[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53026-53030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26352]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision For the Yuma Training Range Complex, Arizona 
and California

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the Council on Environmental Quality 
regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy 
announces its decision to upgrade the capability of the Yuma Training 
Range Complex (YTRC).

DATES: This decision takes effect October 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Questions regarding the environmental impact statement (EIS) 
prepared for this action may be directed to Commanding Officer, Marine 
Corps Air Station, Box 99160, Yuma, AZ 85369-9160.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ron Pearce, Director, Range 
Management Department, (520) 341-3401, fax (520) 341-2216, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision has been made to approve the 
following actions, which are described in more detail in the EIS:
    Discontinue authorization for and use of the low-level holding 
areas for fixed-wing aircraft over the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife 
Refuge (NWR). Allow the corridors for low-level overflights of the 
Cabeza Prieta NWR by fixed-wing aircraft to be activated for use on up 
to 60 days per year but not more than 7 consecutive days at a time; 
implementation of airspace proposals over the Cabeza Prieta NWR will 
require the renegotiation of the Memorandum of Understanding among the 
Marine Corps, Air Force, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service governing 
low-level military aircraft overflights of the Cabeza Prieta NWR. 
Replace the 11 existing corridor segments for low-level overflight of 
the Cabeza Prieta NWR by rotary-winged aircraft (i.e., helicopters) 
with three distinct corridors identified to resolve endangered species 
(Sonoran pronghorn and lesser long-nosed bat) protection issues 
(Alternatives 1-3, 1-4 and 1-5).
    Establish a new restricted area, designated R-2507E, contiguous 
with the northeastern side of R-2507S, that will increase the 
restricted airspace available to support aviation training operations 
without exceeding land boundaries of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial 
Gunnery Range (Chocolate Mountain Range) (Alternative 2-3).
    Establish an overlying controlled firing area contiguous to R-2507N 
to support overhead firing for Naval Special Warfare Group One training 
(Alternative 3-2).
    Add new target scenarios to the existing Moving Sands and Cactus 
West target inert impact areas in the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force 
Range (Goldwater Range) (Alternative 4-2).
    Construct a narrow-width runway/roadway for AV-8B roadway 
operations at auxiliary airfield two in the Goldwater Range 
(Alternative 5-2).
    Relocate the parachute drop zone for cargo recovery to a position 
southeast of auxiliary airfield two (Alternative 6-2).
    Establish three ground support zones in the Goldwater Range to 
consolidate existing ground support areas in selected intensive use 
locations, designate four new individual ground support areas in 
unserved locations west of the Gila Mountains, and inactivate the use 
of four ground support areas that are not currently needed. The 
designation of one new individual ground support area near Stoval 
Auxiliary Field inside the retired Multiple Aimpoint Validation test 
area but outside of the Mohawk Mountains and Sand Dunes Areas of 
Critical Environmental Concern was proposed as part of this 
alternative. The Marine Corps will not establish this additional ground 
support area at this time (Alternative 7-3).
    Install five new Tactical Aircrew Combat Training System range 
threat emitters in the Goldwater Range (Alternative 8-2).
    Increase the maximum net explosive weight limits for air-to-ground 
ordnance delivery at the Chocolate Mountain Range to twelve MK-82 (500-
pound) bombs, six MK-83 (1,000-pound) bombs, or four MK-94 (2,000-
pound) bombs per aircraft pass (Alternative 9-2).
    Rescind the prohibition on night ordnance delivery training on the 
Chocolate Mountain Range between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. No specific 
proposal currently exists to implement this action alternative. 
Subsequent environmental documentation will be completed as required 
prior to implementing night ordnance delivery under this alternative 
(Alternative 10-2).
    The proposal to authorize air-to-ground delivery of live ordnance 
in the southwestern portion of R-2507 of the Chocolate Mountain Range 
has been withdrawn from further consideration (Alternative 11-2). Any 
future proposal to authorize air-to-ground delivery of live ordnance in 
this area would be evaluated in subsequent environmental documentation, 
as appropriate, once a proposal is ripe for consideration.
    Develop three new individual targets and redevelop targets at seven 
inactive individual target sites in the Chocolate Mountain Range 
(Alternative 12-2).
    Relocate the two off-range ground support areas and drop zone to 
positions inside the Chocolate Mountain Range boundary (Alternative 13-
2).
    Inactivate use of Training Area 1 and Firing Zones 1 and 2 for 
ground training activities, and relocate the Naval Special Warfare 
Group One training activities conducted in those locations to Training 
Area 2, to be redesignated Special Warfare Training Area 4. In 
addition, develop Special Warfare Training Area 4 to accommodate 
relocated weapons training by Naval Special Warfare Group One. As a 
result of this action, a training requirement of Naval Special Warfare 
Group One currently cannot be met. A proposal may be developed by the 
Department of the Navy to establish a range capable of supporting a 360 
degree field of fire. Though no proposal currently exists, it seems 
likely an alternative that would be evaluated is the Chocolate Mountain 
Range. Environmental documentation would be prepared, as appropriate, 
once a proposal is ripe for consideration. In addition, any proposal to 
expand Naval Special Warfare Group One training activities or construct 
new facilities on the Chocolate Mountain Range would be evaluated in 
subsequent environmental

