within the Cibola-Trigo HMA 

but no horses or burros utilize the project area

Wilderness No No There is no designated wilderness within the 

project area

Wildlife including 

Sensitive Species Yes Yes See Section 3.18
6

1.6Federal, State, and Local Consultation Requirements

The MLWA is cooperatively managed by AGFD, BLM, and Reclamation under a lease, cooperative 

agreement, contract agreement, and wildlife area management plan under the provisions of the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act to provide for wildlife-related recreation. Per Secretarial Order 2915 (1968) 

and Departmental Manual 613, BLM continues to manage this lease under the guidance of the Lower 

Colorado River Land Use Plan (1964) and the Yuma Field Office Resource Management Plan (2010). 

The YFO continues to collaborate with adjacent Federal, State, Tribal, and county governments on the 

EA.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department would be the lead agency for any permits required by the Army 

Corps of Engineers.

2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2. 0 - Outputs for Each Alternative

Alternative Miles of 

Road Gates Kiosks

Bathroom 

and Trash 

Can Sites

Fire 

Breaks

Kayak/Paddleboat 

Launch

Emergency 

Egress

No Action 0 0 0 0 0 N N

Proposed 

Action ~2.7 2 2 2 6 Y N

Alternative 3 ~4.5 2 2 2 6 Y Y

2.1No Action Alternative – Continue Present Access, Maintenance, and Use

Under the No Action Alternative, current management activities would continue and no new 

developments would occur. Vehicle access to MLWA would continue to be contained on the south and 

eastern sides of the wildlife area. Access to the proposed project area would continue to be on foot or by 

boat from the south shore of Mittry Lake or the boat ramp in the Old River Channel west of the project 

area. 

The current wildlife-based, recreational activities occurring within the project area such as small game 

and waterfowl hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing/photography would be expected to continue at the 

same level. 

With unbroken stands of Tamarisk and Phragmites being the dominant species near the shore, the 

probability of detrimental wildland fire within MLWA would remain at a high level.

Closure of areas on MLWA would still be implemented as needed for operations and maintenance 

activities in the area, seasonal closures, or to maintain public safety.

2.2Proposed Action

The Proposed Action includes the creation of a road loop; kayak/paddleboat launch; hazardous fuel 

reduction areas including fire breaks, burning, and soil stabilization; public information kiosks; bathroom,
7

and trash facilities on the north side of Mittry Lake. See Map 2.2. This includes mechanical, manual, 

chemical, soil stabilization and prescribed fire techniques during construction and maintenance phases.

All activities covered under this proposal would be within the MLWA.

Map 2.2 - Proposed Action

2.2.1 Road Loop with Turn-Outs

The proposed road loop would connect to the existing Old River Channel road that begins near the Mittry 

Lake outlet weir and BLM’s Betty’s Kitchen Recreation Area and runs along the Old River Channel 

outside of native riparian planted fields to a boat launch and ending at what would be the northwest corner 

of the new road loop. 

The road loop is planned as a one-and-a-half lane, approximately 18 feet wide, crushed rock road with 

vehicle turn-outs at locations along its route. The road would be routed near the shore of Mittry Lake and 

the Old River Channel but would remain outside of wetland and riparian habitat on the higher, more open 

ground within the floodplain to minimize disturbance. Each side of the road the road would be thinned of 

vegetation up to 80 feet to protect the integrity of the road and double as a fire break. In addition, the final

road would be routed at or above 158 feet of elevation to prevent it becoming inundated if the water level 

of Mittry Lake rises. The 158 foot is based on scoping discussions of Reclamation’s future water storage 

project that would potentially raise the level of Mittry Lake. Road elevation may be phased through the 

implementation process based on when material is available. The road loop would be approximately 2.7 

miles in length with a single entrance/egress point at the northwest corner (Map 2.2).

Two vehicle gates and a post-and-cable fence would be installed to control access to the area. One gate 

would be placed at the main entrance/egress point of the new loop, the northwest corner. A second gate 

would be placed across an existing road, near the southwest corner of the proposed road loop, where that 
8

road crosses an irrigation canal via a narrow bridge in order to prevent it being used to access the project 

area. The entrance / egress (north) gate would remain open except during area closures. The canal 

(south) gate would remain closed to prevent vehicles from being able to access the road loop by crossing 

the culvert bridging the irrigation canal. The culvert bridge cannot be used as an access point due to its 

design restrictions which prohibit it from being able to support wide, heavy, or high volume traffic. The

post-and-cable fence would be installed along the west side of the loop between the road and irrigation 

canal to prevent vehicles from driving off the road and into the canal. 

2.2.2 Kayak/Paddleboat Launch and Parking Area

The kayak/paddleboat launch would be located at the eastern end of the road loop and provide direct 

access to the series of channels within Teal Alley. The launch ramp would be approximately 20' x 40', 

connect directly to the parking area, and extend into the water. The ramp would be cleared of vegetation, 

graded to slope, plated with base rock, and topped with a gravel-filled geo-grid mat.

A small parking area would be created adjacent to and associated with the kayak/paddleboat launch. An 

area approximately 28' by 40' immediately adjacent to the paddleboat launch would be paved with 

concrete to comply with American with Disabilities Act requirements. Heavy equipment that could be 

used includes, but is not limited to: dump trucks, loaders, graders, a skid-steer, and an excavator. The 

parking area itself would have a footprint of approximately 120' x 180' and be located as close as possible 

to the channel’s high water mark. It would be graded smooth and improved with base rock, compacted 

gravel, and possibly geo-grid mat to stabilize the soil. This parking area may be expanded for future

actions, and would be analyzed separately.

This area would also function as a turn-out for thru traffic on that section of road and would be used as 

one of the two locations of the public amenities, restrooms and trash receptacles, and public information 

kiosks. 

2.2.3 Wildland Fire Fuel Breaks, Prescribed Fire, and Soil Stabilization

Wildland fire fuel breaks, parallel to the road, and between the road and the water would be created to 

help prevent damaging, large scale wildland fires in the project area and to assist in the protection of 

current adjacent restoration areas, including Betty’s Kitchen to the west and Laguna Division to the north. 

The natural topography would be maintained to preserve the existing hydrologic functions of the site. 

These fuel breaks would offer a strategic advantage to firefighters by reducing hazardous fuels loading 

and by breaking up fuel continuity within the Mittry Lake area in the event that a wildfire occurs. This 

would help to reduce the number of acres of valuable habitat destroyed by a fire.

An excavator, mower, and potentially other equipment would be used to install the fuel breaks. They 

would extend from the road to the nearest body of water and would average 100 feet in width, but would

vary in length depending on their location. Vegetation within the fuel break areas would be maintained at 

a level best represented by fuel model SH-1 (low load dry climate shrub) in the Scott and Burgan Fuel 

modeling System. Fuel model SH-1 creates very low flame lengths and spread rates when compared to 

untreated fuels (SH-7).

These fuel breaks are anticipated to serve multiple purposes including functioning as road turn-outs for 

oncoming traffic on the associated road loop as well as access points to the Old River Channel and Mittry 

Lake for the recreating public. Incorporating the turn-outs and recreational access into the areas already 
9

required to be cleared for the creation of the fuel breaks is intended to minimize the amount of soil 

disturbance and vegetation required to be cleared, road work and material needed, as well as the overall 

project footprint, construction time, and costs associated with implementation and maintenance of the 

area. 

Prescribed fire as a tool may be used to remove brush that was cleared during the road and fuel break 

creation or maintenance. All burns would remain within the MLWA and be in accordance to the Colorado 

River District Burn Plan, updated and signed annually. 

In an effort to reduce long term maintenance costs, soil stabilization techniques would be used. In 

locations where invasive species are dominant and soil conditions would not support native plantings, soil 

stabilization techniques would be used to reduce regrowth within fuel breaks and hazardous fuel reduction 

areas. Techniques include netting, sand and gravel material, and dredge spoil. No contact with any body 

of water would occur without proper Army Corp of Engineers permits. 

2.2.4 Public Amenities and Information Kiosks

Two sets of restrooms, trash collection locations, and public information kiosks would be placed in the 

project area to guide and inform visitors and provide locations to dispose of waste. One would be located 

on the west side of the project area near the entrance/egress point and the other would be located on the 

east side of the loop at the parking area associated with the paddleboat launch. 

Restrooms are planned as an above ground facility capable of being easily moved, removed, or replaced 

as needed, such as a port-a-potty. Trash receptacles are planned to be large enough to accommodate 

refuse from day use area visitors but small enough to still be easily emptied, moved, or replaced by one or 

two people. Larger receptacles, long term facilities, and/or investments may be considered at a later date

and would require additional analysis. 

