Programmatic Environmental Assessment: Herbicide Use in Lake Havusu FO, BLM

United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Lake Havasu Field Office 2610 Sweetwater Avenue Lake Havasu City, AZ 86406

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA-AZ-330-06-16

Herbicide Application within Wildland Urban Interface, Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Recreation Sites, Concessions, and Revegetation Projects in the Lake Havasu Field Office Area Mohave and La Paz Counties, AZ and San Bernardino Co., CA

Prepared by: Bureau of Land Management Lake Havasu Field Office 2610 Sweetwater Avenue Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403 Date: May 2007

1

2

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REVIEW LIST ASSESSMENT & REVIEW EA Number: EA-AZ-330-2006-0016 Case/Project No: Sub-activity: 1210-MD Proposed Action: Fuels Reduction Type: Herbicide Location (legal description) G.S.B.M. Multiple locations (see Appendix A) Applicant: Bureau of Land Management Lake Havasu Field Office Lead Responsibility Assigned to: Matthew Bossler, Fuels staff Environmental Coordinator:

Critical Element

Date:

May Be Affected N Yes o

Can Be Mitigated Yes

Signature Name/Title

No

Air Quality

Cory Bodman

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Cultural Resources/ Paleontological Resources

Jill Miller-Allert Sarah Murray

Environmental Justice

Specialist

Farm Lands (Prime or Unique)

Cory Bodman

Floodplain

Cory Bodman

Native American Religious Concerns Threatened or Endangered Species

Sarah Murray Angela Gatto

Wastes, Hazardous or Solid

Cathy Wolff-White

Water Quality, Drinking or Ground

Cory Bodman

Wetlands/Riparian Zones

Angela Gatto

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Jill Miller-Allert

Wilderness

Jill Miller-Allert

Invasive & Non Native Weeds

Angela Gatto

3

Date

Additional Specialists Review: Additional Elements

Will Be Affected Yes No

Can Be Mitigated Yes No

Signature Name/Title

Lands/Realty/Water Rights

DATE

Maria Rosalez

Law Enforcement

Mike Dodson

Operations/Engineering Review

Mike Henderson

Recreation

Myron McCoy

Visual Resources Management

Myron McCoy

Soils/Minerals

Amanda Dodson

Water Rights Cory Bodman Wild Horses/ Burros

Cindy Barnes

Range

Cindy Barnes Date:

Recommended By: Specialist EA Approved By: Date: Supervisor

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I.

II.

III.

Introduction

7

A. B. C. D. E.

7 8 8 9 9

Background Need and Purpose of Proposed Action Conformance with Land Use Plan Related Documents Environmental Compliance

Proposed Action

10

A. B.

10 13

Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

13

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O.

13 14 15 15 17 18 20 20 21 21 22 23 24 24 25

Climate and Air Quality Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Cultural Resources Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants Wastes, Hazardous and Solid Surface and Ground Water Quality Wetland/Riparian Zones Invasive Non-native Species Land Use and Ownership Recreation Topography and Soils Wild Horses and Burros Human Health and Safety Wildlife Vegetation

IV.

Cumulative Impacts

26

V.

List of Agencies, Organization, and Persons Contacted

26

A. B.

26 27

List of Preparers Persons and Agencies Contacted

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS (con’t) Section Page Appendices

29

Appendix A: Project Areas Appendix B: Pesticide Use Proposals (PUP’s) Arizona and California PUP for Triclopyr Appendix C: Standard Procedures Appendix D: Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Species References Cited

29 31 32 39 42 43

6

I. INTRODUCTION A. Background The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lake Havasu Field Office (LHFO) proposes to utilize herbicide to control the regrowth of invasive, weedy plant species, specifically: tamarisk/saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima, T. aphylla, T. parviflora, and T. chinensis), occurring within Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), Hazardous Fuels Reduction (HFR) areas, recreation sites, and riparian revegetation projects. The objectives of this project are: first, to reduce the risk of wildfire from encroaching upon popular recreation sites, resorts, concessions, and residential areas; second, to protect wildlife habitat, and native plant communities; and third, to promote fire resistant riparian communities and inhibit the proliferation of invasive plant species. The scope of this document is limited to follow-up treatments after wildfire, prescribed fire, and/or mechanical treatments of invasive plants. This programmatic environmental assessment (EA) would also be used in conjunction with revegetation plans covered under site specific existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents.

Historically, lands adjacent to the lower Colorado River (LCR) periodically flooded providing conditions necessary to germinate native riparian vegetation like: cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Gooding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), coyote willow (Salix exigua), honey mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa ), and screwbean mesquite (Prosopis pubescens). The building of Hoover Dam (completed in 1936) ended the natural cycle of flooding events along the LCR. The reduction of natural floods and an increase in agriculture resulted in the loss of native riparian vegetation seedbeds. Consequently, the life cycle of cottonwoods and willows was changed.

Tamarisk was introduced to the eastern United States (US) in the early 1800’s from southern Eurasia. It was used as a soil stabilizer along streambanks and as an ornamental landscape plant. It made its way to the western US from the east as a nursery plant. By the 1870’s the plant was reported to have escaped cultivation and by the 1920’s had become a serious problem spreading rapidly into riparian areas and watersheds throughout the southwest (Brotherson & Winkel, 1986). Tamarisk (T. ramosissima) found optimal ecological growing conditions and soon spread into the LCR valley eventually dominating the LCR floodplain. Currently, much of the historic LCR floodplain is dominated by tamarisk and other invasive weed species, or the land is leased for agricultural purposes. Only a small percentage of the riparian zone along the LCR contains native vegetation (USDI, FWS and BOR 1994).

A single mature tamarisk can consume up to 200 gallons of water per day (Columbia University 2001), and over the years has proven to be a dangerous wildland fire fuel risk with a mean fire return interval of 5-10 years (USDI, BOR 2000). As encountered along the LCR floodplain, tamarisk dominates native cottonwood, willow, and mesquite bosques increasing the flammability and radiant heat generated by a wildfire (Weisenborn 2001). This increased flammability poses great danger, not only to the public, but to those remaining native plant communities and animal habitats along the

7

LCR. Tamarisk vigorously resprouts after a wildfire and tends to dominate riparian corridors after repeated fire events.

B. Need and Purpose of Proposed Action This EA evaluates the impacts of utilizing herbicide to control invasive weeds for Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), Hazardous Fuels Reduction (HFR), recreation, and revegetation projects where previous NEPA documentation has been or will be completed. The purpose of this document is to provide a follow-up treatment option for projects that authorize mechanical or prescribed means for controlling the target weed species. This would include, but not be limited to, current and future projects for the LHFO area. Current projects for the LHFO are listed in Appendix A. This programmatic document would follow any restrictions or best management practices outlined in individual project level NEPA. Funding for these projects would be drawn from WUI, HFR, riparian, wildlife, range, weed, and recreation project funds allocated for these projects. Management and supervision of the projects would be performed by qualified LHFO and Yuma Field Office (YFO) fire and resources staff members that have been through the federal pesticide applicators course.

Most of the projects are within or adjacent to BLM recreation sites, resorts, concessions, or high use areas, and are designated as high priority WUI fuels projects by the Yuma-Lake Havasu Fire Zone Fuels and Prevention Management Plan with Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) 2003. All of the project areas have a high potential for fire occurrence based on past fire history (USDI, BLM 1202 Record 2004).

C. Conformance with Land Use Plan The proposed action would be in conformance with the Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan (2007) This plan designates all of the remaining riparian areas along the LCR to be managed as priority wildlife areas. BLM would also discourage the introduction of “exotic” species onto public lands. The proposed project would provide for the conservation of federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species and their habitat, as well as other special status species.

D. Related Documents This EA incorporates, by reference, the following: •

The Yuma/Havasu Fire Management Zone Fire Management Plan identifies the project area as a hazardous fuel priority. It further calls on consideration of fuels modification to prevent destruction of endangered species habitat and maintain riparian habitat values and conditions (USDI, BLM 2004).

•

The Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2004).

8

•

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan seeks in part to protect, reestablish, mimic, and/or mitigate for the loss of the natural processes that establish, maintain, and recycle riparian ecosystems.

Additionally, this plan advocates management of exotic plant species and continuing research to refine management practices and knowledge of ecology (USDI, USFWS 2002).

•

Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management (March 2004). This amendment to Arizona resource management plans states that “chemical herbicides would be applied to reduce fuel loads in a variety of habitats.” This amendment also states “Herbicide applications would be scheduled and designed to minimize potential affects to non target plants, as well as fish and wildlife species”.

•

The Sikes Act (16 USC 670a-670o, 74 Stat. 1052), as amended, Public Law 86797, approved September 15, 1960.

•

Thirteen State Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement “Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States – Final EIS, May 1991”.

•

“California Vegetation Management - Final EIS, August 1988”.

E. Environmental Compliance •

A Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be added to the project file upon completion.

•

The project is in compliance with the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management (March 2004).

•

The project is in compliance with “Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States – Final EIS, May 1991”.

•

The project is in compliance with “California Vegetation Management - Final EIS, August 1988”.