[[Page 53027]]

documentation, as appropriate. Training Area 1 and Firing Zones 1 and 2 
will continue to be active for aviation training (Alternative 14-2).

Alternatives Considered

    The proposed actions are functionally independent of each other and 
have stand alone value for improving the YTRC. Alternatives were 
identified that met mission requirements while maximizing protection 
for the environment. As a result, only three alternative sets had more 
than one action alternative identified. For the remaining 11 
alternative sets, only the proposed action and no action alternatives 
were identified. The no action alternative to each proposal would 
result in no changes to existing YTRC facilities or procedures. In 
addition to the preferred alternatives and no action alternatives, the 
EIS considered the following alternatives in detail:
    Replace the 11 existing corridor segments for low-level overflights 
of the Cabeza Prieta NWR by rotary-wing aircraft with three distinct 
corridors. The three corridors of this alternative include different 
locations than those proposed in preferred Alternative 1-5 (Alternative 
1-2).
    Allow the corridors for low-level overflights of the Cabeza Prieta 
NWR by fixedwing aircraft to be activated for use on up to 36 days per 
year but not for more than seven consecutive days at a time 
(Alternative 1-6).
    Establish a new restricted airspace, designated as R-2507E 
contiguous with the northeastern side of R-2507S, that will increase 
the restricted airspace available to support aviation training 
operations over the southeast section of the Chocolate Mountain Range 
and adjoining offrange lands (Alternative 2-2). This is different from 
the selected alternative as it would establish airspace outside of the 
Range land boundary.
    Establish three ground support zones to consolidate existing ground 
support areas in selected intensive use locations, designate four new 
individual ground support areas in unserved locations west of the Gila 
Mountains, designate one new individual ground support area near Stoval 
Airfield at the western end of the retired Multiple Aimpoint Validation 
test area inside the Mohawk Mountains and Sand Dunes Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern, and close four ground support areas that are no 
longer needed (Alternative 7-2).