2.3Alternative 3

Alternative 3 includes the proposed action in addition to the wildland fire emergency escape and 

administrative route. Selection of this alternative would be in compliance of NEPA, but the lands 

authorization would not include the wildland fire emergency escape and administrative route without a 

separate concurrence memo from Reclamation. Upon funding availability, additional information, 

engineering, and coordination would occur. 

A wildland fire emergency egress road would be constructed to provide the public with an alternate 

means of escape should the main entrance/egress point become cut off or impassable during a wildland 

fire. This emergency egress would begin north of the paddleboat launch, run between Teal Alley and the 

Old River Channel, and connect the east end of the road loop to the inlet canal road located to the 

northeast. The canal road runs north-south along the west side of the inlet canal that feeds Mittry Lake 

and connects to the Laguna Dam Road on the north side of MLWA. The length of road which would 

need to be constructed to complete the emergency egress route would be approximately 1.75 miles.

The emergency escape route would be closed to general use by the public. The wildland fire emergency 

escape route would be an improved route that could support fire apparatus use within the wildland-urban 

interface. The proposed emergency egress route may also be utilized for administrative purposes in 

addition to public usage during emergencies. 
10

Map 2.3 - Alternative 3

2.4Management Requirements/Design Features

1. Contractors would be required to follow OSHA regulations. 

2. The road and other project elements would also be sited at or above a final elevation of 158 feet 

to prevent them from being inundated by an increased lake and river channel water level. Current

level is at approximately 155 feet, but could potentially be raised to 157 feet if Reclamation’s 

water storage project within Mittry Lake is implemented. 

3. At least 95 acres within the project area would remain available to Reclamation for dredge 

material disposal in the event that dredging of Mittry Lake is required in the future.

4. To reduce the likelihood of other invasive species becoming established, precautions including 

high-pressure cleaning would be taken to assure that all equipment is clean of mud, dirt, and plant 

parts prior to moving equipment onto the proposed project area.

5. Contractors and workers would be briefed before entering the work site and would be required to 

follow cultural resource stipulations in the contract. Cultural resource stipulations would include 

the provision that during or after construction if any previously unidentified cultural resources 

(including human remains or cremations) are encountered during any aspect of this project, the 

crew should immediately stop work at that specific location, take steps to protect the discovery, 

and immediately call the BLM archaeologist and AGFD Cultural Resource Compliance Manager

in order to determine the appropriate treatment of the discovery.

6. Burning prescriptions would be overseen by a(n) individual(s) qualified to carry out those 

operations as determined by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). Prescribed 

burning was analyzed and approved under DOI-BLM-AZ-C020-2011-0007-EA. Arizona State 

Forestry Division and BLM are suggested agencies for prescribed fire implementation.
11

7. All unanalyzed actions specific to restoration would be addressed through a separate process and 

require site specific concurrence from all agencies. 

8. Specific to Alternative 3: The wildland fire emergency escape route would be an improved route 

for fire apparatus use within the wildland-urban interface. 

9. Specific to Alternative 3: The emergency escape route would be closed for general use by the 

public to ensure that the road would be available for use during an emergency. The proposed 

emergency egress route may also be utilized for administrative purposes. 

2.4.1 Maintenance

Chemical, as well as mechanical treatments, may be used year round to maintain the fuel breaks and 

would be carried out according to the standard procedures outlined in the Herbicide Application within 

Wildland Urban Interface, Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Recreation Sites, and Revegetation Projects in the 

Yuma Field Office EA and the Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States FEIS, or 

other project area approved herbicide decisions.

Existing dredge material and/or future material may be placed on established fire breaks or fuel reduction 

areas within the MLWA to deter weed growth. Of required, 404 permits would be obtained. 

Road, restroom, and paddleboat / kayak launch maintenance, as well as trash collection would be 

accomplished on an as-needed basis by AGFD personnel or contractors. Maintenance and monitoring of 

the fuel breaks would be accomplished by AGFD, BLM, or their representatives/contractors. Reclamation

has no maintenance responsibilities under this proposal. 

2.4.2 Wildlife Area Regulations and Rules

These closure decisions are coordinated between AGFD, BLM, and Reclamation and are a basis for the 

recommendation to the AGFC for the following rules:

1. The project area may be closed temporarily or for extended periods of time, if needed, to carry 

out seasonal closures, operations and maintenance activities in the area such as dredging or to 

maintain public safety during events such as fire restrictions, wildland fires, etc. The AGFD 

Commission (AGFC) follows the advice of the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire 

Management and their recommendations for annual closures so that, in extreme fire conditions, 

access to this area may be restricted or closed. That process would not be affected by the 

Proposed Action. 

2. The two public information kiosks would be utilized to ensure the public is aware of current 

regulations, restrictions, and aquatic invasive species requirements. 

3. No open fires would be allowed in the project area. 

4. Only temporary hunting/photography blinds would be allowed within the project area. 

5. Blinds would be removed when hunters leave the site. 

6. Road and kiosk signage would follow VRM guidelines to blend in with the area’s character and 

would not detract from visual resource values.

2.4.3 Monitoring Requirements

Monitoring within the project area would be accomplished through a cooperative effort of the AGFD, 

BLM, and Reclamation as outlined in the lease AZA 9528, and associated decision documents.
12

2.5Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further Consideration

Through interagency team project planning meetings, alternatives were created and/or eliminated based 

on project objectives derived from management objectives for MLWA, agency needs and requirements, 

and funding requirements and restrictions. Team planning determined that without the construction of the 

road loop, other project elements would be either infeasible or unnecessary to meet project needs and 

objectives. It was also determined that each element is necessary in order to meet the need for the 

Proposed Action and all of the project purposes. For those reasons, the individual project elements were

not considered separately. 

Three road route alternatives were initially created, and through the planning process each alternative was 

revised and evaluated. Alternative one is included in the proposed action. The remaining two alternatives 

were considered and eliminated.

A second travel lane was considered but ultimately decided by the team to be unnecessary for the 

expected average daily traffic levels to allow vehicles to travel in both directions if turn-outs were 

included in the road design. 

2.5.1 South Side of Loop Preferred Alternative

Alternative two connected to the existing road in the same place as the proposed action and followed the 

same route along the north side of Mittry Lake (south side of the loop) but ended in a turnaround near the 

proposed kayak/paddleboat launch site instead of making a complete loop, leaving off the northern 

portion of the road along the Old River Channel. The total road length was approximately 1.75 miles. 

Fuel breaks / access points along the Old River Channel would not have been created under this 

alternative. For this reason, alternative two was eliminated from further consideration since it did not 

fulfill the full project purposes and need for action (increase waterfowl hunting opportunities) or the 

requirements of the funding sources being used for the project. 

2.5.2 Fusion of Two Route Alternatives

Road route alternative three was a compromise between alternatives one and two. This route was 

approximately 2.8 miles in length. It followed the same path along the north and south sides of the loop 

as alternative 1 but differed from alternative 1 in that the southern road ended in a turnaround at the 

kayak/paddleboat launch site and the northern road turned south from its eastern end and ran across the 

middle of the project area ending in a “T” intersection with the southern road. It was eliminated from 

further consideration due to its similarity to the route in the proposed action, increased length, and the 

prohibitive costs of requisitioning engineering drawings for two routes. 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This section describes the existing conditions of the affected environment and potential effects to those 

conditions from implementing the alternatives. Resources not present within the project area, as well as 

those present and not affected, are not discussed. Those resources that have been identified by the 

interdisciplinary team as present and potentially affected are discussed below. Each resource considered 

for analysis is listed in section 1.5.2. Since the potential environmental effects for the two action 

alternatives are common to both, they are not discussed separately in each section.
13

3.1Air Quality and Climate Change

Yuma County and a small portion of the Laguna Region are considered non-attainment areas for airborne 

particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). The major sources of air pollution are vehicular 

travel on improved and unimproved surfaces and agricultural activities. Air quality is otherwise excellent 

except during times of high winds (DOD, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, 2001). Major contributors 

to air quality conditions include drift from California and Mexico. 

Climate change refers to the shifts in Earth’s long-term (decades to millennia) weather patterns as a result 

of changes to the concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere. A greenhouse gas is a gas 

that traps heat when emitted into Earth’s atmosphere. Greenhouse gases emitted from the project area 

consist of truck and portable generator exhaust.