•

The herbicides proposed are included in “Information Bulletin No. 2007-028: Updating List of Approved Herbicide Formulations and Adjuvants, December 2006”

II. PROPOSED ACTION A. Proposed Action 9

The proposed EA would allow using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered, BLM approved herbicides for follow-up treatment in controlling invasive weed species after wildfire, prescribed fire, or mechanical/hand treatment of project areas infested with such weeds. Projects for which site-specific NEPA documentation covering mechanical methods of fuel reduction has already been prepared (appendix A) would be immediately cleared for herbicide follow-up treatments, whereas future fuels reduction sites, following site-specific NEPA documentation covering mechanical methods, will require a documentation of NEPA adequacy (DNA) if herbicide applications in the manner covered by this EA are desired. Herbicides used would include Pathfinder II, Garlon 3A, Garlon 4, and Garlon 4 Ultra (active ingredient triclopyr,) on sites where there is no open water. Basal bark, foliar, and/or cut stump methods of application would be used to treat tamarisk and other noxious weeds. Project-specific pesticide use proposals would be completed prior to project implementation and be included as part of the final project file.

Two pesticide use proposals (PUP) for the identified proposed project sites, one each for CA and AZ, are found in Appendix B (Future WUI, HFR, wildfire rehabilitation and revegetation projects, in an amount no larger than 100 acres per year, will require additional PUPs.) Herbicide application would be accomplished on foot using a backpack pump sprayer and/or cut-stump method unless individual project-level NEPA documentation has analyzed the use of motorized equipment (i.e., ATV) within the project boundaries. Any restricted use of motorized equipment would be followed during herbicide application. Project components include: 1) site selection; 2) treatment with herbicides; 3) maintenance; 4) following standard procedures to mitigate disturbance.

Concurrence with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will be required for any project that BLM determines “may affect” threatened or endangered wildlife or plant species.

Site Selection. The proposed action would occur at the sites listed in Appendix A. Future WUI, HFR, wildfire rehabilitation and revegetation projects, in an amount no larger than 100 acres per year, would potentially be treated with herbicides to limit regrowth of invasive weeds, following project-specific NEPA analysis. Herbicides would not be used on designated grazing areas/alottments.

Herbicide Use and Application. Weeds would be treated using EPA registered, BLM approved herbicides (Pathfinder II, Garlon 3A, Garlon 4, or Garlon 4 Ultra) following label guidelines. Generally, resprouts would be treated after reaching a height of 2-6 feet using a basal bark application. Other techniques include: foliar treatment, where leaves of the entire plant are sprayed; or cut stump treatment, where a chainsaw is used to cut down mature plants and herbicide is then brushed or sprayed onto the exposed cambium.

A certified applicator would either perform or supervise this work on-site. Herbicides would be applied and disposed of following manufacturers’ labeled instructions. With either application method, herbicides would be used sparingly to prevent any possibility of contaminating aquatic habitats. A BLM-approved Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan will be prepared by the certified applicator to address herbicide storage, transport, mixing and application, and contingency actions in the event

10

of an accidental chemical spill. If a cultural site is documented within a project area, the cultural site will be avoided by project design and herbicide crews will use existing access roads and trails to avoid damaging cultural resources.

Maintenance. Weeds would be treated with Pathfinder II, Garlon 3A, Garlon 4 and/or Garlon 4 Ultra to prevent or inhibit reestablishment. Treatments may occur on an annual basis and no one project area would be treated more then three times during any calendar year. These treatments would promote the growth of desired native vegetation and fulfill fire management objectives.

Standard Procedures. Standard procedures would be followed to mitigate disturbance during project operations. The specifics of these procedures are detailed in Appendix C. These procedures include transporting garbage off-site and disposing of it in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act. All refueling, oil changes, and lubrication would be done in a manner to prevent spills. A spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan will be required in all cases.

Colored dye will be used with herbicides to mark and identify treated areas. Dye markers would fade as the herbicide degrades and becomes inactive. To minimize drift, herbicides would only be applied when wind speeds are less than 10 miles per hour.

When applying an herbicide containing triclopyr by basal bark application or foliar treatment near domestic water sources, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes and ponds, or any other open water, a buffer zone of 15 feet past the legally established high water line, cut-bank, or evident cattail/bulrush marsh vegetation (whichever is furthest from the existing water) would be allocated to guarantee no harmful effects to the Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis,) razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus,) and bonytail chub (Gila elegans.) A 15 feet buffer zone would also be allocated to agricultural land when applying an herbicide containing triclopyr by basal bark application or foliar treatment. Between the legally established high water line, cut bank, or evident cattail/bulrush marsh vegetation (whichever is furthest from the existing water) and this 15 feet buffer line, and within ephemeral streams, also know as dry washes, the only approved method of application would be the cut-stump treatment. The cut-stump method is a highly selective method of application, where a chainsaw is used to cut down mature plants and herbicide is then brushed or sprayed onto the exposed cambium. By project design, herbicides would not enter water bodies because those areas would be avoided.

In addition, total rates of application would not exceed the maximum amounts defined by the herbicide label and/or “California Vegetation Management - Final EIS, August 1988,” and “Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States – Final EIS, May 1991,” depending upon the state of application. Pedestrian backpack foliar treatments and cut-stump applications would be permissible throughout the year.

Briefings would be held on a daily basis to inform personnel working with herbicides or in the vicinity of herbicide application of any federally listed species concerns.

As an extra precaution to protect the Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii

11

extimus) (SWFL), all-terrain vehicle (ATV) or tractor-mounted herbicide applications would be timed to occur outside the SWFL nesting season (March through October).

Applying herbicides outside the SWFL nesting season would also help protect the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus,) Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis,) and others as well. BLM would also follow the management guidelines in the Bald Eagle Conservation Assessment Strategy. The following restriction in three buffer zones around all known bald eagle nests would protect breeding attempts from adverse impacts: Buffer Zone 1: 500-foot radius around the nest. During breeding season – December 1 to June 30: No activity occurs around all known nests. During nonbreeding season – July 1 to November 30: No activity would be permitted that would permanently change the landscape. Buffer Zone 2: 500- to 1,000-foot radius around the nest. During breeding season – December 1 to June 30: Limited human activity. During non-breeding season – July 1 to November 30: No activity should permanently change the landscape. Buffer Zone 3: 1,000- to 2,500-foot radius around the nest. During breeding season – December 1 to June 30: No activity should permanently change the landscape. During non-breeding season – July 1 to November 30: maintenance activities such as upkeep of existing buildings and roads can occur, but no activity should permanently change the landscape. Other species specific conservation measures adopted for fire management activities are described in Appendix B, Sec. 7.3 of the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management, and Decision Record (USDI 2004), and Appendix M of the LHFO RMP and EIS (draft under review) (2007). Applicable conservation measures would be followed.

Should cultural and/or paleontological resources be encountered during project activities, work would cease in the area of the discovery and the BLM would be notified immediately. Following application, identified river-clay gathering areas would be flagged for one year following application and tribal representatives would be notified of the date and location of application. In addition, all survey markers would be protected against damage or destruction.

In the state of California (Parker Strip, Needles Reveg, Beale Slough, etc.,) no herbicide formulation may be applied within 500 feet of any residence or other place of human occupation unless the occupant or resident gives his written consent. Prior to application, BLM will send a correspondence letter to each concessionare, lease holder, and private resident or occupant within 500 feet of planned application areas explaining the need for the action, the human health and environmental safety of planned herbicides, and tentative dates of application. These concessionaires, lease holders, and private residents or occupants will be responsible for informing their visitors of planned and recent applications. Once signatures of consent are obtained from these concessionaires, lease holders, and private residents or occupants through mail-back or small public meeting, herbicide application may proceed. In addition, BLM will post signage informing visitors to campsites and day-use areas of planned and recent applications.

Appendix C of this document lists all standard procedures applicable to herbicide application.

12

B. No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, chemical treatment of invasive weeds would not occur.

Tamarisk would need to be treated mechanically which could involve more expense and increased surface disturbance. Fuel created from cutting resprouts would accumulate increasing the possibility of wildfire, or would have to be physically hauled off the site.

Weed species would flourish within project areas and increase the potential of wildfire.

Native plant communities and natural habitats would suffer from the encroachment of invasive weeds and biological diversity would decline.

III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Section III summarizes potential impacts to various elements of the human environment including the “critical elements” listed in BLM Manual H-1790-1, Appendix 5, as amended. Those elements not present or not affected by the proposed action are listed in the next paragraph. In addition to the critical elements of the human environment as identified by BLM, additional environmental concerns have been identified as being potentially impacted by the project alternatives and therefore are discussed in the text of this section.

A review of the existing environment shows that the following list of critical elements of the human environment are not present or would not be affected by the proposed action(s) and therefore will not be addressed in this EA: Environmental Justice, Farm Lands (Prime or Unique), Floodplain, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness.

Critical Elements A. Climate and Air Quality The climate around the LHFO planning area is arid. Temperatures are hot in summer, averaging between 95° Fahrenheit to over 100° Fahrenheit; mild in winter, ranging in the mid-thirties and forties; and receives between 3 and 7 inches of rainfall annually.

Air quality for the LHFO area in designated as Class II under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This means that moderate deterioration of air quality associated with moderated controlled industrial and population growth is allowed under Class II standards. There are specific standards for six criteria pollutants that have been established by the EPA: particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The EPA standards are administered through the ADEQ for the State of Arizona. All areas within the LHFO meet these standards and are considered Attainment Areas except Bullhead City, which has been designated as a nonattainment Area exceeding the national ambient air quality standards for PM10 (USDI, BLM 2005).

13

The State of California air quality is governed by the California Air Resources Board.

The board has created air quality units within California because of its size. The LHFO planning area lands in California are managed by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) and are listed as a moderate non-attainment area for PM10 by the MDAQMD (USDI, BLM 2005).

Carbon monoxide has been identified as an issue in the channel that connects to Lake Havasu by Lake Havasu City, although CO is not an issue on public lands within the LHFO planning area (USDI, BLM 2005).