Selected and Environmentally Preferred Alternatives

    The environmentally preferred alternative for an action alternative 
is generally one that avoids or minimizes new ground disturbance, 
minimizes noise on sensitive receptors, or results in a net beneficial 
environmental affect. This discussion identifies the environmentally 
preferred alternative for each action alternative and provides the 
rationale in those cases when the environmentally preferred alternative 
was not chosen.
YTRC Airspace Alternatives
    Discontinuing flight holding areas (Alternative 1-3) is 
environmentally preferred over no action (Alternative 1-1) as this 
action would eliminate the potential for noise from aircraft that may 
use the holding areas. No action and replacing the 11 rotary-winged 
corridors with 3 corridors to resolve endangered species protection 
issues (Alternative 1-5) are environmentally preferred over replacing 
the 11 corridors with 3 corridors that overlie areas of greater 
sensitivity to Sonoran pronghorn and lesser long-nosed bats 
(Alternative 1-2). No action may be environmentally preferable to 
Alternative 1-5 in terms of recreation use as it does not include 
helicopter overflights of the Childs Valley; however, the minimal 
occurrence of overflights associated with the Weapons Tactics 
Instructor course is not regarded as a significant intrusion of the 
Cabeza Prieta NWR. Alternative 1-5 was developed in cooperation with 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game and Fish 
Department to increase training flexibility while also reducing impacts 
to the endangered Sonoran pronghorn during the semiannual Weapons 
Tactics Instructor Courses. This alternative, though, will increase the 
potential for wildlife exposure to noise. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Biological Opinion of April 17, 1996, addressing the actions 
being evaluated in the YTRC EIS determined that noise associated with 
this action alternative will not jeopardize the existence of the 
Sonoran pronghorn. The Biological Opinion also determined that other 
listed species will not be adversely affected by noise resulting form 
this action alternative. Therefore, noise impacts on wildlife from this 
action alternative are not considered significant. Accordingly, 
Alternatives 1-3 and 1-5 were chosen as they meet the military 
requirements of the Marine Corps, provide the best level of protection 
for sensitive biological resources, and have minimal impacts on 
recreational users of the Goldwater Range.
    No action is environmentally preferred over allowing fixed-wing 
overflights of the Cabeza Prieta NWR on up to 60 days per year 
(Alternative 1-4) and allowing fixed-wing overflights of the Cabeza 
Prieta NWR on up to 36 days per year (Alternative 1-6) because taking 
no action would limit the days low-level flights and thus limit the 
noise exposure to wildlife and the potential noise exposure to refuge 
visitors. Alternative 1-4 would also increase the potential for 
wildlife exposure to noise. The Sonoran pronghorn is the only federally 
listed species that may be adversely affected by noise from this action 
alternative. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion of 
April 17, 1996, addressing the actions being evaluated in the YTRC EIS 
determined that noise associated with this action alternative will not 
jeopardize the existence of the Sonoran pronghorn. The Biological 
Opinion also determined that other listed species will not be adversely 
affected by noise resulting form this action alternative. Therefore, 
noise impacts on wildlife from this action alternative are not 
considered significant. Accordingly, Alternative 1-4 was chosen as it 
meets mission requirements of the Marine Corps while not significantly 
impacting sensitive noise receptors.
    An aggregate noise effect will occur from implementing Alternative 
1-5 whether fixed-wing aircraft use of low-level airspace over Cabeza 
Prieta occurs as described by Alternative 1-4 or not. Low-level 
overflight of Cabeza Prieta NWR by rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft 
occurs on the same days only during the semiannual Weapons Tactics 
Instructor courses. Rotary-wing aircraft could overfly the Charlie Bell 
Pass area during Weapons Tactics Instructor courses for the first time 
as a result of implementation of Alternative 1-5, thus adding the noise 
of rotary-wing aircraft to fixed-wing aircraft in this area. At the 
same time, realignment of the rotary-wing corridors per Alternative 1-5 
will reduce rotary-wing overflights and noise at Tule Well Camp. Fixed-
wing aircraft noise will remain as the predominant aircraft noise 
source at both locations during the Weapons Tactics Instructor courses. 
With implementation of Alternative 1-4, fixed-wing aircraft noise alone 
would affect Cabeza Prieta NWR during non-Weapons Tactics Instructor 
course periods. None of the proposed action alternatives will 
significantly reduce civilian access to airspace. Restrictions on 
civilian use of the YTRC airspace have been ongoing and will continue 
as a measure to protect all airspace users by separating dissimilar 
uses. However, when the airspace has not been scheduled for military 
use it has been and will