Effects Under the No Action: Climate change would continue to dry out the site, reducing native tree 

germination. Flooding may reduce depth to ground water, but would be temporary. Air quality would be 

affected during times of high winds. After the next large wildfire, exposed soils would become airborne, 

increasing PM10 levels. These exposed soils would continue to be an air quality detriment until the 

native and/or non-native vegetation replaced the burned vegetation and restabilized the soils (E. Stewart, 

personal communication).

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: The project area may be impacted by climate 

change through drought and floods. During drought years, higher temperatures, increased 

evapotranspiration, and limited soil moistures would affect the overall site health. Flooding can create 

bank erosion, site destruction, and tree germination.

Construction would produce dust that would have a temporary, negative impact on air quality. The use of 

gasoline or diesel-powered generators or heavy machinery during all phases of the proposed action would 

produce carbon monoxide emissions. Vehicles traveling on the road after project completion would also 

produce dust and carbon monoxide emissions. 

Burning of organic material may have an acute negative impact on air quality. Fine ash and soil could 

become airborne from within the project area. The negative effects to air quality from pile burning would 

occur only during project implementation. 

The Proposed Action would contribute to levels of PM10 for a limited duration. However, creation of 

fire breaks and access roads that could be used by fire crews to aid in the suppression of wildland fires 

within the project area would decrease the potential for another large wildfire in the future, reducing the 

long term potential threats to air quality in the form of smoke and particulate matter.

3.2Archaeology and Cultural Resources

Several Class III (field inventory) cultural resources inventories have been completed within the 

immediate vicinity of Mittry Lake, including inventories by Joan Northrop (1986) and Carol Telles 

(2001). Northrop and Telles inventoried a total of 120 acres on the floodplain within the perimeter of the 

Mittry fire. 

Cultural resources have been identified on the higher terraces surrounding Mittry Lake by H. Dan Hall 

(2003) during a pedestrian reconnaissance of terraces within and adjacent to the burned area immediately 
14

following the Mittry fire. Surveying four linear polygonal areas averaging two acres each using closely 

spaced transects, Hall found four new archaeology sites and one previously recorded site. 

Two previous Class III cultural resource surveys were conducted within the area west of the current 

proposed project area (Betty’s Kitchen, Pratt Ag Lease). These surveys noted two cultural resource sites 

near the project area. The Laguna Dam (called AZ 050-1429 in the reports) and a small historic period 

adobe cabin (called AZ 050-1430 in the reports) were identified. The adobe cabin was destroyed in the 

course of the Laguna Fire in 2011 and it is no longer present.

The BLM evaluated the area called Mittry South in February of 2011 and found that, because previous 

natural ground disturbance, periodic flooding, had modified the surface so extensively, the likelihood of 

finding cultural properties was negligible and human activity within the last 50 years had created a new 

land surface to such an extent as to eradicate locatable traces of cultural properties. 

The BLM conducted a Class III survey on another portion of the remaining project area in August 2011

following the Laguna Fire, and again in April of 2018, both surveys similarly found that previous natural 

ground disturbance, periodic flooding, had modified the surface so extensively that the likelihood of 

finding cultural properties was negligible. During that survey, multiple transects confirmed this 

determination as no cultural resources were identified. 

Effects Under the No Action: No cultural resources would be impacted as the result of the No Action 

Alternative.

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: The proposed action would not impact any 

known cultural resources within the project area, nor would the proposed action impact the Laguna Dam. 

Given the general assumption that prehistoric sites are buried beneath the Colorado River floodplain, and 

could be buried within the project area, it is possible that unknown cultural resources could be 

inadvertently affected by project implementation; however, these resources would likely be of sufficient 

depth to be avoided by the project. 

Cultural resource stipulations for the project would include the provision that if any previously 

unidentified cultural resources (including human remains or cremations) are encountered during any 

aspect of this project, the crew should immediately stop work at that specific location, take steps to 

protect the discovery, and immediately call the Arizona Game and Fish Cultural Resource Compliance 

Manager and BLM Yuma Field Office Archaeologist in order to determine the appropriate treatment of 

the discovery.

3.3Fuels / Fire Management

Large portions of the proposed project area vegetation have burned due to human caused wildland fires. 

These fires burn native and invasive riparian vegetation. Native riparian vegetation, including 

cottonwood and willow species, rejuvenates part of the time. Due to the wildland fires and low native 

vegetation rejuvenation, monotypic stands of invasive saltcedar dominate the site. Fires, wildfires and 

prescribed fires, have occurred year round within the MLWA. Fire occurring within the summer, 

devastate the native riparian and marsh habitat and cause for concern related to endangered species. Fires 

that occur within the winter months, rejuvenate the marsh with little impact on endangered species due to 
15

their non-presence. Native riparian trees including cottonwood and willow are dormant during winter 

fires, allowing for the removal of unwanted species including Ravina grass and saltcedar, without the 

devastation of the native riparian habitat. 

Saltcedar is prone to frequent and intense wildland fires with fire behavior that is best represented by fuel 

model SH-7, very high load dry climate shrub (Scott and Burgan, 2005). Vegetation typical of fuel model 

SH-7 is prone to intense fire behavior with flame lengths up to 30 feet and rates of spread up to 220 feet 

per minute (BEHAVE Fire Behavior Modeling Program) under typical warm season weather conditions. 

Fires in dense saltcedar are difficult and dangerous to control. Riparian fires along the LCR are carried 

by low fuel moisture in dominant vegetation including saltcedar and arrowweed. Annual growth rates of 

saltcedar and arrowweed range from four to six feet per year within riparian zones, resulting in 

continuous hazardous fuel growth within the site. 

Given the fire return interval for the Lower Colorado River of about every three years with large fires 

about every 7 years, the MLWA’s history of frequent wildfires, and the expected increase in public 

presence and usage in the area with improved access, fire control measures would become necessary to 

provide for the safety of the recreating public, reduce the potential for catastrophic loss of valuable 

riparian habitat utilized by wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, and to maintain the 

visual resources of the area. 

Effects Under the No Action: Under the No Action Alternative, stands of unbroken hazardous fuels,

such as tamarisk, would continue to accumulate and firefighter suppression actions and equipment would 

remain limited to areas which could be reached by boat or on foot continuing the cycle of large fires with 

no suppression options for access. 

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: The proposed project would create and maintain 

a road and aproximately six fire breaks by the use of mechanical, herbicide, or prescribed fire treatments 

creating a separation between hazardous fuels and wildland/urban interface areas. The purpose of these 

fuels management sites is to protect the public, private property, native plants, wildlife, and wildlife 

habitat from the threat of and destruction by a wildland fire. Vegetation within the fuel break areas would 

be maintained at a level best represented by fuel model SH-1 (low load dry climate shrub) in the Scott and 

Burgan Fuel modeling System. Fires burning in fuel model SH-1 are easily controlled by fire suppression 

efforts.

Past wildland fires have burned many acres within the proposed project area. Efforts to reduce large fires 

have led to hazardous fuels reduction, including mechanical and chemical treatment of invasive saltcedar 

and arrowweed.

Creation and maintenance of the road and fire breaks would create better access to the area for firefighters 

and firefighting equipment. This would aid in fire suppression efforts leading to smaller and less 

destructive wildfires.

3.4Human Health and Safety

Any land management activities undertaken on public lands must be done with human health and safety 

in mind. BLM has extensively analyzed the effects of herbicide use in the FEIS Vegetation Treatment on 

BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States (2007, 2016); August 15, 2016 ROD for Vegetation Treatments 
16

Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic EIS; Herbicide Application Within the Yuma Field Office Environmental 

Assessment; and Herbicide Application within Wildland Urban Interface, Hazardous Fuels Reduction, 

Recreation Sites, and Revegetation Projects in the Yuma Field Office Environmental Assessment. 

If herbicides are used during site maintenance, all applicable guidelines must be followed in the use of 

these products. Herbicide labels contain signal words. A signal word must appear on labels to show how 

toxic the pesticide is. The signal words used are: “danger,” “poison,” “warning,” or “caution.” Garlon 4 

is listed with a “warning” label and is harmful if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through skin. Arsenal is 

listed with a “caution” label. Compared to Garlon 3A, Garlon 4 is safer to human health with a “caution” 

rather than a hazardous “warning,” because it does not cause eye injury. Garlon is listed as a nonrestricted herbicide. Rodeo/Aquamaster, glyphosate, is listed with a “caution” label for slight toxicity 

according to the EPA. According to the Dow AgroSciences technical data sheet, Garlon 4 has low oral 

toxicity and is non-irritating to the skin and eyes. Triclopyr, the active ingredient in Garlon, and 

glyphosate, the active ingredient in Rodeo/Aquamaster, are not considered to be carcinogenic or 

mutagenic. Applicators must be licensed and apply chemicals according to labeled restrictions.