1. Effects of Proposed Action. Small amounts of herbicide would be released into the atmosphere at the point of the spray nozzle. However, the affects would be temporary. PM10 particles require winds in excess of 15mph to remain airborne. Herbicides would not be used in winds exceeding 10mph. Herbicide applications would not contribute to PM10. Residual scent from herbicide applications could linger in the project area for as long as two months.

2. Effects of No Action. Air quality would not be affected by herbicide residuals if the project does not take place.

B. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural ACEC is managed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to the relevant characteristics or important values, including regional rare riparian resources and wildlife habitat, significant cultural resources, cultural sites within part of a regional cultural complex, and as a place of traditional Native American importance. The Beale Slough project area (see appendix A), for which site-level NEPA has been prepared to cover mechanical fuels reduction along the access road, is located within this ACEC. The programmatic nature of this document also covers 100 acres per year that have not been defined at the time of this EA. As such, herbicide treatments may take place in other ACECs (Three Rivers Riparian, Swansea Historic District, Crossman Peak, Bullhead Bajada), following site-level NEPA. 1. Effects of the Proposed Action. The proposed action would help reduce the risk of wildfire and invasive plant species from encroaching upon recreational and culturally important sites of these ACECs, as well as the habitat of particular bird species, other wildlife, and native plant communities. The use of herbicides will occur in a regulated, controlled fashion by a certified pesticide applicator as outlined in stipulations described in Appendix C and the prepared Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan.

Following these standard procedures will ensure that herbicides do not contaminate surface waters of the Lower Colorado River, Beale Slough, or other open water.

14

2. Effects of No Action. Reduced maintenance of the Beale Slough fuel break by mechanical methods only would result in increased threat to Beale Slough ACEC by wildfire resulting from the combination of flammable invasive species and anthropogenic ignitions.

C. Cultural Resources Cultural resources are abundant in and near LHFO LCR riparian corridor because people historically have lived along the rivers and other water sources. Campsites, milling stations, artifact scatters, trails, petroglyphs, geoglyphs, and other cultural resource sites are likely to be found adjacent to proposed project areas and planting sites. The Harcuvar Mountains, for example, contain a variety of significant archeological sites. It is a requirement that all federal undertakings comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Each project-level NEPA analysis would include compliance with NHPA and other applicable cultural resource laws before treatment action is approved by the Field Manager. Herbicide application as covered under this analysis would abide by any restrictions or stipulations laid forth in the individual project level NEPA documents and Pesticide Use Proposals.

1. Effects of Proposed Action. Any disturbance of cultural resources would be in compliance with Sec. 106 of the NHPA (1966 as amended) and under projectlevel NEPA documentation. Applicators would only access the work sites using existing roads and trails approved by project level NEPA documentation. Cutstump treatments could impact cultural resources due to falling limbs and branches. Pedestrian application would be used, where required, to ensure avoidance of or minimal disturbance to cultural resources 2. Effects of No Action. No cultural resources would be disturbed.

D. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants Only one plant species listed as BLM sensitive may be affected by activities described in this herbicide EA: Parish wild onion (Allium parishii). Federally listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the project areas in addition to any species designated as sensitive. These species include: Southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL), bald eagle, Yuma clapper rail, Mojave Desert tortoise (Goperus agassizii), California brown pelican (Pelicanus occidentalis), California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), bonytail chub (Gila elegans), Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychochilus lucius), flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinna), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). A query of the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) for special status species also revealed the potential for the following species to occur: great egret (Ardea alba), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus), and pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus.) A query of the California Department of Fish and Game’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) revealed the potential for the following species to occur: summer tanager (Piranga

15

rubra,) yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens,) flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis,) and glandular ditaxis (Ditaxis claryana.) Concurrence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will be required for any project that BLM determines “may affect” federally threatened or endangered species. For a complete list of special status plant and wildlife species refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 in Chapter 3 of the LHFO/RMP and EIS (USDI 2007).

The bald eagle is a common winter resident historically seen utilizing mature willow and cottonwood trees as perches along the LCR riparian corridor. Yuma clapper rail and razorback sucker occur in and near cattail and bulrush marsh areas along the river. The California brown pelican is typically found along the Pacific Coast but has been sited as an occasional transient and accidental visitor in Arizona along the LCR riparian areas. It is also possible for the California condor to occur within the LHFO as well. Bonytail chub, Gila topminnow, Colorado pikeminnow, and flannelmouth sucker habitats are shoreline or deeper water and would most likely not be disturbed or disrupted. Caution would be observed in areas where Mojave Desert tortoise may occur. Typical tortoise habitat includes desert flats, alluvial fans, bajadas, or rocky terrain. If any tortoise is observed in treatment areas, conservation measures would be implemented. Most of the project areas considered for treatments in this EA have previously been cleared mechanically, burned by wildfire, or are designated recreation areas.

Some project areas covered under this analysis are directly adjacent to “suitable” SWFL habitat as defined and surveyed by Bob McKernan of San Bernardino County Museum and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) between 1996 and 2000. In Oct. 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (US FWS) service issued the Final Rule for Critical Habitat regarding SWFL, and determined that certain areas be excluded from the critical habitat designation list because habitat protection was being provided by other means (i.e., other conservation plans) or that areas of concern did not contain the essential habitat elements required for SWFL. Critical habitat was not designated within the proposed project area (USDI FWS 2005).

The Southwestern willow flycatcher is found during spring and fall migration along the LCR and has been sighted regularly throughout the riparian corridor. Territorial or resident birds (those which elicited calls after June 15) have been recorded adjacent to several of the proposed project locations. No nests have been located south of the Bill Williams River, Arizona, in over 65 years (Unitt 1987), although northbound and southbound migrant SWFL use the riparian corridor.

Current status for the 2004 survey season conducted mid-May, mid-June, and mid-July 2004 revealed Yellow-billed cuckoo at Topock Marsh, Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge; Yuma clapper rail at Topock Marsh; and SWFL (surveys conducted mid-May to mid-August) at Topock Marsh, Topock Gorge, Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge. These sites are outside the LHFO project areas for this EA except one near/at Beale Slough (documented as Lost Lake by SWCA). This site is historically occupied by SWFL and was occupied during the 2004 survey (McLeod and others 2004).

16

In the Sonoran and Mojave deserts, the Western yellow-billed cuckoo occurs in mature cottonwood-willow and dense mesquite riparian woodland/bosques (Rosenberg et al.

1991, Hughes 1999), but rarely occurs in tamarisk. In the LCR valley, Hunter and others (1985) found only 2.4 percent of the Western yellow-billed cuckoo population occurred in tamarisk relative to those found in native habitat of cottonwood-willow (68.3 percent), honey mesquite (19.5 percent), and screwbean mesquite (9.8 percent).

Those species designated as Federal Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, or Candidate, can be found in Appendix D. 1. Effects of Proposed Action. The proposed action would strive to protect the habitat quality for wildlife including threatened and endangered species in the project areas. Herbicide maintenance of fire breaks, hazardous fuels reduction areas, and other areas of concern within WUI would protect the riparian corridor from wildfire, further fragmentation, and degradation. The herbicides discussed in this EA would not have a negative effect on wildlife if applied according to the label and biological opinions issued by the FWS are followed. The standard procedures and certified applicator’s Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan would ensure that herbicide contamination would not occur within an aquatic environment. Cottonwoods, willows, and/or mesquite in and near project areas would not be disturbed as part of the proposed action.

Special status/concern species including the yellow-billed cuckoo, mountain plover, flannelmouth sucker, great egret, California black rail, California leafnosed bat, and pocketed free-tailed bat would not be negatively affected. All currently identified project areas have previously been affected by mechanical treatment, fire/fuels, or recreational improvements, and future sites will be treated with a variety of mechanical means prior to herbicide application.

2. Effects of No Action. Threatened and endangered species numbers would continue to be at risk by wildfire as a result of the no action alternative.

E. Wastes, Hazardous and Solid A site-specific clearance for hazardous materials would be required prior to project implementation.

1. Effects of Proposed Action. All chemical (herbicide) containers would be properly disposed of according to label instructions. A BLM-approved Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan will be prepared by the certified applicator to address herbicide storage, transport, mixing and application, and contingency actions in the event of an accidental chemical spill. Stipulations pertaining to hazardous wastes can be found in Appendix C (standard procedures).

2. Effects of No Action. No wastes, hazardous and solid, would be used which could affect the environment in the project area as a result of this alternative.

17

F. Surface and Ground Water Quality Surface runoff from storm events drains into the Colorado River. The river water is high in sodium and calcium and conductivity ranges from 1,100 to 1,700 S/cm (microseimens per centimeter). That water quality is somewhat constant. 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 following information regarding surface and groundwater quality in the LHFO project area was taken from LHFO RMP and EIS (USDI 2007).

Surface Water The Arizona and California State borders are divided by the Colorado River. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is responsible for regulating the water quality of the river within the borders of Arizona from Lake Powell to the International Boundary. The water within the California border is regulated by the California State Water Resources Control Board. BLM has agreement with these authorities and shares responsibilities to maintain the biological integrity of the water in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act. The BOR, USFWS, Metropolitan Water District of California, Tribal Governments, Central Arizona Water Conservation District, and County Health Department also share the responsibility of monitoring water quality of the Colorado River within the LHFO planning area.

The BLM manages much of the Lake Havasu bottom, adjoining river and reservoir shoreline areas where water quality must meet designated multi-use standards and criteria. These criteria must be attained for: aquatic and warm water fisheries habitat, fish consumption, full body contact recreation, domestic water supply, and agriculture for irrigation and livestock watering.