[[Page 53028]]

continue to be open to use by civilian aircraft. The EIS evaluation of 
cumulative noise impacts determined that the action alternatives will 
not result in a significant cumulative noise impact with any other 
aircraft use of the YTRC airspace. When emissions from military 
aircraft are considered cumulatively with other emission sources, the 
resulting air quality within the YTRC region remains below de minimis.
    No action (Alternative 2-1) is environmentally preferred over 
establishing a new restricted airspace that extends beyond the 
Chocolate Mountain Range boundary (Alternative 22) and establishing a 
new restricted airspace within the Range boundary (Alternative 2-3). No 
action would avoid the potential for bighorn sheep to be exposed to an 
increase in aircraft noise and would limit the area of noise exposure. 
However, Alternative 2-3 would have no significant environmental 
affect. Accordingly, Alternative 2-3 was chosen as it met the mission 
requirements of the Marine Corps while not significantly impacting 
sensitive noise receptors.
    No action (Alternative 3-1) is environmentally preferred over 
establishing a Controlled Firing Area for Naval Special Warfare Group 
One training (Alternative 3-2) as the no action alternative avoids 
small arms noise that could potentially affect wildlife or residents 
that live near the Range. However, Alternative 3-2 would have no 
significant environmental affects. Accordingly, Alternative 3-2 was 
chosen as it meets mission requirements of the Marine Corps while not 
significantly impacting sensitive noise receptors.
Goldwater Range Alternatives
    Adding new target scenarios at Moving Sands and Cactus West targets 
(Alternative 4-2) and no action (Alternative 4-1) are indistinguishable 
in regard to environmental preference. Alternative 4-2 would result in 
either no affect or no change from the no action alternative. However, 
Alternative 4-2 is more beneficial in its military training capability.
    No action (Alternative 5-1) is environmentally preferable over 
constructing a runway/roadway for AV-8B aircraft operations 
(Alternative 5-2) because it avoids the loss of several acres of flat-
tailed horned lizard habitat and avoids particulate emissions 
associated with construction activities. Construction of the facility, 
though, will be accomplished in accordance with the Flat-Tailed Horned 
Lizard Range Wide Management Strategy and the environmental analysis 
determined that air emission impacts resulting from facility 
construction will not significantly degrade air quality. Accordingly, 
Alternative 5-2 was chosen as it meets mission requirements of the 
Marine Corps while not significantly impacting sensitive biological 
resources or air quality.
    Relocating a drop zone from its current location to a position 
southeast of auxiliary airfield two (Alternative 6-2) is 
environmentally preferable over no action (Alternative 6-1). 
Alternative 6-2 would move the drop zone to an area of less sensitive 
flat-tailed horned lizard habitat, reduce the potential for flat-tailed 
horned lizard mortality from vehicle activity, eliminate conflicts with 
the explosive ordnance disposal operating area, and reduce the slight 
potential conflict with general aviation.
    No action (Alternative 7-1), restricting ground units to existing 
ground support areas, is environmentally preferable over establishing 
new ground support areas (Alternatives 7-2 and 7-3). The no action 
alternative avoids new ground disturbance and associated effects such 
as the potential for soil erosion and the loss of flat-tailed horned 
lizard and Sonoran pronghorn habitat. In a comparison of Alternatives 
7-2 and 7-3, the selected alternative, 7-3, is environmentally 
preferred as it avoids the creation of a ground support area within an 
Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Nonetheless, there would be a 
potential increase of impacts to flat-tailed horned lizard habitat and 
a small increase in ground activity within the range of the Sonoran 
pronghorn. Impacts to these two species are not considered significant 
as the action alternative is being implemented using protocols 
established in the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Range Wide Management 
Strategy, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion of 
April 17, 1996, addressing the actions being evaluated in the YTRC EIS 
determined that the action will not jeopardize the existence of these 
species. Accordingly, the selected alternative was chosen as it meets 
mission requirements of the Marine Corps while not significantly 
impacting sensitive biological resources.
    No action (Alternative 8-1) to maintain the existing Tactical 
Aircrew Combat Training System range is environmentally preferable over 
expanding the capability of this range by installing five new threat 
emitters (Alternative 8-2). The no action alternative avoids the 
potential for soil erosion, surface water sedimentation following 
rainfall, vegetation loss, particulate matter increases, and changes to 
the landscape that are associated with ground disturbance and facility 
installation. However, each threat emitter site will only result in the 
disturbance of 1,500 square feet. Efforts will be made to avoid 
vegetation whenever possible during emitter installation. The emitters 
will be located along an existing power line and will not be out of 
keeping with facilities one would expect to find on the Goldwater 
Range. Emitter installation and operation would not significantly 
impact the environment. Accordingly, the selected alternative, 8-2, was 
chosen as it meets the mission requirements of the Marine Corps while 
not significantly impacting sensitive biological resources, air 
quality, or visual resources.
    The combination of implementing alternatives 4-2, 5-2, 6-2 and 7-3 
jointly would affect a larger area of flat-tailed horned lizard 
habitat. However, the overall affect is on a relatively minor portion 
of the species range and is not significant. In addition, this action 
alternative will comply with the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Range Wide 
Management Strategy. Ground disturbing activities that result from 
implementing these alternatives would cause a minimal potential for 
increased soil erosion and surface water sedimentation following 
rainfall in locations that were not previously disturbed. The threshold 
for PM10 emissions that would require a conformity 
determination in compliance with the Clean Air Act is 100 tons per 
year. Implementation of this alternatives grouping will result in an 
increase of PM10 emissions of 22.22 tons per year. 
Accordingly, a conformity determination is not required and the impact 
is considered not significant. Goldwater Range cumulative effects 
evaluated recreational use managed by the Bureau of Land Management; 
operations of the U.S. Border Patrol; wildlife management planning and 
operations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Department of 
Game and Fish, and the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Technical 
Advisory Team; highway planning of the Yuma Metropolitan Planning 
Organization; military operations of the Marine Corps and the U.S. Air 
Force. A plethora of unimproved roads and off-road driving areas that 
are contrary to current management plans exists. As discussed in the 
EIS, the Marine Corps will not create new roads and will ensure that 
its ground vehicles only use designated roads. Marine Corps ground 
activities will not cumulatively create additional roads or off-road 
driving areas that are