Effects Under the No Action: Under the No Action Alternative human health and safety would remain at 

risk due to the potential for wildfires and the lack of access for firefighting personnel and equipment. 

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: The Proposed Action would increase the safety 

of the public and administrative staff as well as positive recreational use within the project area.

Safeguards such as the spill contingency plan and contractual stipulations such as adherence to the 

standard operating procedures and best management practices outlined in the BLM herbicide related 

documents referenced above would minimize hazardous material impacts. Additionally, floodplain 

hazard information would be made available to the public alerting them of potential hazards related to 

recreating within a regulatory floodplain. 

3.5 Invasive and Non-Native Species

In accordance with Executive Order 13112 signed February 3, 1999, all Federal agencies whose actions 

may affect the status of invasive species shall prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for 

the restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded. There are 

hundreds of exotic plant species in the riparian west. Many riparian exotics have become regionally 

widespread and locally dominate channels or floodplains.

Functions of ecosystems can be reduced as monotypic stands replace more diverse mosaics and mixes of 

species. River regulation and flood suppression reduce channel dynamics and can result in a simplified 

community dominated by dense tamarisk thickets with little understory vegetation. 

Tamarisk, Tamarix chinensis, is a non-native, highly-invasive species of tree that dominates a large 

portion of the Colorado River corridor in southwest Arizona. It constitutes the main structural layer near 

the shore within the proposed project area. It has a high rate of seed production; the plant produces as 

many as 600,000 seeds per plant from April through October. The long period of seed production allows 

tamarisk to germinate well into fall, which is when most native trees are no longer producing viable 

seeds.
17

Phragmites is a native invasive that dominates the lower Colorado River corridor. This is due to the 

creation of the dams on the Colorado River and the lack of flooding. It is a native reed that grows in 

riparian habitats across the U.S. This reed is present in Mittry South, Betty’s Kitchen, and south of 

Laguna Dam and has been managed similarly to Tamarisk, including yearly mechanical and chemical 

treatments.

Quagga Mussel, Dreissena bugensis, is a non-native freshwater mussel present in the Colorado River. 

Quagga Mussel has been documented in the Lower Colorado River, but not in the area covered in this 

EA.

Most common invasive or non native species found or with a potential to find within the project area 

include: Tamarisk, Phragmites, Quagga muscles, Giant Salvinia, Banded Water Snake, Water Hyacinth, 

Water Lettuce, Crayfish, Bullfrog, Apple Snail, Grass Carp, Snapping Turtle, and Monitor Lizard. 

Effects Under the No Action: Unbroken stands of tamarisk and Phragmites would remain the dominant 

vegetation near the shore within the project area. 

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: The proposed action would reduce the amount 

of the invasive tamarisk within the project area. No invasive species including tamarisk would be 

introduced to the proposed project area as the result of mechanical activity because of cleaning 

procedures included in the proposed action. Within the fuel breaks, invasive species, including native 

arrowweed and quail bush would be mowed and sprayed with approved herbicides to keep fuel loading 

down and protect private and native lands adjacent to the project site.

Invasive species including Quagga muscle and giant salvinia would be addressed under invasive species 

awareness on the two informational kiosks which would be built during project implementation. 

3.6Lands & Realty

The MLWA is managed under a Cooperative Agreement between the BLM, AGFD and the Reclamation, 

Contract # 14-06-300-2283, signed on February 1, 1972. The proposed project is located on DM 613 

land, lands acquired or withdrawn for reclamation purposes under Reclamation law. By specific 

Department of the Interior directive, DM 613 defines responsibilities and administration of functions 

regarding the Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan. According to DM 613, the BLM Yuma Field Office 

(formerly the Lower Colorado River Land Use Office and Yuma District Office) is assigned, among other 

responsibilities, full responsibility for recreation and wildlife habitat on Reclamation withdrawn lands.

For the MLWA, AGFD has primary responsibility for the management of fish and wildlife species and 

their habitats. Additional uses of these lands by the public are provided for in the Yuma RMP, approved 

by the Arizona State Director in January 2010. 

Effects Under the No Action: There would be no change in land status as a result of implementation of 

this alternative.

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: No impacts to lands would occur as a result of 

this project. If necessary, a lease amendment would occur to incorporate the propped project. The project 

authorization would remain consistent with the current contract and BLM, AGFD, and Reclamation 
18

would continue to manage their responsibilities as lined out within that in the contract and the associated 

agreements.

3.7Migratory Birds

The LCR including the MLWA and surrounding area is used by neo-tropical, migratory, and game birds

during both migratory and nesting time periods. 

Historically, Pratt Nursery has provided nesting habitat for multiple species, including the yellow-billed 

cuckoo. Mittry South was added to the native habitat at Mittry Lake in 2006. All areas of the previous 

Laguna Fire were used as migratory or resident habitat. The focal dates of all migratory bird use are from 

September through April each year.

Effects Under the No Action: Non-native tamarisk may provide nesting habitat for Southwestern 

Willow Flycatchers (SWFL) and dove species within the project area. Annual surveys continue to show a 

non-presence. The probability of the destruction of large tracts of valuable roosting and nesting habitat 

used by migratory birds due to catastrophic wildland fire would remain high if the No Action Alternative 

is implemented and wildland fire control measures are not created in the project area.

There would be no effect resulting from herbicide application under the No Action alternative.

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: The Proposed Action would allow increased 

opportunities for the public to hunt, watch, and/or photograph migratory birds in their habitat along the 

LCR. It would also provide increased access to the site for employees carrying out wildlife surveys and 

officials carrying out enforcement of laws enacted to protect migratory birds. 

Herbicide use would cause temporary displacement of migratory birds during treatments but would not 

have any long-term effects.

3.8Native American Religious Concerns

The LCR has been a vital source of water and sustenance within a dry desert climate throughout history. 

Indigenous peoples planted their crops in the river floodplain and camped on the adjacent river terraces. 

There are extensive remnants of these campsites at higher elevations, where past flood events have not 

impacted their traces. In addition, the river corridor is known for its associated intaglio features, rock art, 

and extensive trail networks. Many of these features are considered traditionally important or sacred to 

Native Americans. The Colorado River continues to be important to today’s Native Americans for 

traditional uses, such as tribal education, gathering, hunting, and fishing; collection of mesquite wood for 

funerary and construction purposes; collection of willow for basket materials; possible collection of clay 

used for pottery making; and collection of river rocks.

Effects Under the No Action: The No Action Alternative would maintain the current conditions on 

MLWA.

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: The implementation of the proposed action 

would introduce a built environment that would minimally affect the traditional condition of the MLWA

due to its already current disturbances including OHV routes, flood damage, and animal activities.
19

3.9 Recreation

The proposed project area is in the City of Yuma geographical area. The year-round use for recreation is 

high in this area. During the period from October to April, the primary users of the area are winter visitors 

and local residents camping, hunting, fishing, and enjoying scenic views. The primary recreational 

activity at MLWA is fishing. Other recreational activities include camping, boating, bird watching, 

photography, and hunting. Hunting is primarily for waterfowl, but quail, doves, and other game species 

are also taken. Data from the BLM Recreation Management Information System indicates that the 

MLWA experiences approximately 11,500 recreation use visits annually, totaling approximately 134,000 

visitor-hours. 

Most of the wildlife area has good public access and includes multiple access points for sport fishing. 

Contributions to the general area’s view shed do affect visual resources that enhance the quality of 

recreational opportunities. Because of the area’s proximity to the City of Yuma, it is popular throughout 

the year. The rock fishing jetties at the south end of the lake were constructed by Reclamation. The 

Betty’s Kitchen National Recreation Trail and Betty’s Kitchen Watchable Wildlife Area are listed on the 

National Important Bird Area list.

Effects Under the No Action: Mittry Lake Wildlife Area would continue in its current recreation 

patterns. Access to opportunities for hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-based recreation would not be 

enhanced.

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: The Proposed Action would increase the 

positive recreationalists within the project area offering a positive experience utilizing the LCR and its 

adjacent habitat. During implementation of the proposed action the project area may be closed off and 

access restricted. After completion, recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, kayaking, bird 

watching and wildlife viewing could increase. After project completion access may be closed or 

restricted for seasonal, emergency, or operations and maintenance activities for an extended period of 

time. 