Water contaminants flow into the river from upstream and can accumulate along reservoir shorelines and beaches, and in sediments that may prove detrimental to the diversity, productivity, and overall health of biological resources. Selenium concentrations are of major concern because they accumulate in lower food chain organisms.

Boating activities affect water quality through fuel spills, exhaust, solid and human waste, and erosion of the shoreline caused by wakes. Combustible compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are not only volatile, but also sink and accumulate in bottom sediments.

Non-point source pollutant materials (i.e., fertilizers, pesticides, solvents) from the many communities in the area reach the river and Lake Havasu through precipitation runoff events. Over time, these pollutants can potentially harm or impair beneficial uses of

18

water resources. Certain nutrients that accumulate along shoreline sediments can promote increased growth of aquatic vegetation that can degrade aesthetics, inhibit navigation, impair public health at swimming areas, or impact wildlife habitats (i.e., excessive growth and spread of tamarisk and/or phragmites).

The BLM participates in the salinity control program to limit salts generated into the river system by creating measuring stations along the river. One such station exists just below Parker Dam and maintains a maximum salinity standard of 747 milligrams per liter (mg/l).

A major tributary into Lake Havasu is the Bill Williams River which flows below the Alamo Dam. Alamo Lake has been identified as an impaired water source, with high Ph, sulfide, and dissolved oxygen that has degraded beneficial uses of aquatic and warm water fisheries, Full Body Contact, and agriculture irrigation and livestock watering.

Consumption of certain fish was designated as a human health risk by the ADEQ in 2004 because of the presence of mercury (ADEQ 2004). However, in 2002 the water quality of a reach of the Bill Williams River just above its confluence with Lake Havasu was assessed and determined to have all beneficial uses considered attained, except for FBC where the results of which were inconclusive (USDI, BLM 2005).

Groundwater Well and tap water quality in the LHFO project area has a high concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) ranging from 500 mg/l to over 1,000 mg/l. The high end concentrations can harm crops and degrade plumbing systems. Some wells on the west slopes of the Hualapai Mountains exceed standards for radio-chemicals; wells near Topock, Lake Havasu City, and Parker have exceeded groundwater standards for fluoride and chloride most likely naturally occurring in the associated geology of the area. Some monitored wells along the Colorado River have elevated concentrations of nitrates due to septic discharge. Levels in excess of 5 mg/l indicate a human-made influence in contrast to naturally occurring concentrations of less than 3 mg/l, generally. In the LHFO planning area exceeded the 5 mg/l level for approximately 30% of wells sampled. Nitrate concentrations of greater than 10 mg/l create a health risk for pregnant women and infants. Lake Havasu City and Bullhead City are converting from current septic systems to sewer systems in order to alleviate the high concentrations of nitrates in drinking water.

1. Effects of Proposed Action. Herbicides may enter surface water bodies during treatment from accidental direct application, drift, or after treatment from surface or subsurface runoff. Water contamination occurs when herbicide is present in the water at concentrations high enough to impair water quality at the point of use. Surface water will be protected by adhering to a 15 foot buffer past the legally established high water line or cut-bank of domestic water sources, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes and ponds, or any other open water when applying herbicides by basal bark application or foliar treatment. To minimize drift, herbicides will only be applied when wind speeds are less than 10 miles per

19

hour. Between the legally established high water line (or cut bank) and this 15 feet buffer line, and within ephemeral streams, also know as dry washes, the only approved method of application will be the cut-stump treatment.

2. Effects of No Action. Surface water would not be affected as a result of this alternative; however, ground water is likely to further diminish because of the high water consumption by tamarisk.

G. Wetland/Riparian Zones Project areas are within riparian zones associated with the LCR and are dominated by monotypic non-native vegetation. Southwestern riparian ecosystems are one of the most critically endangered habitats in North America (USDI, USFWS 2001).

1. Effects of Proposed Action. The proposed herbicide applications are expected to protect current and future riparian restorations, wildlife habitat, and reduce fire hazard within WUI and HFR project areas. Removal of tamarisk resprouts would lower the risk of wildfire events and allow the maintenance of native riparian habitats being created. Herbicides would be applied in a restricted manner that would prevent them from entering the surface water of the LCR or other water source areas.

2. Effects of No Action. Fire hazard would continue to pose a greater threat because tamarisk resprouts would need to be cut mechanically or manually on an annual basis.

H. Invasive 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 waterways and floodplains. Tamarisk, a highly invasive non-native plant species, constitutes the main structural layer within the project areas. Generally when plant species diversity declines, ecosystem functions (e.g., providing animal habitats) decline as well. Among the habitat suitability factors that can differ between the native and exotic-dominated vegetation types are: the presence of suitable branching structure for nest placement; quality and quantity of the insect food base; thermal environment (microclimate); and an abundance of parasites or predators (USDI, FWS 2001).

Ecosystem functions can be reduced as monotypic stands of vegetation 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 has a high rate of seed production and can produce as many as 600,000 seeds per plant between April and October. The

20

long period of seed production allows tamarisk to germinate well into fall, which is when most native trees are no longer producing viable seeds. Furthermore, monotypic stands of tamarisk pose great danger as a hazardous fuel. Wildfires in tamarisk tend to burn with great intensity and produce extreme fire behavior. These fires can be difficult to suppress and because of the high radiant heat they produce tend to kill most native trees (i.e., cottonwood, willow, and mesquite).

1. Effects of Proposed Action. The proposed action would reduce the threat of wildfire within WUI designations and protect native riparian restoration projects along the LCR. Certain precautions would also be taken prior to leaving a project site that would include cleaning mud, dirt, and vegetative debris from machinery and equipment. Stipulations pertaining to project site procedures and handling of herbicides (on and off site) are described in Appendices C. In addition, a BLM-approved Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan will be prepared by the certified applicator to address herbicide storage, transport, mixing and application, and contingency actions in the event of an accidental chemical spill.

2. Effects of No Action. Nonnative vegetation communities would continue to persist and expand. Fire danger from hazardous fuel buildup would increase.

No hazardous fuel reduction or restoration projects would be maintained with herbicides. Weedy plant species in project areas would continue as a seed source to spread and proliferate into adjacent lands.

Additional Environmental Concerns I. Land Use and Ownership The proposed projects either occur on BLM managed land or on lands for which BLM has an agreement to implement the proposed actions. Lands within this project proposal are administered by the LHFO. By specific Department of the Interior directive, Departmental Manual 613, the Yuma Field Office (now split between the Yuma and Lake Havasu Field Offices) of the BLM (formerly the Lower Colorado River Land Use Office and Yuma District Office) has full management responsibility for the administration of federal lands not being managed by the UFSFWS along the LCR. This includes all Bureau of Reclamation lands those lands that have been acquired or withdrawn for reclamation purposes under U.S. Bureau of Reclamation law.

1. Effects of Proposed Action. There would be no change in land status.

2. Effects of No Action. There would be no change in land status.

J. Recreation The majority of the project areas are located within the LHFO boundaries along the Colorado River. The year-round use for recreation is high in this area. During the period

21

from September to April the primary users of the area are winter visitors who are camping with recreational vehicles (RV’s) and local residents picnicking and fishing.

During the period from May until October the primary users are water sport enthusiasts (i.e., boating, water skiing, swimming).

1. Effects of Proposed Action. During proposed herbicide applications, project areas would be closed off and access restricted. Within 24 hours following the herbicide application, there would no longer be any possible human health hazards from herbicides and recreational access would be re-opened.

2. Effects of No Action. The implementation of the proposed action would not impact any of the recreation sites’ classifications in the BLM’s Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Recreating visitors within the LHFO boundaries would not be better protected from the existing high risk of wildfires.

K. Topography and Soils The proposed LHFO project areas have hyperthermic and thermic arid soils that can be topographically divided into: the LCR floodplain consisting of stratified sands, silts, and clays; alluvial terrace deposits (many dissected by ephemeral washes and arroyos) of sands and gravels; and moderate to steep mountain slopes of coarse-textured soils consisting of gravels, surface stones, and cobbles of various types of igneous rocks (i.e., granite, gneiss, basalt, schist, rhyolite).

Land Resource Units (LRU’s) developed by the National Resource Conservation Service for the State of Arizona contain pertinent information (i.e., elevation, topography, vegetation communities) associated with soil series in Arizona. There are four representative LRU’s in the proposed LHFO project areas: The Mojave Desert Shrub found along the Colorado River north of Interstate 40 (I-40); the Lower Sonoran Desert Shrub occurring along the Colorado and Bill Williams Rivers south of I-40 in La Paz and Mohave Counties; the Sonoran-Mojave Desert Shrub occurring near Lake Havasu City; and the Grand Canyon Desert Shrub located in the mountain areas near Lake Havasu City (USDI, BLM 2005).

Soil Descriptions The two most dominant soil types in the project areas are orthids and argids in the lower desert regions. These soils form in very arid climates, are typically light-colored, and contain little organic matter. Orthid soils are calcerous and may contain cemented carbonates or silica horizons; whereas argid soils are fine-textured and may contain subsurface clay or sodium accumulations.

The other primary arid soil type for the LHFO project area is the orthent soil. Orthent soils develop from parent materials resistant to weathering and erosion, and generally overlie rock out-crops on moderate to steep slopes. Plants with shallow rooting systems are typically all that can inhabit areas with orthent soils.

