[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