[[Page 53029]]

counter to existing management plans. Impacts to biological resources 
result from aircraft and vehicular use of the Goldwater Range. Marine 
Corps activities will not significantly affect these resources 
cumulatively. Marine Corps activities will cumulatively result in air 
quality degradation. However, this degradation will not violate Arizona 
air quality standards.
Chocolate Mountain Range Alternatives
    Maintaining the existing net explosive weight limits per no action 
(Alternative 9-1) is indistinguishable environmentally over increasing 
weight limits for air-to-ground ordnance delivery (Alternative 9-2). 
While the selected alternative will increase the ordnance weight limit 
allowed per aircraft pass, the total weight limit of each aircraft 
dropping ordnance will not increase. Accordingly, noise levels will 
increase, but this increase is not significant. In addition, the target 
areas have been used extensively over the past 50 years and no longer 
contain constituent elements of critical habitat for the desert 
tortoise. Ordnance detonation of increased explosive weight loads per 
aircraft pass will not significantly impact this species or its 
habitat.
    No action (Alternative 10-1) is environmentally preferred to 
authorizing night ordnance delivery training (Alternative 10-2). No 
action avoids increases in noises at night that may affect off-range 
residences and nocturnal wildlife species. However, as noted earlier, 
no specific proposal exists to drop ordnance during these hours. 
Environmental documentation will be prepared pursuant to NEPA, as 
appropriate, when a proposal is ripe for consideration.
    No action (Alternative 12-1) is environmentally preferred over 
developing three new targets and redeveloping seven inactive targets 
(Alternative 12-2). No action avoids effects that may be associated 
with ground disturbance, such as the potential for soil erosion, 
surface water sedimentation following rainfall, minor losses of 
vegetation, increases in particulate emissions, and potential effects 
on cultural resources. Target development would not significantly 
impact the environment. Accordingly, the selected alternative, 12-2, 
was chosen as it meets mission requirements of the Marine Corps while 
not significantly impacting sensitive biological resources or air 
quality.
    While relocating two ground support areas and a drop zone to 
positions inside the Range boundary (Alternative 13-2) may potentially 
result in minor vegetation losses, this alternative is environmentally 
preferable over no action (Alternative 13-1) because relocation 
eliminates the military use of Bureau of Land Management administered 
lands outside the Range and eliminates potential safety concerns.
    Relocating Naval Special Warfare Group One training activities to a 
new Training Area 2 (Alternative 14-2) is environmentally preferable 
over no action (Alternative 14-1). While Alternative 14-2 may 
potentially result in some soil erosion and surface water sedimentation 
following rainfall in Training Area 2, this alternative also reduces 
the potential for erosion and surface water sedimentation following 
rainfall in the training areas that would be discontinued from use. In 
addition, Alternative 14-2 reduces potential impacts on the desert 
tortoise by moving ground training activities outside of habitat 
designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as critical for this 
species.
    The aggregate of alternatives 12-2, 13-2 and 14-2 will result in a 
minimal potential for increases in soil erosion and surface water 
sedimentation following rainfall. The combination of target development 
and relocation of Naval Special Warfare Group One training will result 
in increased noise at residences south of the Chocolate Mountain Range 
boundary; this noise, though, will not be significant. Marine Corps 
activities will cumulatively result in air quality degradation. 
However, this degradation will not result in a net increase in non-
attainment criteria pollutants. Marine Corps activities when 
cumulatively evaluated will remain below de minimis. Air quality is the 
only resource that may be cumulatively affected as the Chocolate 
Mountain Range is closed to public access. This prohibition on public 
entry in conjunction with Marine Corps land management activities has 
created a large, well preserved habitat for sensitive biological 
species.