22

An important surficial feature common to arid climates is desert pavement. Desert pavement is composed of coarse textured alluvial rock fragments that serve to protect finer-grained subsurface soils from erosion which is an important characteristic because areas associated with desert pavement often lack abundant vegetation. In addition to desert pavement, alluvial soils associated with drainage channels, arroyos, floodplain terraces and bottomlands are an important component to arid climates. Depending upon watershed characteristics, alluvial soils can support a wide variety of flora and fauna, or can be extremely barren of vegetation and support little animal life. Alluvial soils vary in composition from fine silts and sands to coarse gravels and large rocks (i.e., cobbles or boulders) (USDI, BLM 2005).

Most of the proposed project sites occur within the LCR floodplain corridor and consist of orthid, argid, or alluvial soil types. Floodplain soils associated with the Colorado River are generally saline (mapped as Salorthids), fairly deep, poorly drained, and range from sand and silt loams to clays. These soils experience saturation with the salty groundwater at shallow to moderate depths (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1980).

Clay serves as a cultural resource for tribes as well. When the river recedes, tribes can access the clay resources for many uses – both utilitarian and ceremonial. Some uses include application of clay to human skin and hair (McDowell, 2005.)

The communication towers, located on top of Smith Peak in the Harcuvar Mountains, are on orthent soils. The Hargus cabin site (also in the Harcuvar Mountains) sits on an alluvial terrace next to an ephemeral streambed.

1. Effects of Proposed Action. Soils could potentially be disturbed by motorized equipment used to transport herbicides or if motorized equipment (i.e., ATV) is used for herbicide application (e.g., soil compaction, vehicle tracks).

A spill contingency plan (Appendix C) will be in place to mitigate any contamination to the soils. Although herbicides would not alter a soil’s physical properties, there may be indirect effects on soil microorganisms. Triclopyr is minimally soluble making it unavailable to soil microbes. Triclopyr based herbicides decompose rapidly in sunlight and would be inactive on the soil within a few hours after application. The half-life for triclopyr is considered “moderately persistent” at 47 days. Sunlight, temperature, soil and water pH, microbial activity and other soil characteristics may affect the breakdown of herbicides (DOI, BLM 1991).

2. Effect of No Action. Soils would continue to be disturbed by annual mechanical maintenance (i.e., mowing or cutting of tamarisk resprouts) that could lead to rutting, soil compaction, or erosion from the use of heavy equipment.

L. Wild Horses and Burros The BLM is responsible for management of wild horses and burros. These animals often water in the riparian zone and travel the associated washes. Wild horses and burros do

23

not generally use tamarisk or any of the other target weeds as forage.

1. Effects of Proposed Action. Wild horses and burros could be indirectly affected by changes in forage supply and herbicide exposure. The risk of direct toxic effects to these animals is negligible, based on the LD50 (lethal dose causing death in 50% of tested animals) for all of the proposed herbicides.

2. Effects of No Action. There would be no impact to wild horses and burros.

M. Human Health and Safety Any land management activities undertaken on public lands must be done with human health and safety in mind. In particular, if herbicide use is proposed, all applicable guidelines must be followed in the use of these products.

1. Effects of Proposed Action. Triclopyr falls into the “slight” toxicity category and carries a “caution” warning label. The chemical is harmful if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through skin. Applicators must be licensed and apply chemicals according to label restrictions. Herbicides would be applied to the project areas, but under specific restrictions and guidelines. A certified pesticide applicator would perform or supervise all herbicide applications.

2. Effects of No Action. Human health and safety would not be affected.

N. Wildlife A complete list of the wildlife species within LHFO planning area can be found in Appendix J (Biological Resources, J-33 – J-50) of the LHFO RMP and EIS (USDI 2007).

1. Effects of Proposed Action: Direct impacts. While spraying weeds, wildlife could be disturbed or inadvertently sprayed. Less mobile animals such as rodents or reptiles could be accidentally crushed by pedestrian traffic or motorized equipment.

Indirect impacts. The loss of tamarisk habitat may negatively affect animals within and adjacent to project areas initially. Animals living in the area could be potentially displaced into poorer habitats or forced to encroach into the territories of other individuals adjacent to the project areas. 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.

The immediate benefit of utilizing herbicides to control tamarisk resprouts would be to protect the habitat from destruction by wildfire. Using herbicides would

24

encourage the growth of native plant species by reducing competition from tamarisk within any revegetation project sites. Native vegetation provides better quality and more complex habitat structure for wildlife. Studies have found that riparian areas consisting of native cottonwood, willow, and mesquite promote a higher diversity and abundance of bird species than stands of tamarisk (Anderson et al. 1977; Cohan et al. 1979, in Dudley 2000; Anderson and Ohmart 1985; Schroeder 1993, in Dudley 2000).

The negative short-term effects of potentially killing or displacing any wildlife species are overshadowed by the positive long-term effects of reduced fire hazard to treated and adjacent habitats, control of the spread of invasive plants to currently uninvaded habitat, and improved opportunities for the growth and establishment of native vegetation.

2. Effects of No Action. Besides failing to support a more diverse community of wildlife within project areas, allowing tamarisk to exist in these areas would have far-reaching negative impacts beyond the boundaries of the individual project areas.

Fire. Tamarisk would continue to pose a fire hazard threat to priority wildlife habitat within and adjacent to the project areas between mechanical treatments.

Seed source. Tamarisk resprouts would continue to remain a seed and pollen source promoting the germination of new plants that could invade and degrade any existing cottonwood-willow habitats outside project areas and along the LCR riparian corridor.

O. Vegetation The proposed project areas are located within the transition zone of the Mojave and Sonoran deserts. In the upper elevations of the project area (e.g, Harcuvar Mountains) Upper Sonoran Desertscrub transitions to Interior Chaparral. Along the riparian corridor, facultative and obligate riparian trees and shrubs (i.e., cottonwood, mesquite) characterize uncultivated floodplains. The dominant vegetation occurring within the proposed project sites of the LCR riparian corridor is invasive nonnative tamarisk. Tamarisk plants found at these sites range in size, age class, and density. Native plant species occurring in abundance at several disturbed project areas are: arrow weed (Pluchea sericea), seep willow (Baccharis salicifolia), and quail bush (Atriplex lentiformis). Invasive plant species are less abundant (if even present) in proposed project sites in the Harcuvar Mountains where chaparral plant communities are common.

Those species designated as Federal Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, or Candidate, can be found in Appendix D. Ditaxis claryana, glandular ditaxis/desert silverbush, is listed as a California Native Plant Society list 2 species, “Plants ‘fairly’ Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere” and has been confirmed within a wash by Empire Landing campground, but is not considered a BLM sensitive

25

species. A complete list of the plant species within LHFO planning area can be found in Appendix J (Biological Resources, J-1 – J-31) of the LHFO RMP and EIS (USDI 2007).

1. Effects of Proposed Action. Only invasive weed species (i.e., tamarisk) in the project areas would be treated. Care would be taken to ensure that herbicide use would not negatively impact existing and/or desired native vegetation (i.e., cottonwood, willow, mesquite) discovered during project operations. The use of herbicides would reduce the need for mechanical maintenance and reduce the fire hazard produced by tamarisk resprouts.

Native marsh vegetation would not be treated with herbicide. Applicators would exercise caution in avoiding these areas by leaving a 15 foot buffer between treated areas and cattail/bulrush marsh areas when applying herbicides by basal bark application or foliar treatment. Cut-stump treatments will be permissible between cattail/bulrush marsh areas and the 15-foot buffer line.

2. Effects of No Action. Weeds would have to be mechanically and/or manually cut, creating increased fire hazard between maintenance events. Tamarisk resprouts would potentially inhibit the recruitment and growth of desirable native plant species.

IV. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative effects on wildlife, habitat, and recreation were analyzed for the immediate geographic scope of the LHFO herbicide treatment projects.

1. Cumulative impacts of vegetation control will be analyzed under project level NEPA documents. Projects not specifically listed in this document are required to have site specific NEPA documentation. Project-level concurrence from the FWS is additionally required.

2. The proposed use of herbicides would assist in reclaiming areas burned by wildfire, maintaining functional fire breaks, assist in maintenance of recreation areas, reduce hazardous fuel loadings within the WUI, and assist in revegetation efforts.

V. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED A. List of Preparers Yuma Field Office BLM Kirsten Lund David Repass

ECO Intern – Fire Fuels Assistant YFO/LHFO – Fire Biologist

Lake Havasu Field Office BLM

26

Angela Gatto Sarah Murray Mary Long (formerly Adelzedah) Matthew Bossler

LHFO - Wildlife Biologist LHFO - Archaeologist LHFO – Tribal Liason LHFO – Fuels Staff

Arizona State Office BLM Mike Behrens

Arizona Fuels Program Manager

B. Persons and Agencies Contacted California Department of Fish and Game Chris Hayes P.O. Box 2160 Blythe, CA 92226 California Natural Diversity Database Roxanne Bittman, Lead Botanist Darlene McGriff, Lead Zoologist 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95814 Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Charles Wood, Chairman Chemehuevi Indian Tribe P.O. Box 1976 Havasu Lake, CA 92363 Cocopah Indian Tribe Sherry Cordova, Chairwomen Cocopah Tribe Ave G and County 15th Somerton, Arizona 85350 Colorado River Indian Tribes Daniel Eddy Jr., Chairman Colorado River Indian Tribes Route 1, Box 23-B Parker, Arizona 85344 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe

27

Nora McDowell, Tribal Chair Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 500 Merriman Ave. Needles, California 92363 Hualapai Indian Tribe Charles Vaughn, Chairman Hualapai Tribe P.O. Box 179 Peach Springs, Arizona 86434-0179 Havasupai Indian Tribe Thomas Siyuja, Chairman Havasupai Tribe P.O. Box 10 Supai, Arizona 86435 Fort Yuma-Quechan Indian Tribe Mike Jackson Sr., President Ft. Yuma Quechan Tribe P.O. Box 1899 Yuma, Arizona 85366-1899 Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians Chairman Dean Mike Twenty-Nine Palms Indian Tribe 46200 Harrison Place Coachella, California 92236 Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Earnest Jones Sr., President Yavapai-Prescott Tribe 530 E. Merritt Street Prescott, Arizona 86301-2038 US Fish and Wildlife Service Lesley Fitzpatrick Ecological Services Phoenix, AZ

28

Appendix A Current Lake Havasu Field Office project areas where herbicide could be used to control weeds.