Signage would provide environmental education to visitors. The sign locations would be coordinated with 

recreation, law enforcement, and other specialists. The increase in visitors may create additional dumping, 

wildfires, and facility damage within or adjacent to the site. AGFD, BLM, and Yuma County law 

enforcement would continue to monitor and regulate the MLWA. 

3.10 Socioeconomics

Social conditions concern the human communities in the planning area, and the custom, culture, and 

history of the area as it relates to human use, as well as current social values. The U.S. Army’s Yuma 

Proving Ground, rural / agricultural fields, recreational vehicle parks, and Native American communities 

are located near the project area. 

Economic activities connected to management decisions in the planning area include recreation

management. Decisions with regard to economic programs may also affect social conditions, lifestyle, 

and quality of life. This area is visited by the public on a daily basis. This is one of the many recreation 

sites that are visited by winter visitors who make contributions to the area’s economy. Nearby 

communities may also affect management of the public lands because the residents demand various uses,

such as the high demand for recreation use of MLWA.
20

Effects Under the No Action: Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not have a significant 

impact on the socioeconomics of the region. 

In the event of a wildfire there would be a loss of potential resource values that could enhance diverse 

recreation and environmental education opportunities or help to support ecotourism that is important for 

the local economy. 

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: The proposed action and traditional public 

resource values support uses of the area that include a variety of recreation and environmental education 

opportunities. Improved recreational opportunities within minority groups, historic communities, and 

cultural communities create benefits for all. 

Increased access and opportunities for wildlife-based recreation such as hunting and angling can 

potentially also lead to increased sales of licenses and the equipment used to support those activities. 

Activities such as hunting and angling are the cornerstones of the North American Model of Wildlife

Conservation. Through the sales of hunting and fishing licenses and federal excise taxes, these activities 

continue to be the primary source of funding for conservation efforts in North America. Hunters and 

anglers have generated more than $10 billion toward wildlife conservation since 1937 through the 10 – 12 

percent excise tax on hunting, angling and shooting sports equipment (www.azgfd.com, North American 

Model). This proposed project’s implementation would be primarily funded through these programs if 

approved. 

3.11 Soils

The majority of the proposed project area is located on a floodplain characterized by alluvial soils which 

are nearly level, poorly-drained soils having periodic inclusions of more gravelly, well-drained soils. The 

soil stabilization area is located on an upland area south of the lake characterized by well drained material 

weathered from metamorphic rock. The project area was surveyed on September 11, 2017. Two soil 

types are present: Salorthids and a Laposa-rock outcrop complex. Dredge spoil from the Colorado River 

from Reclamation operations and maintenance at Laguna Dam also exist on portions of the proposed 

project area and adjacent lands. 

The area of the Proposed Action north of Mittry Lake is mapped as Salorthids. These soils are deep, 

poorly drained, and strongly saline and contain floodplain soils from the Colorado River. Salorthids are 

generally saturated with very salty groundwater at shallow to moderate depths. The soil stabilization area 

of the Proposed Action is composed of a Laposa-rock outcrop complex. Lands located in this soil type are 

considered unsuitable for cultivation or commercial plant production but remain suitable for recreation, 

wildlife habitat, watershed, or esthetic purposes. 

Effects Under the No Action: No soil would be disturbed as a result of this alternative. Tamarisk, 

Phragmites, and weeds would continue to invade the project area. Soils would be likely to increase in 

salinity as the result of tamarisk dominance.

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: Flood events bring in new and remove soils. 

Fluctuation in ground water may cause unstable ground throughout the Project Area.
21

The action of bulldozers, front-end loaders, mulchers, and other heavy equipment would cause moderate 

disturbance to soils in the surface strata within the project area. Potential for erosion would exist for a 

short time during the project construction. Soils under and within the road bed would be compacted in 

order to stabilize the road and there could be some disturbance and compaction within a short distance 

along the outside of the road bed due to the movement and working of the equipment as well. 

Herbicide application within the project area would affect the soil surface for a short period of time before 

it would break down and become chemically neutral. Garlon and Rodeo/Aquamaster herbicides 

decompose rapidly in sunlight and would be inactive on the soil in a few hours after application. The halflife persistence for Rodeo/Aquamaster is 1.8 to 130 days, and Garlon has a similar persistence. The major 

degradation mechanism is microbial breakdown. Garlon 4 should not affect neighboring plants and 

decomposes rapidly after application (Neill, 1990). A herbicide spill Prevention Plan would be in place to 

mitigate any contamination to the soils. See Appendix B.

3.12 Threatened and Endangered Species

Federally listed threatened / endangered species and state-listed special status species occur at MLWA. 

They are the California black rail, southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL), western yellow-billed cuckoo

(WYBC), and Yuma clapper rail (YCR). 

3.12.1 California Black Rail, (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus)

The California black rail occurs in two disjunctive regions in the U.S.: the lower Colorado River and 

northern California. It is rare, and many local populations have declined in recent years due to loss of 

wetland habitat (Conway, Sulzman, and Raulston, 2002). It is considered a species of special concern by 

BLM and the AGFD. While capable of sustained flight, black rails seek heavy cover when threatened and 

are very reluctant to fly. Studies at Mittry indicate that nesting generally begins in late March.

Most of the habitat at MLWA consists of stands of three-square bulrush (Scirpus olneyi) along the east 

shore of the lake. These bulrush marshes were created and are sustained by seepage from the Gila Gravity 

Main Canal to the east.

The action of the water trickling through these marshes appears to flush away salts that otherwise would 

accumulate, maintains soil saturation to a level sufficient to inhibit invasive plants such as phragmites and 

tamarisk, and sustains the shallow, stable water levels that black rails require. The result is large patches 

of high quality black rail habitat.

3.12.2 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)

SWFL is one of five subspecies of willow flycatchers that occur in North America. This small, 

insectivorous songbird spends its winters in Central America and migrates to North America to breed. 

During migration, SWFL may use a variety of vegetation, which may include Fremont cottonwood 

(Populus fremontii), Goodding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), seep willow (Baccharis glutinosa), 

understory tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), monotypic tamarisk stands, saltbush (Atriplex spp.), 

irrigation ditches, and agricultural fields (Finch and Kelly et al, 2000). During breeding season, SWFL 

prefers to nest in dense forest stands of early, successional cottonwood and willow habitat along still or 

slow-moving watercourses. In addition, they nest in mature stands of tamarisk. Annual SWFL surveys 

detected no migratory or nesting SWFL within or adjacent to the project area. The Laguna Division 
22

project area is the closest native riparian habitat with the best habitat conditions, and no positive 

detections have been found their either. 

3.12.3 Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)

U.S. FWS has listed the WYBC as a candidate under the Endangered Species Act. Populations of WYBC 

have dropped precipitously. For example, over 15,000 pairs once occurred in California fewer than 100 

years ago, but now California has fewer than 30 pairs (Hughes, 1999). Habitat loss and fragmentation in 

the west has contributed to their rapid decline (Laymon and Halterman,1989; Hughes, 1999). In the 

Sonoran Desert, WYBC occur in mature cottonwood-willow and dense mesquite (Rosenberg, Ohmart, et 

al, 1991; Hughes, 1999) but rarely occurs in tamarisk. In the lower Colorado River Valley, Hunter,

Ohmart, and Anderson (1988) found only 2.4 percent of the WYBC population occurred in tamarisk 

relative to native habitat such as cottonwood-willow (68.3 percent), honey mesquite (19.5 percent), and 

screwbean mesquite (9.8 percent). Cottonwood and willow forests are critical to attracting nesting 

WYBC. Annual SWFL surveys detected no migratory or nesting WYBC within or adjacent to the project 

area. The Laguna Division project area is the closest native riparian habitat with the best habitat 

conditions, and positive detections of migratory and nesting have been found.

3.12.4 Ridgeway Rail (Rallus obsoletus )

The YCR is the only clapper rail to breed in freshwater marshes. Their year-round habitat requirements 

include a mosaic of variable-aged stands of emergent vegetation interspersed with open-water shallow 

pools. Breeding habitat is characterized by dense vegetation near water’s edge. Nests are placed in these 

sites or, if available, on high sites within marshes, e.g. where banks are slightly higher than adjacent 

marshes. Surveys performed by the AGFD detected YCR at Mittry Lake. Research conducted by 

Eddleman (1989) indicates that the Mittry Lake population is non-migratory.

Effects Under the No Action: Threatened and endangered species numbers could continue to decline as 

the quality of riparian habitat decreases. Tamarisk has resprouted after the previous wildland fires in the 

area and would continue to dominate the project area excluding recruitment of native species. 