Mitigation

    The Marine Corps previously adopted measures to protect the 
resources of the Goldwater and Chocolate Mountain Ranges. These 
measures will be continued and include protocols for appropriate waste 
disposal, restrictions on off-road vehicle use, spill containment, and 
explosive ordnance disposal sweeps.
    To mitigate impacts resulting from the actions being taken, the 
Marine Corps will initiate a host of measures as described on pages S-
40 through S-44 of the Final EIS. These measures include requiring 
units that deploy to Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma provide an 
exercise control group that will be responsible for ensuring the 
compliance of their unit with Standing Operating Procedures for the use 
of training areas. Also, MCAS Yuma will establish a single point of 
contact to receive and investigate report of unauthorized use of 
airspace and ground training areas of the Ranges. Finally, MCAS Yuma 
will host annual conferences with representatives of agencies involved 
with land and resource management on the Goldwater and Chocolate 
Mountain Ranges in order to review the previous year's training 
activities, share information regarding Range resource protection, and 
receive input from the agencies and the public about MCAS Yuma 
operations and environmental issues.
    The Marine Corps will implement all terms and conditions of the 
Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion for the Goldwater Range 
issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on April 17, 1996. The 
Marine Corps will continue to work with Luke Air Force Base in 
evaluating potential effects to Sonoran pronghorn populations from 
ordnance delivery and unexploded ordnance at target sites on the North 
and South tactical ranges. To this end, the Marine Corps has joined 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Department of Game and 
Fish and U.S. Air Force to study noise and risk affects on Sonoran 
pronghorn use of target areas on the Goldwater Range. This three year 
study, which began in 1997, will assess the long term noise effects of 
military overflight and ordnance delivery on the Sonoran pronghorn by 
monitoring Sonoran pronghorn use in the North and South TAC Ranges of 
the Goldwater Range, response of fawns to noise, and doe/fawn 
interactions in the presence of aviation noise.
    The Marine Corps has been involved with recovery of the Sonoran 
pronghorn since 1993. Examples of this involvement include a 1993-1997 
study to evaluate the use of free standing water by the Sonoran 
pronghorn by surveying the use of waterholes in the Cabeza Prieta NWR, 
an ongoing study initiated in 1994 to determine productivity and 
recruitment, range distribution and movement patterns through the use 
of radio collars, an ongoing study initiated in 1997 to determine the 
use of North and South TAC ranges on the eastern portion of the 
Goldwater Range using radio collars, and an ongoing computer analysis 
study initiated in 1998 to determine the probability of Sonoran 
pronghorn encounters with low-level overflights.