Project Name

Approx.

NEPA Number Acreage Legal Description

Parker Strip (CA)

CX-AZ-070-03- 63.7 46

Bullhead / Needles Revegetation Area

AZ-050-0-2, 4-8 CX-AZ-330-06025

Bullhead / Beal Slough

CX-AZ-330-06- 2-6 025

29

(San Bernardino County, CA) San Bernardino Meridian, T.2_N., R.27_E, sec. 10, lot 6; sec. 16, lot 7,8; sec. 17, lot 6; sec. 30, lot 3,4; T.2_N., R.26_E., sec. 25, lot 5,6; sec. 36, lot 3; sec. 35, lot 7; T.1_N., R.26_E., sec. 2, lot 6,8,9; sec. 3, lot 6,7; sec. 10, lot 9; sec. 11, lot 2.

(San Bernardino County, CA) San Bernardino Meridian, T.9_N., R.23_E., sec 33, W1/2SW1/4SE1/4, SE1/4SW1/4SE1/4; T.8_N., R.23_E, sec 4, lot 2.

(San Bernardino County, CA) San Bernardino Meridian, T.8_N., R.23_E., sec 26, N1/2SW1/4NE1/4, E1/2SE1/4NW1/4.

Designation WUI

WUI

WUI

Parker / Monkey Head Fuels Reduction

CX-AZ-070-03- 3 48

Bullhead / BNC CX-AZ-070-03- 10 (CRNC) Fuel Break 54

HESD / Comm Site CX-AZ-330-06- 3 Fuels Reduction 026 (Smith Peak)

HESD / Hargus Cabin Fuels Reduction

CX-AZ-330-06- 1 026

HESD / Incline Railway Fuels Reduction

CX-AZ-330-07- 3 13

30

(La Paz Co, AZ) Gila & Salt River Meridian T.11_N., R.18_W., sec. 28, all.

(Mohave County, AZ) Gila & Salt River Meridian, T.19_N., R.22_W., sec. 10.

(La Paz County, AZ) Gila & Salt River Meridian, T.8_N., R.11_W., sec. 11, NE1/4SE1/4NE1/4, NW1/4SE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4SW1/4NE1/4, NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4.

(La Paz County, AZ) Gila & Salt River Meridian, T.9_N., R.11_W., sec. 33, SW1/4SW1/4SW1/4 (La Paz County, AZ) Gila & Salt River Meridian, T.7_N., R.13_W., sec. 22, SE1/4SE1/4SW1/4, SW1/4SW1/4SE1/4; sec. 27, NE1/4NE1/4NW1/4, NW1/4NW1/4NE1/4.

WUI

WUI

HFR

HFR

HFR

APPENDIX B PESTICIDE USE PROPOSAL (PUP)

31

11U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BLM PESTICIDE USE PROPOSAL FOR TRICLOPYR PROPOSAL NUMBER: AZ-PUP-330-07-01 EA NUMBER: EA-AZ-330-06-16 STATE: Arizona and California RESOURCE AREA: Lake Havasu Field Office

DISTRICT: Colorado River COUNTY: La Paz & Mohave, AZ; San Bernardino County, CA

DATE: June 28, 2007 LOCATION: This is a programmatic Pesticide Use Proposal to cover all of the locations in the following table.

Project Name Parker / Monkey Head Fuels Reduction

Approx.

NEPA Number Acreage Legal Description CX-AZ-070-03- 3 48

Bullhead / BNC CX-AZ-070-03- 10 (CRNC) Fuel Break 54

HESD / Comm Site CX-AZ-330-06- 5 Fuels Reduction 026 (Smith Peak)

HESD / Hargus Cabin Fuels Reduction

CX-AZ-330-06- 1 026

32

(La Paz Co, AZ) Gila & Salt River Meridian T.11_N., R.18_W., sec. 28, all.

(Mohave County, AZ) Gila & Salt River Meridian, T.19_N., R.22_W., sec 10.

(La Paz County, AZ) Gila & Salt River Meridian, T.8_N., R.11_W., sec. 11, NE1/4SE1/4NE1/4, NW1/4SE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4SW1/4NE1/4, NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4.

(La Paz County, AZ) Gila & Salt River Meridian, T.9_N., R.11_W., sec. 33, SW1/4SW1/4SW1/4

Designation WUI

WUI

HFR

HFR

HESD / Incline Railway Fuels Reduction

CX-AZ-330-07- 3 13

Parker Strip (CA)

CX-AZ-070-03- 63.7 46

Bullhead / Needles Revegetation Area

AZ-050-0-2, 4-8 CX-AZ-330-06025

Bullhead / Beale Slough

CX-AZ-330-06- 2-4 025

33

(La Paz County, AZ) Gila & Salt River Meridian, T.7_N., R.13_W., sec. 22, SE1/4SE1/4SW1/4, SW1/4SW1/4SE1/4; sec. 27, NE1/4NE1/4NW1/4, NW1/4NW1/4NE1/4.

(San Bernardino County, CA) San Bernardino Meridian, T.2_N., R.27_E, sec. 10, lot 6; sec. 16, lot 7,8; sec. 17, lot 6; sec. 30, lot 3,4; T.2_N., R.26_E., sec. 25, lot 5,6; sec. 36, lot 3; sec. 35, lot 7; T.1_N., R.26_E., sec. 2, lot 6,8,9; sec. 3, lot 6,7; sec. 10, lot 9; sec. 11, lot 2.

(San Bernardino County, CA) San Bernardino Meridian, T.9_N., R.23_E., sec 33, W1/2SW1/4SE1/4, SE1/4SW1/4SE1/4; T.8_N., R.23_E, sec 4, lot 2.

(San Bernardino County, CA) San Bernardino Meridian, T.8_N., R.23_E., sec 26, N1/2SW1/4NE1/4,

HFR

WUI

WUI

WUI

E1/2SE1/4NW1/4.

DURATION OF PROPOSAL: Five years I. PESTICIDE APPLICATION (Including mixtures, surfactants, and colorants.)

TRADE NAME(s): Pathfinder II, Garlon 3A, Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra mixed with Mor-Act Adjuvant Hi-Light COMMON NAME(s): Pathfinder II, Garlon 3A, and Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra = triclopyr Mor-Act Adjuvant = Oil/Diesel substitute Hi-Light blue marker dye EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER(s): Pathfinder II = 62719-176 Garlon 3A = 62719-37 Garlon 4 = 62719-40 Garlon 4 Ultra = 62719-527 Mor-Act = 2935-50098 MANUFACTURER(s): Pathfinder II, Garlon 3A, and Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra = Dow Agroscience Mor-Act = Wilbur Ellis Hi-Light = Becker Underwood FORMULATION: Liquid \ XX \

Dry \

\

METHOD OF APPLICATION: Herbicide application would be accomplished on foot using a backpack pump sprayer and/or cut-stump method unless individual project-level NEPA documentation has analyzed the use of motorized equipment (i.e., ATV) within the project boundaries.

MAXIMUM RATE OF APPLICATION: All materials will be used according to labeled instructions, “California Vegetation Management - Final EIS, August 1988,” or “Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States, May 1991” – which ever is lower.

•

Triclopyr: 1.5 lbs. a.i./acre for rangelands.

USE UNIT ON LABEL:

34

Pathfinder II = premixed solution; not specified on label; (10.66 gallons/acre if concurrent with 8 lb.s a.i./acre as defined by Garlon 4 Ultra label; calculation made by Vince Aguiar, Dow Agrosciences) Garlon 3A = 2/3 gallon/acre Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra = 1-8 qt./acre Mor-act = 1-4 pints per acre in combination with the recommended herbicide (8-16 gallons Mor-Act per 100 gallons of finished spray) Hi-Lite = ½ oz. per gallon Note: All basal bark treatments may be used to treat susceptible woody species on range and permanent pasture land provided that no more than 1.5 quarts of Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra are applied per acre.

POUNDS ACTIVE INGREDIENT/ACRE: Garlon 3A = 2 lb acid equivalent/acre; Pathfinder II, Garlon 3A, and Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra = 1.5lbs a.i./acre INTENDED RATE OF APPLICATION: All materials will be used according to label.

Pathfinder II Pathfinder II label does not have application rate per acre on label. The acid equivalent of triclopyr in Pathfinder II is 9.81% or 0.75 lb/gal; therefore, no more than 2 gallons of undiluted Pathfinder II should be used per acre.

(Low volume foliar treatment) – Spray Pathfinder II using low pressure and a solid cone or flat fan nozzle on the basal parts of brush and tree trunks in a manner which thoroughly wets the lower 12 to 15 inches of stems, including the root collar area, but not to the point of runoff.

(Cut Stump treatment) – To control resprouting, apply undiluted Pathfinder II to wet the area adjacent to the cambium and bark around the entire circumference and the sides of cut stumps. Sides of the stumps should be thoroughly wetted down to the root collar area, but not to the point of runoff.

