Environmental Assessment

Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Plan

January 2020

Prepared By:

Tasha Harden U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge

2

Table of Contents

Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 4

Background ................................................................................................................................. 4

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................................ 6

Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Alternatives Considered .............................................................................................................. 6

Alternative A – Continue Current Management Strategies (No Action Alternative) ............. 7

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative – Opening Hunting on LCNWR ..................... 7

Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed from Further Consideration ................................... 10

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 10

Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 10

Environmental Consequences of the Action ............................................................................. 11

Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 12

Hunted Species – Big Game: mule deer, white-tailed deer, black bear, and javelina .......... 12

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species ..................................................................................... 19

Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species ................................ 19

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 20

Soils....................................................................................................................................... 21

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 21

Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 22

Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ................................................................................................... 22

Visitor Use and Experience .................................................................................................. 22

Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 23

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 23

Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives................................................................................. 24

Refuge Management and Operations .................................................................................... 24

Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 25

Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................... 25

Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................... 25

Indian Trust Resources ......................................................................................................... 26

3

Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 26

Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ........... 27

Summary of Analysis ................................................................................................................ 30

Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 32

List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted ................................................................... 32

References ..................................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................... 35

Attachment 01: LCNWR Vicinity Land Status Map .................................................................... 38

Attachment 02: LCNWR Open and Closed Area; AZGFD 30A Hunt Unit ................................. 39

4

Environmental Assessment for Opening Hunting on Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this proposed action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment.

Proposed Action The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to open hunting to provide public hunting opportunities where there are currently none and to better come into alignment with State hunting opportunities. Hunting will be open for Migratory Game Bird, Upland Game, and Big Game hunts on the Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge (LCNWR/refuge) in accordance with the refuge’s Hunt Plan and Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).

Migratory Game Birds hunts: Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), white-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica), and Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto).

Upland Game hunts: Badger (Taxidea taxus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coati (Nasua narica), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), desert cottontail (Silvylagus audubonii), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), raccoon (Procyon lotor), ring-tailed cat (Bassariscus astutus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), hooded skunk (Mephitis macroura), western spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis), and American hog-nosed skunk (Conepatus leuconotus).

Big Game hunts: Black bear (Ursus americanus), javelina (Pecari tajacu), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).

Public hunts on LCNWR have not been allowed since its establishment in 1988. The objectives of this proposed action are to provide public hunting opportunities, where there are currently none, and to better come into alignment with State hunting opportunities. Approximately 810 acres of the refuge are proposed to be opened for hunting; the open area includes all refuge lands north of Leslie Canyon Road.

This proposed action is often iterative and evolves over time during the process as the agency refines its proposal and learns more from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The final decision on the proposed action will be made at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA and the Draft 2020–2021 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations.

Background National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge

5

Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

Leslie Canyon NWR was established in 1988 under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 in order ". . . to conserve fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species. . . or plants." Specifically, to protect two of the eight native fish species of the Río Yaqui watershed: the Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea) and the Yaqui topminnow (Poeciliopsis sonoriensis).

The 2,765-acre refuge is 17.5 miles north of the international border with Mexico in southeast Arizona's Cochise County and is one of more than 550 national wildlife refuges, a federal network of lands and waters set aside for the benefit of wildlife.

A unique velvet ash-black walnut-cottonwood forest along Leslie Creek exists and is important for many migrating and nesting birds. While there are many species of birds (more than 340 species), reptiles (approximately 43 species), and mammals (approximately 67 species) at Leslie Canyon NWR, the property is managed primarily for the benefit of federally listed threatened and endangered fish and frog species: the Yaqui topminnow, Yaqui chub, and the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis).

The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is:

“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

The NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4):

● Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the NWRS;

● Ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans;

● Ensure that the mission of the NWRS described at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried out;

● Ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the NWRS are located;

● Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of the NWRS and the purposes of each refuge;

● Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the NWRS through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;

6

● Ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses; and

● Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.

Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Public hunts on LCNWR have not been conducted since its establishment in 1988. This plan proposes to provide the visitor with an additional recreational opportunity where hunting opportunities on public lands are limited. The public is able to access the open area (Attachment 02) of LCNWR every day of the week, during daylight hours. The public can also participate in hiking, wildlife photography, wildlife observation, environmental education, bicycling, and horseback riding. Fishing, camping, and off-road vehicular traffic are not permitted.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on LCNWR. The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)).