Resprouting tamarisk could also become potential SWFL habitat. However, native species would provide 

better quality habitat for SWFL and WYBC. 

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: Direct effects, as described in this report, refer 

to mortality or disturbance, which results in flushing, displacement, or harassment of the animal. Indirect 

effects refer to modification of habitat. There would be some impacts of the proposed action common to 

all affected species. The construction activities within this proposed action include activities that may 

result in the temporary dispersal of avian species as these activities are taking place. 

Both SWFL and WYBC require standing water and large quantities of insects for nesting habitat. 

Inundated marsh would be avoided thereby eliminating disturbance of rail habitat. Mechanical treatments

and herbicide activities occurring year round would preclude future tamarisk growth in those areas which 

could become habitat for SWFL, through direct removal and shading. Preventing tamarisk growth may 

affect migrating flycatchers, which can use tamarisk stands not normally preferred for breeding. However, 

the effects are not likely to affect migrating SWFLs because there are relatively large amounts of 

available tamarisk habitat nearby, and the 1400 acre native riparian Laguna Division project is less than 1⁄2 

mile away. 
23

Herbicide application may occur both within and outside of SWFL, WYBC, and rail breeding seasons. 

However, since those applications occurring within these breeding seasons would be implemented using 

non-mechanized means the effects of implementation would be no more than typical recreation in the 

area.

Residual impacts include positive long-term effects to threatened and endangered species habitat, healthy 

river management, and prevention of wildland fires that may destroy habitat and homes on the adjacent 

private properties. All species of wildlife in the area would benefit from the reduction in the danger of 

future wildfires as a result of the proposed action.

3.13 Travel Management

The area covered by the proposed project is currently within the Greater Yuma Travel Management Area 

(TMA) as delineated by the Yuma RMP. Parts of the Greater Yuma and Ehrenberg Cibola TMAs are 

currently being combined into the new LCR TMA. This project would fall within the area of the new 

LCR TMA.

Vehicle access is limited to inventoried routes that the Yuma RMP established as the preliminary YFO 

Transportation System. Vehicle routes in the area include a road that provides access to the Betty’s 

Kitchen National Recreation Trail and Watchable Wildlife Viewing Area and continues to a dirt boat 

ramp northeast of Betty’s Kitchen. The Laguna Dam road is adjacent to the south side of Mittry Lake. 

Effects Under the No Action: The No Action Alternative would not result in changes to the Greater 

Yuma TMA or the new LCR TMA. 

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: The Proposed Action is currently located within 

BLM’s Greater Yuma TMA and would fall within the new LCR TMA. A new public route would result 

from the proposed action and need to be added to the TMA route inventory. Further planning in order to 

manage recreation use may be necessary. 

The Proposed Action would improve the ease and safety of all types of travel within the project area. It 

would create positive travel conditions for hiking, biking and vehicle access with designated parking. 

The Proposed Action would allow a greater number of recreationists to more easily reach the Old River 

Channel, Teal Alley, and the north shore of Mittry Lake that previously would have been unable to drive 

on the unimproved dirt trail. 

To protect persons, property, public lands, and resources; the BLM, Reclamation, or AGFD may institute 

additional closures or restrictions at any time (43 CFR 8364). Restrictions and closures in the project area 

would be temporary and of the shortest duration required to protect people and resources. Throughout 

implementation of the proposed project, required closures or restrictions would be posted. 

The cumulative impact to travel management would be an overall increase in travel within the project 

area. This would include agency construction and maintenance and public recreational use. However, it 

would be more managed than the current conditions, allowing for high use corridors to limit and reduce 

the overall travel impacts outside of these corridors. 
24

3.14 Vegetation 

The proposed project area is located within the Lower Colorado Valley Subdivision of the Sonoran 

Desert. This is the most arid and largest region of the Sonoran Desert. Uplands are chiefly vegetated with 

creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) in plant communities containing a variety of other species. Facultative 

and obligate riparian trees and shrubs characterize uncultivated floodplains.

Surrounding the proposed project area, the dominant vegetation is the nonnative tamarisk or native 

invasive Phragmites. Several site visits, along with aerial and infrared photographs, document this 

finding. Arrowweed, quailbush, cottonwood, and multiple willow species are also present. Tamarisk 

ranges in size, age, class, and density. Few athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) occur adjacent to the 

proposed project area. Several openings also contain litter from dead tamarisk. The habitat of MLWA was 

described using Braun-Blanquet releve’ method as follows: Salix goodingii 15 percent, Salix exigua 20 

percent, Tamarix chinensis 50 percent, Populus fremontii 0 percent, and Typha spp. 15 percent 

(McKernan and Braden, June 2000).

Effects Under the No Action: Under the no action alternative, unbroken stands of nonnative vegetation 

would continue to dominate the site along the shore, which would result in a higher probability of 

catastrophic fires and degraded wildlife habitat.

Tamarisk and weeds would continue to invade the project area. Existing vegetation would continue to 

increase in height and density. Tamarisk would exclude recruitment of native species. Seed and pollen 

from the Tamarisk in and around the proposed project area would continue to infect and degrade 

cottonwood-willow habitat elsewhere. Nonnative vegetation communities would continue to persist and 

expand. Hazardous fuels would accumulate, further increasing the possibility of wildfire. Quality habitat 

in Betty’s Kitchen, Pratt Nursery, Mittry South, and Laguna Conservation Area would remain vulnerable 

to the threat of wildfire.

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: Non-native vegetation in the proposed project 

area would be disturbed or removed. If any live cottonwood, willow, or mesquite were discovered during 

proposed project operations, this vegetation would be avoided when possible. Native understory 

vegetation such as arrowweed and quail bush would be disturbed but is likely to regenerate in time due to 

seed and vegetative dispersal. Within the fuel breaks, invasive species as well as native arrowweed and 

quail bush would be mowed and sprayed to keep fuel loading down in order to protect private and native 

lands adjacent to the project site.

Herbicide application would follow the most recent BLM approved Pesticide Use Proposal, and 

associated BLM herbicide guidance. Vegetation specific effects include possible drift from herbicide 

application that may negatively affect native species growth and development.

Additional impacts include the protection of Betty’s Kitchen Wildlife and Interpretive Area and the 

Laguna and Mittry South restoration sites adjacent to the project area. 

3.15 Visual Resources

BLM inventories and classifies public lands in order to identify and maintain areas that contain important 

scenic qualities. BLM lands fall into one of four Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes, with 
25

Class I offering the most visual resource protection and Class IV offering the least visual resource 

protection.

The area around Mittry Lake has been identified as VRM Class II, which means that change in the basic 

elements of the landscape (form, line, color, or texture) caused by a management activity should not be 

evident in the characteristic landscape. The visual character of Mittry Lake was altered appreciably as the 

result of wildfires on MLWA. Charred and resprouting vegetation now covers 1,313 acres of the wildlife 

area. Native vegetation significantly affects the diversity of color, texture, and form that contribute to the 

area’s visual resource values.

The main signs of human activity in the area include the presence of the Gila Main Gravity Canal, the 

existence of small disturbances resulting from mining in the Laguna Mountains, a rock quarry operated by 

Reclamation, the Mittry Lake Road, ramada, boat ramp, bathrooms, and the presence of the rock jetties.

Creation of the access road would continue with the current lines and colors of the surrounding area. 

Effects Under the No Action: There would be no change to visual resources in the proposed project area

if the No Action Alternative is implemented. 

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: Visual resources would be minimally altered 

due to the proposed action. Initial site construction would have a short-term adverse effect due to the 

presence of heavy equipment and construction materials, as well as the burning of the vegetation 

displaced by the construction activities. Infrastructure, including signs placed within the project area 

would comply with VRM Class II requirements in order to blend in with the area’s character and not 

detract from visual resource values, resulting in a low impact. The road design matches the adjacent 

project area design for a consistent visual flow through the area.

3.16 Water Quality, Surface/Ground

The proposed project area is located on the alluvial floodplain between Mittry Lake and the LCR historic

channel above Laguna Dam. Surface runoff from storm events is drained into the Colorado and Gila 

rivers. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) regularly collects Colorado River water samples at Imperial 

Dam. The river water is high in sodium and calcium and conductivity ranges from 1,100 to 1,700 S/cm 

(microsiemens). Water quality in these areas is somewhat consistent. 

The source of groundwater is the Colorado River aquifer. Depth to groundwater is variable in the area

but has been measured at 30 feet in the Laguna region of Yuma Proving Grounds near the Colorado River

(DOD, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground 2012). The groundwater near the Colorado River has high 

sulfate concentrations, but still meets primary and secondary Federal drinking standards, except for 

fluoride (DOD, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground 2001). 