Garlon 3A The acid equivalent of triclopyr in Garlon 3A is 3 lb/gal; therefore, no more than 2/3 gallon of Garlon 3A (prior to mixing with adjuvants, etc.) should be used per acre.

(Low volume foliar treatment) – Up to 5 gallons of Garlon 3A in 10 to 100 gallons of unfinished spray. Use sufficient spray volumes to obtain uniform coverage of target plants including the surfaces of all foliage, stems, and root collars.

(Hack and Squirt) – Make cuts around the tree trunk at a convenient height with a hatchet or similar equipment so that the cuts overlap slightly and make a continuous circle around

35

the trunk. Spray ½ milliliter of undiluted Garlon 3A or 1 milliliter of the diluted solution into the pocket created between the bark and the inner stem/trunk by each cut.

(Stump treatment) – Spray or paint the cut surfaces of freshly cut stumps and stubs with undiluted Garlon 3A. The cambium area next to the bark is the most vital area to wet.

Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra The acid equivalent of triclopyr in Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra is 4lb/gal; therefore, no more than 1/2 gallon of Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra (prior to mixing with adjuvants, etc.) should be used per acre.

(Low volume foliar treatment) – 20 quarts of Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra in 10 to 100 gallons of finished spray. Use sufficient spray volume to obtain uniform coverage of target plants including the surfaces of all foliage, stems and root collars.

(Basal Bark treatment) – mix 20 to 30 gallons of Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra in enough oil to make 100 gallons of spray mixture. Spray the basal parts of brush and tree trunks in a manner which thoroughly wets the lower stems, including the root collar area but not to the point of runoff.

(Cut stump treatment) – Apply undiluted Garlon 4 / Garlon 4 Ultra to wet the cambium and adjacent wood around the entire circumference of the cut stump and root collar.

APPLICATION DATE(s): Fall 2008 – Fall 2012 NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS: Twice per year per site with two spot follow-up applications on resprouts. No application or combination of applications will exceed 1.5 lbs. of active ingredient per acre per year.

II. PEST PLANTS (List specific pests and reasons for application.)

Salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) These plant species are invasive along the Colorado River and riparian areas, out compete native plants, reduce native plant diversity and increase hazard fuel load.

III. MAJOR DESIRED PLANT SPECIES Cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow (Salix gooddingii) and mesquite (Prosopis spp.) trees are the desired major plant species.

IV. TREATMENT SITE (Describe land type or use, size, stage of growth of target species, slope and soil type.)

Most treatment sites are within the riparian corridor of the Lake Havasu Field Office and located within the floodplain of the Colorado River. Soils are relatively level alluvial deposits composed of silt, clay and sand. Treatment is to control invasive plants from

36

dominating the floodplain in areas that have been previously treated for hazardous fuels, fuel breaks, riparian restoration projects, recreation areas, or regenerating following wildfire. Treatment sites not located along the riparian corridor are in the Harcuvar Mountains on rocky soils.

ESTIMATED ACRES: 105.7 V. SENSITIVE ASPECTS AND PRECAUTIONS (Describe sensitive areas [e.g., marsh, endangered, threatened, candidate and sensitive species habitat] and distance to treatment site. List measures taken to avoid impact to sensitive areas.)

Only one plant species listed as BLM sensitive (Parish wild onion, Allium parishii) may be present in the affected areas of the Lower Colorado River. Federally listed species are: Southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL), bald eagle, Yuma clapper rail, California brown pelican, bonytail chub, Gila topminnow, Colorado pikeminnow, flannelmouth sucker, razorback sucker, and Mojave Desert tortoise. Yuma clapper rail and razorback sucker habitat is in cattail and bullrush marsh. No marsh vegetation will be sprayed and applicators will exercise caution in avoiding these areas by leaving a 15-foot buffer between sprayed areas and cattail/bullrush marsh areas. SWFL habitat (dense inundated tamarisk or mixed native woodland with a moist understory) will not be treated. The California brown pelican is an uncommon or accidental visitor to LCR riparian areas.

Bonytail chub, Gila topminnow, Colorado pikeminnow, and flannelmouth sucker habitats are shoreline or deeper water and would most likely not be disturbed or disrupted.

Caution would be observed in areas where Mojave Desert tortoise may occur; if any tortoise is observed in treatment areas, conservation measures would be implemented.

Most of the lands being treated under this PUP have been previously cleared mechanically, burned by wildfire, and/or are designated recreation areas.

VI. NONTARGET VEGETATION (Describe impacts to nontarget vegetation in the project area.)

Nontarget vegetation includes, but not limited to: willow, cottonwood, arrowweed, cattail, bulrush, seep willow, quailbush, mesquite, cattail, ironwood, paloverde, and chaparral species in the Harcuvar Mountians (i.e., Garrya, mountain mahogany, grasses).

These species could be setback or killed by drift, volatized active ingredient, or misapplication. These non-target effects will be minimized by utilizing spot application methods, monitoring wind conditions, ensuring temperatures are below the herbicide’s volatilization point, and ensuring applicators will be able to identify nontarget plant species correctly.

VII. INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT (Describe other aspects of the IWM program that are being used in addition to this chemical application in the project area.)

The herbicide treatments detailed in EA-AZ-330-06-16 will be follow-up maintenance treatments for areas that have been previously cleared as riparian restoration, wildland

37

urban interface, healthy forest restoration act, firebreaks, recreations sites or other similar projects. The treatment is to manage for invasive species within the riparian zone. Sites have been previously cleared mechanically, burned in wildfire, or are established recreation sites.

Originator's Signature: ________________________________

Date: ________

Telephone Number: 928-505-1200 Originator's Company Name: LHFO-BLM Certified Pesticide Applicator's Signature: ________________________________

Date: ________

BLM Office Weed\Pesticide Coordinator’s Signature: _______________________________

Date: ________

BLM Manager's Approval: _____________________________

Date: ________

State Coordinator's Signature: __________________________

Date: ________

Deputy State Director's Approval: _______________________

Date: ________

CONCUR OR APPROVED

NOT CONCUR OR DISAPPROVED

CONCUR OR APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS: Any changes to this proposal by the State Pesticide Coordinator will be listed in an attached memo to the Manager requesting approval from the Deputy State Director.

38

APPENDIX C STANDARD PROCEDURES 1. All trash and garbage would be transported off-site and disposed of in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Project areas would be left clean and free of contaminated Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and containers.

2. All refueling, oil changes, or lubrication of machinery would be done in a manner to prevent spills. If these acts occur in the floodplain, a containment basin would be deployed under the machinery receiving service. A spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan will be required in all cases.

3. Should cultural and/or paleontological resources be encountered during project activities, work would cease in the area of the discovery and the BLM will be notified immediately. All survey markers would be protected against damage or destruction.

4. Existing roads and designated entry routes would be used to protect cultural and biological resources.

5. As an extra precaution to protect the Southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL) and Yuma clapper rail, all-terrain vehicle or tractor-mounted herbicide applications would be timed to occur outside the April through October SWFL nesting season. Pedestrian backpack foliar treatments and cut-stump applications would be permissible throughout the year.

6. Equipment and vehicles used for herbicide applications would we washed down with a high pressure hose prior to entering the next project area. This would decrease the spread of invasive weed species from one site to another.

7. Herbicide would only be used when winds are below 10 mph for more than 30 minutes.

8. Short precise bursts would be used when applying herbicide to targeted vegetation.

9. Herbicide would not be applied in temperatures above the manufacturer’s recommendation when volatility of the active ingredients is probable.

10. Prior to commencing any chemical control program, and on a daily basis for the duration of the project, the certified pesticide applicator would provide a suitable safety briefing to personnel working with or in the vicinity of the herbicide application. The safety briefing would include safe handling, spill prevention, cleanup, first aid procedures, and federally listed species identification and concerns. Project supervisor would be required to keep all labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on hand and available for viewing by the project participants. Project participants would be under the direct supervision of a certified applicator certified in the state of application. Crew

39

members would be required to understand and abide by established PPE requirements and rules outlined in the safety plan. Rubber gloves, long sleeve shirts, and goggles are part of the PPE necessary for this project. All information and instructions on the herbicide label would be strictly followed. All herbicide containers would show the product label and would be leak and spill resistant. MSDS would be transported with the herbicide. The MSDS contains fire and explosive hazard data, environmental and disposal information, health hazard data, handling precautions, and first aid information.

All crew members would be required to read and understand pesticide labels and MSDS. 11. Any future vegetation removal projects within SWFL habitat would have site specific surveys to determine SWFL presence or absence before any treatment occurs.

12. All pesticides will be stored in a controlled access area to prevent unauthorized or untrained persons from gaining access to the chemicals. Mixing of herbicides and rinsing of herbicide containers and spray equipment would be conducted only in areas that are adequately ventilated and are a safe distance from environmentally sensitive areas and points of entry to water sources (storm drains, irrigation ditches, streams, lakes or wells).

13. Chemical application would not be conducted when rain is expected within 24 hours or within the time period specified by the chemical label.

14. Herbicides would be marked with colored dye to identify treated areas.

15. When applying an herbicide containing triclopyr by basal bark application or foliar treatment near domestic water sources, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes and ponds, or any other open water, a buffer zone of 15 feet past the legally established high water line, cut-bank, or evident cattail/bulrush marsh vegetation (whichever is furthest from the existing water) would be allocated. A 15 feet buffer zone would also be allocated to agricultural land when applying an herbicide containing triclopyr by basal bark application or foliar treatment.