This action is also needed to effectively implement Secretarial Order 3356, which directs bureaus and offices within the Department of Interior (DOI), in collaboration with States, tribes, and territorial partners, to implement programs to enhance hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting opportunities on DOI-managed lands and waters, while also promoting conservation activities.

Alternatives Alternatives Considered Future funding and staff concerns have been discussed between refuge staff regarding the ability to open the refuge to hunting. Discussions on a No Action approach have been mentioned and will be addressed below as Alternative A, Continue Current Management Strategies.

Conversations with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) have been ongoing. The AZGFD commented that they propose completely opening the entire refuge up for all hunting opportunities to be in full alignment with their hunting regulations, methods of take, and seasons. AZGFD also proposed that the refuge at least allow hunting of all species with full alignment on regulations, methods of take, and seasons in the refuges open area. These issues will be discussed below under Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Consideration.

7

Alternative A – Continue Current Management Strategies (No Action Alternative) None of the refuge is currently open to hunting. Current practices would continue where the public would have access to the open section of the refuge (approximately 810 acres) for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, scientific research, environmental education, hiking, horseback riding, and bicycling (including e-bikes). The refuge would not expend financial resources or personnel hours to a hunt program at LCNWR.

Current refuge uses occur year round with over 15,000 visitors traveling through LCNWR annually (19,409 in 2019). The majority of visitors travel through in their vehicles, engaging in wildlife observation (19,409 in 2019). Lower amounts of visitors utilize the visitor log and document hiking (128 in 2019), photography (13 in 2019), or other uses (90 in 2019) on refuge. The refuge largely does not conduct interpretive programs onsite, and environmental education on site is generally once a year for the local community college biology class. Given this typical pattern of visitor use, the refuge typically expects to spend approximately $16,978 annually to manage and operate this program.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative – Opening Hunting on LCNWR The refuge has prepared a hunt plan, Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Plan, which is presented in this document as the Proposed Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the refuge will allow designated hunts in the area that is currently open to public access (all refuge lands north of Leslie Canyon Road) for a total of approximately 810 acres. Leslie Canyon NWR is located in the southern portion of State Hunt Unit 30A, approximately 17.5 miles north of the United States-Mexico international border. The open area of Leslie Canyon NWR is approximately 810 acres, and includes all refuge lands north of Leslie Canyon Road (see attached map). This area is open to public uses, and would be opened to hunting of all the species proposed. This area is open to non-motorized access only.

Hunting would be open for the following migratory game birds, upland game, and big game:

Migratory Game Birds hunts: Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), white-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica), and Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto).

Upland Game hunts: Badger (Taxidea taxus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coati (Nasua narica), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), desert cottontail (Silvylagus audubonii), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), raccoon (Procyon lotor), ring-tailed cat (Bassariscus astutus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), hooded skunk (Mephitis macroura), western spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis), and American hog-nosed skunk (Conepatus leuconotus).

Big Game hunts: Black bear (Ursus americanus), javelina (Pecari tajacu), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).

Hunting on Leslie Canyon NWR would align with State age requirements and State bag limits. Hunters must poses any and all State and Federal required licenses, tags, and stamps. The refuge would align with State hunting methods, with the following exception: we prohibit falconry, pneumatic weapons, night hunting, and the use of dogs for pursuit or retrieval.

8

Hunting Periods: Species in alignment with State seasons (AZGFD): mule deer, white-tailed deer, mourning dove, white-winged dove, Eurasian collard-dove, javelina, gambel’s quail, and scaled quail.

Mule deer: • General hunts occur during November of each year (~14 days). • Youth only hunts occur during October of each year (~7 days). • Archery only non-permit tag hunts occur during August, September, December, and

January of each year (~71 days).

White-tailed deer: • General hunts occur during October, November, and December of each year (~42 days). • Youth only hunts occur during October of each year (~7 days). • Archery only non-permit tag hunts occur during August, September, December, and

January of each year (~71 days).