[[Page 53030]]

    The Marine Corps, in coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department, will continue to conduct 
long-term studies to assess the effects of low-level aviation on the 
Sonoran pronghorn. These studies will measure and analyze the effects 
of Marine Corps low-level overflights on the Sonoran pronghorn, 
including the Weapons Tactics Instructor course. If the preliminary or 
final conclusions of a study indicate that Marine Corps activities are 
resulting in adverse affects on the Sonoran pronghorn, or any other 
threatened or endangered species, the Marine Corps will reinitiate 
Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The 
Marine Corps will actively engage in the Sonoran pronghorn recovery 
effort by developing and implementing appropriate priorities 
established by the Sonoran Pronghorn Core Working Group, including but 
not limited to ground plot watering, fence modification, and 
coordination with cross-border Mexican conservation efforts.
    The Marine Corps will implement those appropriate portions of the 
Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Range Wide Management Strategy. The Marine 
Corps will also cooperate with the Department of Interior in the 
development of a management plan for the Yuma Desert and Sand Dunes 
Habitat Management Area, and the Gran Desierto Dunes Area of Critical 
Environmental Concern. Finally, the Marine Corps will implement all 
terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion for the Chocolate 
Mountain Range issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on April 
18, 1996, and will support surveys of bat and bighorn sheep 
populations.
    Ground disturbing activities will be minimized within Areas of 
Critical Environmental Concern as much as practicable. Roads closed to 
military vehicle traffic will be posted.
    Military vehicle access to existing ground support areas along the 
El Camino del Diablo backcountry byway in the Goldwater Range will be 
via a limited number of designated roads. Off-road use within the 
existing support areas will be excluded within the first 100 meters of 
this backcountry byway; all other entrance roads will be obscured 
within 100 meters of the byway. New support areas will be located at 
least 400 meters (about .25 miles) from the byway; military vehicle 
access will be limited.
    A noise study will be completed to determine the specific noise 
impacts that would be anticipated prior to implementing reauthorized 
aerial bombing after 10 p.m. in the Chocolate Mountain Range.
    Cultural resources will continue to be considered during 
implementation of the actions in accordance with the programmatic 
agreements with the Arizona and California State Historic Preservation 
Officers. Surveys to inventory and evaluate cultural resources within 
sites to be developed will occur prior to ground disturbance. In 
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officers, Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation, and other concerned agencies and 
concerned tribes, specific measures will be developed and implemented 
to accommodate cultural resources discovered.
    With adoption of these measures, the Marine Corps has adopted all 
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 
alternatives selected.

Information Available Subsequent to Completion of the EIS

    Subsequent to the completion of the EIS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service adopted the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Range-Wide Management 
Strategy. The Marine Corps is a signatory party to this plan. 
Information from this plan was used to support the decisions identified 
in this Record Of Decision. This species is currently not listed as 
endangered or threatened. However, in the event this species is listed 
the Marine Corps will seek to reinitiate Section 7 Consultation with 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its activities which may affect 
this species.
    The cactus ferruginous pygmy owl was listed as an endangered 
species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after the EIS was 
published. In compliance with the terms and conditions of the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Conference Opinion that addresses the actions associated 
on the Goldwater Range, the Marine Corps conducted surveys for this 
species in all likely habitat east and north of the Cabeza Prieta 
Mountains. No owls were found. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
revised the Conference Opinion based on this information and concluded 
that the actions associated with the Goldwater Range would not likely 
affect this species.
    The U.S. Air Force drafted a Biological Assessment, and its 
addendums, for military activities associated with the eastern portion 
of the Goldwater Range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued an 
interim Biological Opinion based on this assessment and addendums. 
Information from the interim Biological Opinion was used to support the 
decisions identified in this Record Of Decision.

Conclusion

    The Department of the Navy believes that there are no outstanding 
issues to be resolved with respect to this action. This Record of 
Decision is being executed with the concurrence of the Secretary of the 
Air Force who is responsible for administering military activities on 
the Goldwater Range in accordance with Public Law 99-606.

    Dated: September 24, 1998.
Duncan Holaday,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Facilities).
[FR Doc. 98-26352 Filed 10-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P