The Gila Gravity Main Canal also supplies water through seepage into the marsh. These seeps act like 

springs, creating small rivulets as the water moves towards lower elevation into the marsh. The 

Reclamation tests water quality for this reach of river regularly. USGS completed a water quality study in 

2016 to identify pollutants and impacts from recent wildland fires. No abnormal results were found.
26

Effects Under the No Action: Surface water would not be affected as result of this alternative. Ground 

water would be likely to further recede due to the high use from tamarisk. Salinity levels may continue to 

increase due to the lack of flooding or flushing of the soils.

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: Water quality would not be affected as a result 

of mechanized work in the project area. Herbicides may enter surface water bodies during treatment 

through accidental direct application, through drift, or after treatment through surface or subsurface 

runoff. To pollute the water, they must be present in the water at concentrations high enough to impair 

water quality at a point of use. Surface water would be protected by adhering to a 10-foot (ground-hand) 

buffer when using herbicides not approved for aquatic use. To minimize drift, herbicides would only be 

applied when wind speeds are less than 10 miles per hour.

3.17 Wetland/Riparian Zones 

The proposed project area includes a riparian area associated with the Colorado River. Currently the 

riparian zone is dominated by monotypic, invasive or non-native vegetation. Southwestern riparian 

ecosystems are one of the most critically endangered habitats in North America (DOI, FWS, 2001).

Effects Under the No Action: The No Action Alternative would not have an immediate effect on the 

riparian zone and would allow for the present management of the site to continue but without recreational 

or public safety enhancements. Tamarisk would continue to dominate the riparian corridor, increase soil 

salinity, and further lower the water table. Unbroken stands of tamarisk within the riparian zone would 

continue to pose a greater threat of wildland fire because of the limited access to the area for firefighters 

and equipment. 

Wildlife forage would continue to be of poor value. Numbers and diversity would not be likely to change. 

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: The Proposed Action is expected to reduce the 

fire hazard within the riparian, Wildland Urban Interface, and Hazardous Fuels Reduction areas and result 

in fires of a smaller size by giving firefighters a strategic advantage through the creation of fuel breaks 

and a vehicle access route. 

The proposed road loop would avoid inundated marsh areas to maintain wetland functions. An excavator, 

mower, and potentially other equipment would be used to install the fuel breaks. They would extend from 

the road to the water’s edge. Mechanical, manual, chemical, or prescribed fire may be applied to 

maintain the fuel breaks which would be used in a restricted manner and in accordance with labeled 

restrictions so they do not degrade the wetland and riparian areas of Mittry Lake and the Colorado River. 

The Proposed Action would focus the recreation use on the road, within the parking lot, the fuel breaks, 

and channels within Teal Alley. Use of these areas would receive greater impact than those without 

recreationally focused enhancements.

3.18 Wildlife

The MLNSA project area encompasses a large diversity and abundance of small game and nongame 

wildlife species. Wildlife in the project and surrounding area include: Great Egret: Ardea alba; winter 

population of bald eagle: Haliaeetus leucocephalus; Least Bittern: Lxobrychus exilis; Loggerhead Shrike: 

Lanius ludovicianus; Western Yellow Bat: Lasiurus xanthinus; California Leaf-Nosed Bat: Macrotus 
27

californicus; Pocketed Free-Tailed Bat: Nyctinomops femorosaccus; Mule Deer: Odocoileus hemionus; 

Yuma Hispid Cotton Rat: Sigmodon hispidus eremicus, and other rattlesnakes. 

Effects Under the No Action: Unbroken stands of tamarisk in the proposed project area would continue 

to pose a fire hazard to existing wildlife habitat nearby (Pratt Nursery, Betty’s Kitchen, Mittry South, 

Laguna) as well as providing an invasive species seed source. Cohan, Anderson, and Ohmart (1978)

found some neotropical migratory bird species avoided monotypic stands of tamarisk during migration. 

Existing conditions would likely contribute to the decline of those migratory bird species that depend on 

cottonwood-willow habitat during migration. Migrating birds forced to occupy low-quality habitat reduce 

their body mass and increase their length of stay at stopover sites (Russell et al, 1994). Because highquality stopover sites are a critical link between breeding and wintering grounds, high-quality stopover 

habitat could have population-level implications to birds (Russell et al, 1994).

Effects Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3: Wildlife in the general vicinity would be 

disturbed by the operation of heavy equipment during the project implementation. While removing 

tamarisk and decadent vegetation, heavy equipment could crush, bury, or kill smaller, less mobile animals 

such as rodents, lizards, or snakes. The tamarisk and remnant cottonwood-willow areas would also 

undergo prolonged disturbance from heavy machinery, impacting wildlife using the decadent and 

resprouting tamarisk.

Indirect impacts include the temporary loss of invasive species habitat within and adjacent to the project 

area. Animals living in the area would be potentially displaced into adjacent habitats or forced to 

encroach into the territories upon individuals adjacent to the project area. Consequently, displaced and 

encroached upon individuals would have more difficulty finding food, seeking shelter, and attracting 

mates because of higher animal densities and competition for limited resources.

Wildlife in the general vicinity could also be disturbed from periodic herbicide application for 

maintenance of the vegetation within the fuel breaks. When properly applied herbicides pose minimal risk 

to the wildlife species which occur in the area (USDA, Forest Service, Glyphosate, 1997). The rapid 

decomposition would limit any effects on wildlife.

3.19 Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives

The immediate effects of constructing the project would be to improve access at MLWA and to protect 

adjacent habitat from destruction by wildland fire. 

The cumulative effects of the proposed action on the MLWA would be positive. Improving public access 

to the area would result in increased wildlife-based educational and recreational opportunities and usage

and would also focus that usage on the roads and access points. Creating fire breaks in combination with 

the road and emergency escape route would give firefighters a strategic advantage during future wildland 

fires which should help to keep the average acreage of wildland fires within MLWA smaller and prevent 

the loss of large tracts of valuable habitat. 

Once the access road is created, potential cumulative effects include unintended results. Some of these 

include:

1. Increase in public visitation may increase human caused wildfires.
28

2. Creation of fire breaks and hazardous fuel reduction may increase sedimentation into water 

bodies due to public uses

3. Creation of fire breaks and hazardous fuels reduction areas also create areas for public uses, 

including water access for camping, fishing, and hunting

4. Creation of soil stabilization area would create an area clear of invasive species, that would 

also result in a community gathering location. These locations may be used for recreational 

activities, community events, parking, among other uses. 

Current or Future Actions:

Reclamation’s Laguna Reservoir Restoration Project

Reclamation is in the process of dredging above Laguna Dam. Laguna Dam is located in the 

southwesterly section of the MLWA. The purpose of the Laguna Dam project is to provide increased 

water storage capacity above the dam to capture sluicing flows released from Imperial Dam and to 

maintain the operational integrity and function ability of Laguna Dam.

Reclamation’s Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) – Laguna Division Conservation Area

Reclamation implemented the conservation project adjacent to the proposed Mittry Lake North Shore 

Access Project. The purpose of this project was to restore, enhance, and protect native riparian, wetland, 

and aquatic habitats within the Laguna Division of the Lower Colorado River for the benefit of the MSCP

target goals. 

 

Betty’s Kitchen National Recreation Trail and Watchable Wildlife Area

The Betty’s Kitchen National Recreation Trail and Watchable Wildlife Area is administered by the BLM 

as a recreational fee area. It was restored after the 2011 Laguna Fire and includes permanent facilities. 

Approximately 150 acres of invasive riparian habitat was converted to native riparian habitat. Ongoing 

genetics research and monitoring continues. The site depends on flood irrigation from concrete canals fed 

from Mittry Lake water sources and Colorado River channel water sources. 

Betty’s Kitchen Boat Ramp

The Betty’s Kitchen Boat Ramp is a facility maintained by Reclamation, and managed by BLM. This is 

the only access for thousands of users every year into the Colorado River between SR-24 and Laguna 

Dam.

BLM and AGFD’s Mittry Fire Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation Project

Following the Mittry Lake Fire of August 2015, BLM and AGFD implemented an emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation plan to reduce or eliminate the introduction of new invasive species, and 

reestablish the native riparian species that were lost in the fire. Over 20 acres was cleared of invasive 

species, and replanted with natives. Due to poor soil conditions, plantings were not successful. Alternative 

management of this area would be to continue weed control, and stabilize the soils to allow for continued 

public use. 