Mourning dove, white-winged dove, and Eurasian collared-dove: • Early season occurs during September of each year (~15 days). • Late season occurs during November, December, and January of each year (~30 days). • *Note that Eurasian collared-dove is not allowed year-long on refuge; it is only allowed

during the other dove seasons.

Javelina: • General hunts occur in February of each year (~7 days). • Youth only hunts occur in January, February, and November of each year (~17 days). • Archery only spring hunts occur in January of each year (~23 days).

Gambel’s quail and scaled quail: • General hunts occur in October, November, December, January, and February of each

year (~115 days).

Species not in alignment with State (AZGFD) seasons: badger, black bear, bobcat, coati, coyote, gray fox, black-tailed jackrabbit, cottontail rabbit, raccoon, ring-tailed cat, striped skunk, hooded skunk, western spotted skunk, and American hog-nosed skunk. Hunting of these species will only be allowed when their State season dates overlap with a general or archery State deer and/or javelina hunt season (i.e., these species may only be hunted during State deer or javelina seasons). Youth may hunt these species during youth only deer or javelina seasons.

Season overlaps occur in August, September, October, November, and December of each year: • Black bear (~71 days).

Season overlaps occur in August, September, October, November, December, January, and February of each year:

• Badger, bobcat, gray fox, raccoon, and ring-tailed cat (~116 days). • Coyote, striped skunk, hooded skunk, western spotted skunk, and American hog-nosed

skunk (~116 days).

9

• Coati, jackrabbit and cottontail rabbit (~116 days).

The refuge hunt area is open for hunting during daylight hours only. Leslie Canyon Road is a gravel road maintained by Cochise County, and is the main route for vehicular access through Leslie Canyon NWR, which contains self-guided visitor services activities. During inclement weather, four-wheel drive high clearance vehicles are recommended. Basic services include a small parking area, regulatory signs, and educational signs. The open hunt area is non-motorized access only off of Leslie Canyon Road, and parking is to be in the parking lot or responsibly along road side. The portion of the refuge opened to hunting is also open to other public uses such as hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, wildlife photography, and wildlife observation during the hunting seasons. Hunters and visitors alike should be mindful of other groups. For those hunters needing assistance accessing the refuge due to a physical disability, they may contact the refuge manager to work out appropriate special arrangements. Hunting is on a first-come, first-served basis. If in the future, the number of hunters increase to a level that requires more control over access, the issue will then be addressed.

The refuge does not currently propose charging fees for any hunting at Leslie Canyon NWR.

The total number of expected hunters to utilize the refuge is 620–1,238 hunters. Expected number of hunters was estimated using a percent of the amount of permits issued from AZGFD for permit only general hunts, specifically unit 30A (AZGFD 2019/2020 Hunt regulations; AZGFD 2020 Spring Turkey, Javelina, Bison and Bear). In an attempt to account for non-permit hunt hunters, youth hunters, and to address that not every permitted hunter will use the refuge, we calculated our estimate by using 25–50 percent of general hunt permits issued in unit 30A.

General Mule deer permits: 750 • Expected number of refuge hunters: 188–375

General White tail deer permits: 1,415 • Expected number of refuge hunters: 354–708

Bear annual harvest limit: 10 • Expected number of refuge hunters: 3–5

Javelina permits: 300 • Expected number of refuge hunters: 75–150

Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts: ● Hunting will not be allowed on any refuge lands south of Leslie Canyon Road for the

same reason that no public entry is allowed in that area: to avoid conflicts with sensitive habitat and listed species.

● Hunting with pursuit dogs will not be allowed to reduce unintended wildlife harassment. ● Signage will be erected to identify that hunting is allowed in the open area. ● Silent pneumatic weapons will be prohibited to reduce safety concerns by other user

groups and refuge staff. ● Hunting information will be posted on the refuge website, to include maps and a hunter

tearsheet.