16. Between the legally established high water line, cut bank, or evident cattail/bulrush marsh vegetation (whichever is furthest from the existing water) and the abovementioned 15 feet buffer line, and within ephemeral streams, also know as dry washes, the only approved method of application would be the cut-stump treatment.

17. Any future vegetetation removal projects would be considered for proximity to known bald eagle nests. The following restriction in three buffer zones around all known bald eagle nests would protect breeding attempts from adverse impacts: Buffer Zone 1: 500-foot radius around the nest. During breeding season – December 1 to June 30: No activity occurs around all known nests. During non-breeding season – July 1 to November 30: No activity would be permitted that would permanently change the landscape. Buffer Zone 2: 500- to 1,000-foot radius around the nest. During breeding season – December 1 to June 30: Limited human activity. During non-breeding season – July 1 to November 30: No activity should permanently change the landscape. Buffer Zone 3: 1,000- to 2,500-foot radius around the nest. During breeding season – December

40

1 to June 30: No activity should permanently change the landscape. During non-breeding season – July 1 to November 30: maintenance activities such as upkeep of existing buildings and roads can occur, but no activity should permanently change the landscape. .

18. Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) would be followed in all areas with known federally protected species or habitats.

19. In the state of California (Parker Strip, Needles Reveg, Beale Slough, etc.,) no herbicide formulation may be applied within 500 feet of any residence or other place of human occupation unless the occupant or resident gives his written consent. Prior to application, BLM will send a correspondence letter to each concessionare, lease holder, and private resident or occupant within 500 feet of planned application areas explaining the need for the action, the human health and environmental safety of planned herbicides, and tentative dates of application. These concessionaires, lease holders, and private residents or occupants will be responsible for informing their visitors of planned and recent applications. Once signatures of consent are obtained from these concessionaires, lease holders, and private residents or occupants through mail-back or small public meeting, herbicide application may proceed. In addition, BLM will post signage informing visitors to campsites and day-use areas of planned and recent applications.

20. Following application, identified river-clay gathering areas would be flagged for one year following application and tribal representatives would be notified of the date and location of application.

41

APPENDIX D FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR THE LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE AREA Common Name

Scientific Name

Status

Bonytail Chub Gila Topminnow Colorado Pikeminnow Flannelmouth Sucker Razorback Sucker

Gila elegans Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis Ptychochilus lucius Catostomus latipinna Xyrauchen texanus

FE/CH FE FE FSC FE

Desert Tortoise (Mojave population)

Gopherus agassizii

FT

California Brown Pelican California Condor Bald Eagle Mountain Plover Yuma Clapper Rail Southwestern Will Flycatcher Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Pelecanus occidentalis Gymnogyps californianus Heliaeetus leucocephalus Charadrius montanus Rallus longirostris yumaensis Empidonax traillii extimus Coccyzus americanus

FE FE FT FPE FE FE FPE

Munz’s Onion Peirson’s Milk-vetch

Allium munzii Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii

FE FT

Designations: FE FT FPE FSC CH

Federally Listed Endangered Federally Listed Threatened Federally Proposed Endangered Federally Species of Concern Critical Habitat

42

REFERENCES CITED Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2004. The Status of Water Quality in Arizona -- 2004, Arizona's Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report -Reissued July 2005 to include EPA revisions. http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download/303-04/bw.pdf Anderson, B.W., A. Higgins, et al. 1977. Avian use of saltcedar communities in the lower Colorado River Valley. In: Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitat.

R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. pp. 128-36.

Anderson, B.W. and R.D. Ohmart. 1985. Riparian revegetation as a mitigating process in stream and river restoration. In: The restoration of rivers and streams: Theories and experience. J.A. Gore. Boston, Massachuchetts, USA, Butterworth Publishers. pp 41-79.

Brotherson, J.D. and V. Winkel. 1986. Habitat relationships of saltcedar (Tamarix ramossissima) in central Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 46:535-541.

Brown, B.T. and M.W. Trosset. 1989. “Nesting-habitat relationships of riparian birds along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona [USA].” Southwestern Naturalist 34(2). pp. 260-270.

Brown, B.T. 1992. “Nesting chronology, density and habitat use of black-chinned hummingbirds along the Colorado River, Arizona.” 63(4). pp. 393-506.

Cohan, D.R., B.W. Anderson, and R.D. Ohmart. 1979. Avian population response to salt cedar along the lower Colorado River. In: R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick, eds., Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and other Riparian Ecosystems. Pp. 371-382. USDA Forest Service GTR WO Columbia University. 2001. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoffburg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/Tamarix_ramosissima.html Dudley, T.L., C.J. DeLoach, et al. 2000. “Saltcedar invasion of western riparian areas: impacts and new prospects for control.” Transactions of North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 65. pp. 345-381.

Ellis, L. M. 1995. “Bird use of saltcedar and cottonwood vegetation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, U.S.A.” Journal of Arid Environments 30(3). pp. 339349.

Ellis, L.M., C.S. Crawford, et al. 1997. “Rodent communities in native and exotic riparian vegetation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of central New Mexico.” Southwestern Naturalist 42(1). pp. 13-19.

43

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., B.W. Anderson, et al. 1985. Summer avian community composition of Tamarix habitats in three Southwestern desert riparian systems. In: Riparian ecosystems and their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. R.R. Johnson. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. pp. 128-34.

Jakle, M.D. and T.A. Gatz. 1985. Herpetofaunal use of four habitats of the Middle Gila River drainage, Arizona. In: Riparian ecosystems and their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D. R. Paton, P.F. Ffolliott and R.H. Hamre.

Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. pp. 355-358.

Koronkiewicz, T.J., M.A. McLeod, B.T. Brown, and S.W. Carothers. 2004. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher surveys, demography, and ecology along the lower Colorado River and tributaries, 2003. Annual report submitted to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV by SWCA Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff, AZ. 125 pp.

Laymon, S.A. and M.D. Halterman. 1989. A proposed habitat management plan for yellowbilled cuckoos in California. In: Proceedings of the California Riparian Systems Conference: protection, management, and restoration for the 1990s. D.L. Abell, Technical Coordinator. Berkeley, CA, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. pp. 272-277.

Marshall, R.M., and S.H. Stoleson. 2000. Threats. Pages 13-24 in Status, ecology, and conservation of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-60.

McDowell, Nora. 2005. Personal Communication. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe.

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. pp. 44, 5, and 7.

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. pp.14, 46, 59, 81, 83.

McLeod, M.A., T.J. Koronkiewicz, B.T. Brown, and S.W. Carothers. 2005. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher survey, demography, and ecology along the lower Colorado River and tributaries, 2004. Annual report submitted to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boultder City, NV, by SWCA Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff, AZ. pp. 155.

Neill, W. M. 1985. “Tamarisk.� Fremontia 12. pp. 22-23.

44

Phillips, S.J. and P.W. Comus, eds. 2000. A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert.

Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum. Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum Press, Tucson, AZ and University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. pp.13-16.

Rosenberg, K.V., R.D. Ohmart, W.C. Hunter, and B.W. Anderson. 1991. Birds of the Lower Colorado River Valley. United States of America, University of Arizona Press.

Schroeder, A.M. 1993. Effect of tamarisk removal on avian distributions at Camp Cady Wildlife Area in the California Mojave Desert. Environmental Studies. Fullerton, California State University.

Unitt, P. 1987. Empidonax traillii extimus: an endangered subspecies. Western Birds 18: 137- 162.

USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil Survey of Yuma-Wellton Area. pp.14, 15, 23.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Yuma District Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. pp. 7, 8, 15, 279-280. _____. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Vegetation Treatment of BLM Lands in thirteen Western States. _____. 1998. Overview of BLM’s NEPA Process, Arizona BLM Desktop Reference.

Taken from BLM Manual H-1790-1, appendix 5.33 _____. 2003. Yuma-Lake Havasu Fire Zone Fuels and Prevention Management Plan with Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS; internal publication.) _____. 2004. 1202 Fire Occurrence Record. _____. 2004. Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management, and Decision Record. Arizona State Office. Appendix B. pp. 26-48. _____. 2004. Yuma/Havasu Fire Management Zone Fire Management Plan. . 2006. Information Bulletin No. 2007-028: Updating List of Approved Herbicide Formulations and Adjuvants _____. 2007. Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement . _____. 2007. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in the 17 Western States, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft).

45

USDI, Bureau of Reclamation. 2004. Environmental Impact Statement, Multi-Species Conservation Program.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. 1994. Lower Colorado River National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. pp. 21-23.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Final rule determining endangered status for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Federal Register 60: 10694-10715 _____. 2001. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan, Draft and Final.

Albuquerque, New Mexico. CD rom citation. pp. v, K-11, H-6, H-7. _____. 2002. Final recovery plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailli extimus). Prepared by Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup, August 2002. _____. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register, Vol. 70 (201), Rules and Regulations.

USDI, Policy. 1960. Sikes Act USDI, Policy. 1966. National Historic Preservation Act. USDI, Policy. 1986. Colorado River Floodway Protection Act, PL 99-950, section 7.

USDI, Policy. 2004. Healthy Forests Restoration Act. USDOD, Army, Yuma Proving Ground. 2001. Final Range Wide Environmental Impact Statement. pp. 35-36.

Weisenborn, W. 1996 and 2001. “Saltcedar Impacts on Salinity, Water, Fire Frequency and Flooding”. Saltcedar Management Workshop. June 12, 1996. January 7, 2001. http://bluegoose.arw.r9fws.gov/NWRSFile...tMgmt/SaltcedarWorkshopJun96/Paper3.

46