Reclamation’s Mittry Lake Improvement Project

Reclamation proposes to implement a project in the future within Mittry Lake that would enhance water 

management capabilities within the lake for the benefit of wildlife habitat and provide some increased 
29

operational water storage. No immediate plans for this project at this time. Through the scoping of this 

project, Reclamation has asked that the proposed action include a final road height at or above 183 feet to 

protect the integrity of the created access road. 

4.0 List of Preparers

AGFD

BLM

Reclamation YAO

5.0 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Arizona State Forestry

Arizona State Land Department

Cocopah Indian Tribe

Colorado River Indian Tribes

Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe

Gila River Indian Community

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Yuma Area Office 

 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Yuma County

6.0 References and Literature Cited

43 CFR 3601.6 and 3601.12(c).

43 CFR 3809.11(c)(3).

43 CFR 8364.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.

Arizona Native Plant Law – A.A.C. R3-3-1101 – 1111
30

Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management and its 

Record of Decision, as amended. 2003. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Arizona State Office. 

August 15, 2016 Record of Decision (ROD) for Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, 

and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BEHAVE PLUS Fire Behavior Modeling Program, Version 5.0.

Betty’s Kitchen Wildlife and Interpretive Area: EA-AZ-055-95-031. 1995. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Biological and Conference Opinion on Lower Colorado River Operations and Maintenance-Lake Mead to 

Southerly International Boundary. 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.

BLM Manual MS 9113 – Roads (Release 9-405).

BLM Manual H-9113-1 – Road Design Handbook (Release 9-388).

Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Plan Amendment: DNA-AZ-050-2004-0026. 2004. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Cohan, D. R., B. W. Anderson, and R. D. Ohmart., 1978. Avian population responses to salt cedar along 

the lower Colorado River. Pages 371–382 in R. R. Johnson and J. F. McCormick (eds.) Strategies 

for protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report WO-12. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Conway, C.J., C. Sulzman and B. Raulston., 2002. Population trends, distribution, and monitoring 

protocols for the California black rail. Technical report (Heritage Program IIPAM Grant #

199010). Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996, “Indian Sacred Sites.”

Executive Order 13175 of November 9, 2000, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments.” 

Executive Order 13443 of August 16, 2007, “Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife 

Conservation.”

Final Range Wide Environmental Impact Statement. 2001. U.S. Department of Defense, Army, Yuma 

Proving Ground. pp. 35-36.

Eddleman, W. R. 1989. Biology of the Yuma clapper rail in the southwestern United States and

northwestern Mexico. Final Report, Intra-agency Agreement 4-AA-30-02060. U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Yuma Project Office, Yuma, Ariz. 127 pp.

Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. 

2007. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
31

Finch, Deborah M. and Stoleson, Scott H. 2000. Status, ecology, and conservation of the Southwestern 

Willow Flycatcher. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-60. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 131 p.

Glyphosate, Herbicide Information Profile. 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

Hall, H.D. (2003). Interagency Burned Area Emergency Stabilization & Rehabilitation Plan, Mittry Fire,

Cultural Resource Assessment. 

Herbicide Application within Wildland Urban Interface, Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Recreation Sites, 

and Revegetation Projects in the Yuma Field Office: EA-AZ-320-2005-026. 2005. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Herbicide Application Within the Yuma Field Office: DOI-BLM-AZ-C020-2018-0018-EA. 2018. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

http://www.habimap.org

http://www.azgfd.com

http://www.azgfd.gov

http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet

https://azhgis2.esri.com

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov

Hughes, J.M., 1999. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). The birds of North America. A.

Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, The Academy of Natural Sciences: 28.

Hunter, W.C., R.D. Ohmart, and B.W. Anderson. 1988. Use of exotic saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) by 

birds in arid riparian systems. Condor 90:113-123.

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. 2012. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Garrison 

Yuma Proving Ground.

Kearney, T.H. and R.H. Peebles. 1951. Arizona Flora. Los Angeles, CA, University of California Press. 

pp. 1085.

Laguna Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment: DOI-BLM-AZ-C020-

2011-0018-EA. 2011. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Laymon, S. A. and M. D. Halterman. 1989. A proposed habitat management plan for yellow-billed 

cuckoos in California. Proceedings of the California Riparian Systems Conference: protection, 

management, and restoration for the 1990s. D. L. Abell, Technical Coordinator. 

McKernan, R.L. 1997. Status, distribution, and habitat affinities of the southwestern willow flycatcher 

along the lower Colorado River: Year 1 - 1996. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Report. 55 pp.
32

McKernan, R. L. and G. Braden. 1998. Status, distribution, and habitat affinities of the southwestern 

willow flycatcher along the lower Colorado River: year 2 - 1997. Redlands, California, San 

Bernardino County Museum.

McKernan, R. L. and G. Braden. 1999. Status, distribution, and habitat affinities of the southwestern 

willow flycatcher along the lower Colorado River: year 3 - 1998. Redlands, California, San 

Bernardino County Museum.

McKernan, R. L. and G. Braden. 2000. Status, distribution, and habitat affinities of the Southwestern 

Willow Flycatcher along the lower Colorado River: year 4 – 1999. Report to U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Boulder City, NV, and USFWS, Carlsbad, CA. 87 pp.

McKernan, R. L. and G. Braden. 2001. Status, distribution, and habitat affinities of the southwestern 

willow flycatcher along the lower Colorado River: year 4 - 1999. Redlands, California, San 

Bernardino County Museum.

McKernan, R. L. and G. Braden. 2001. Status, distribution, and habitat affinities of the southwestern 

willow flycatcher along the lower Colorado River: year 5 - 2000. Redlands, California, San 

Bernardino County Museum.

McKernan, R. L. and G. Braden. 2002. Status, distribution, and habitat affinities of the southwestern 

willow flycatcher along the lower Colorado River: year 6 - 2001. Redlands, California, San 

Bernardino County Museum.

Master Memorandum of Understanding between United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

 Management Arizona State Office and State of Arizona, Arizona Game and Fish Commission.

Mittry Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Riparian Restoration Environmental Assessment

 AZ-050-2002-0002. 2002. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Mittry Lake Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation: AZ-050-2003-0039. 2003. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Mittry Lake Wildlife Area Management Plan. 1997. Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Mittry South Bermuda Grass Prescribed Fire: DOI-BLM-AZ-C020-2011-0007-EA. 2011. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

National Historic Preservation Act, Public Law 89-665; 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. 

Neill, W.M. 1985. “Tamarisk.” Fremontia 12 pp. 22-23.

Neill, W. M. 1990. Pp. 91-98, In: M. R. Kunzmann, R. R. Johnson and P. S. Bennett (eds.) Tamarisk 

control in southwestern United States. Proceedings of Tamarisk Conference, University of 

Arizona, Tucson, AZ, September 23-3, 1987. Special Report No. 9. National Park Service, 

Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources, 

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Northrop, Joan.1986. Archaeological Survey of Mittry Lake Water Delivery System Class III Survey.
33

Lower Colorado Regional Office, Bureau of Reclamation.

Phillips. 2000. A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert. University of California Press. London,

England. pp. 13-16.

Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native 

American Tribal Governments.”

Purcell, D. 2003. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Mittry Lake Burned Area Emergency 

Rehabilitation (BAER) Mittry Lake Wildlife Area Yuma County, Arizona and Imperial County, 

California. Four Corners Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. BLM Cultural Resources Project Number 

BLM-AZ-050-03-10.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Public Law 94-580; 42 U.S.C. 6901.

Rosenberg, K. V., R. D. Ohmart, et al. 1991. Birds of the Lower Colorado River Valley. United

States of America, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Russell, R.W., F. L. Carpenter, M. A. Hixon, and D. C. Paton. 1994. The Impact of Variation in Stopover 

Habitat Quality on Migrant Rufous Hummingbirds. Conservation Biology, 8:483-490.

Section 7 of the Colorado River Floodway Protection Act, Public Law 99-450 (October 8, 1986).

Secretary of the Interior Order No. 3356, “Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife 

Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories.”

Scott, Joe H. and Burgan, Robert E. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for 

use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-153. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. 72 p.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. 2001. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

Telles, Carol (2001). Cultural Resources Survey for A Prescribed Burn at The Mittry Lake Wildlife

Area. Cultural Resources Report Number: BLM-AZ-050-01-04. Bureau of Land Management, 

Yuma Field Office, Yuma, Arizona.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2000 Strategy, as described in Mountain Sheep Ecosystem Management Strategy 

for the 11 Western States and Alaska.

Yuma Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. 2010. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.