10

Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed from Further Consideration During communications with AZGFD, they expressed a desire to open the entire refuge to hunting of all species and to have complete alignment with their seasons, methods of take, and regulations. Due to ecological concerns, this alternative will not be further considered. The refuge will maintain a closed area for protection of sensitive riparian habitat and listed species. The listed species in this area include the Chiricahua leopard frog, Yaqui chub, and Huachuca water umbel. AZGFD also proposed that the refuge allow hunts for all species, in full alignment with their methods and regulations, in the open area. This alternative will also not be further considered. Not all species occur on the refuge in the open area, such as waterfowl and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana). Furthermore, refuge funding and staffing is not adequate to manage any more hunting opportunities than what the refuge is proposing. The refuge is estimating that it will cost $50,934.00 to run the hunt program and conduct monitoring and enforcement on the program for 6 months out of the year. Should the refuge open hunting year long as the State requested it would double that cost and staff time. The refuge has one project leader, one assistant manager, one law enforcement officer, one biologist, one heavy equipment operator, and one administrative technician who are responsible for San Bernardino Refuge as well. The refuge biologist is responsible for conducting all annual monitoring for the two refuges biological priorities, select identified projects, and projects assigned from various levels within the agency. As well as data management, analysis, and report writing for all monitoring conducted. The refuge law enforcement officer is responsible for patrolling the two refuges and complex wide, which includes Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge law enforcement officer is also responsible for completing assigned monitoring duties as well. The workload that opening hunting year round would have on refuge staff is not appropriate.

The refuge did consider opening to mountain lion (Puma concolor) hunting; however, with recent endangered jaguar (Panthera onca) sightings in close proximity to the refuge, mountain lions were dismissed to minimize potential conflicts that may arise from misidentification between species. Several jaguar sightings have occurred around the Chiricahua mountain range within the last 5 years. In order to avoid any mistaken shooting of jaguars, hunting of mountain lion will be closed to hunting on the refuge.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment LCNWR is located in southeast Arizona's Cochise County in the Swisshelm Mountain range. With a unique velvet ash-black walnut-cottonwood forest along Leslie Creek, LCNWR offers an oasis within the surrounding Chihuahuan Desert Scrub landscape. In the open area of the refuge, the purposed action area, Leslie Creek only flows during monsoon flood events. Due to this lack of constant water, the lush sensitive habitat and listed species that are located in the closed area of the refuge are not found in the open area. The open area does not have historic resources, cultural resources, wetlands, or other ecologically critical areas.

The refuge consists of approximately 2,765 acres in Cochise County, Arizona (See map at Attachment 01).

11

LCNWR is primarily Chihuahuan desert scrub. The proposed action is located in the current open area on the refuge, which is all lands north of Leslie Canyon Road (See map of the general area and proposed project site on the refuge at Attachment 02).

For more information regarding the affected environment, please see the refuge’s Comprehensive Management Plan, which can be found here: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/san-bernardino-and-leslie-canyon-national-wildlife-refuges-comprehensive-management-plan The refuge will not be analyzing the following resources given there will not be an impact on them: water resources, soils, air quality, physiology, geology, visual resources, and wilderness.

Environmental Consequences of the Action This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This EA only includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource.” An analysis of the effects of management actions has been conducted on the physical environment (air quality, water quality, and soils); biological environment (vegetation, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species); and socioeconomic environment (cultural resources, socioeconomic features including public use/recreation, and visual and aesthetic resource). Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action have been dismissed from further analyses.

Impact Types: ● Direct effects are those that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and

place. ● Indirect effects are those that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. ● Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

The sections below contain brief descriptions of each resource affected by the alternatives considered and anticipated direct and indirect impacts on each resource.

12

Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Hunted Species – Big Game: mule deer, white-tailed deer, black bear, and javelina Regional Analysis Deer: The most numerous, widespread and popular of Arizona's big game animals are deer. The State has two distinct species, the mule deer and the white-tailed deer. The most abundant deer in Arizona is the Rocky Mountain mule deer. Mule deer are not limited to any one type of terrain, found from sparse, low deserts to high, forested mountains. Generally, they prefer the more rugged country. State deer permit numbers gradually increased after 1972, leveling off at around 70,000 per year between 1976 and 1982, when hunters took more than 12,000 mule deer, approximately 75 percent of the total deer harvest. Then, a series of wet winters resulted in an increase in fawn survival rates, and hunter numbers and the numbers of deer bagged increased accordingly until 1986, when nearly 86,000 hunters took 25,566 deer, of which 77 percent were mule deer. Since then, another series of droughts has occurred and deer hunting opportunity is again being curtailed. Today, mule deer comprise about 60 percent of the total deer harvested. Prospects in the near future are even more discouraging, but mule deer are "boom and bust" animals. With the advent of better than average winter rains, mule deer populations will once again improve (AZGFD03).

Bear: In Arizona, the black bear is found in most woodland habitats, including pinyon-juniper, oak woodland, coniferous forest, and chaparral. An interesting footnote to black bear distribution in Arizona is the absence of any sizeable population of black bears north of the Colorado River. Normal reproductive cycles in Arizona black bears may be adversely effected by drought and resultant poor physiological condition. Black bears are relatively long-lived animals, with some individuals exceeding 20 years of age. The low reproductive potential of this species is becoming an increasingly important management consideration. Concern about the bears’ relatively low reproductive rate caused the Department to monitor the bear harvest more closely. Accordingly, mandatory checkout procedures were initiated in 1980. Other recent changes in regulations have included the authorization of a permit-only spring season in select units, the elimination of bearbaiting as a method of take, and unit harvest limits in which the season is closed after a certain number of female bears are taken. As of July 2006, bears hunters are required to present their bear to the Arizona Game and Fish Department for inspection (AZGFD04).

Javelina: Javelina have increased in distribution in Arizona during the 20th century and are now common throughout southern Arizona (AZGFD18). They suffer periodic setbacks, however, primarily due to diseases such as distemper, parvo, and by freezing temperatures. The AZGFD increased the annual bag limit for javelina from 1 to 2 in 2013 due to large numbers of permits going unsold.

Local Analysis It is understood that big game species utilize the refuge as part of much larger territories/ranges, taking advantage of the water resources that are found within the refuges

13

closed area. The deer population at the refuge primarily consist of white-tailed deer, although mule deer have been documented on trail camera traps.

There has been no hunting allowed in the past; therefore, the refuge has no refuge specific species harvest information available. There have been no trend surveys conducted for the above species on LCNWR. The above big game species have been documented on refuge, in the open area with trail camera traps. The majority of occurrences however, have occurred within the refuges closed area where water is typically present year-round.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Impacts expected from not implementing any of the action alternatives are minimal. The refuge would continue current management with no hunting allowed in the 810 acres, and the above big game species would continue to utilize the refuge periodically as part of their larger territories/ranges. The species overpopulating the refuge is not a concern at this time. Temporary disturbances of the species from current use by visitors would continue to result along the 2.5 miles trail that is located within the 810 acres. Approximately 200 visitors per year utilize this refuge trail.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Short-term impacts expected include disturbance and temporary displacement of hunted species due to hunter presence. The refuge estimates, however, that there would be limited mortality to the hunted species, and that impacts on local populations will be negligible due to the small size of the refuge open area and due to the species being observed more often in the closed area of the refuge. Based on a 36 percent success rate for deer hunters in 2016 (AZGFD 2017) and an average of 750 permits issued for mule deer and 1,415 permits issued for white-tailed deer for the entire GMU 30A (AZGFD 2019/2020 Hunt regulations; AZGFD 2020 Spring Turkey, Javelina, Bison and Bear), it is anticipated that approximately 1 to 2 deer would be taken on the refuge. Six black bears were harvested in the entire GMU 30A in 2016 (AZGFD 2017), so we do not anticipate more than one to two bears to be taken on the refuge in a year. Eighteen javelina were harvested in the entire GMU 30A in 2017 (AZGFD 2017), so we also would not anticipate more than one javelina to be harvested on the refuge. Impacts to the regional populations are expected to be negligible given that the above species are hunted throughout unit 30A and the entire State in accordance with State hunting regulations. Due to the refuges small hunt area of approximately 810 acres, any take of animals on refuge will not affect the overall population of the species within State hunt unit 30A, which is approximately 1,728 square miles (On X maps 2018).

Given the refuge has been closed to hunting since its establishment in 1988, it is projected that many hunters will visit the area during the first year of hunting. We may experience higher number of hunters and thus take of animals, but after the first year of hunting, it is assumed that hunter numbers will drop to lower numbers. Staff estimate that initial first year hunter expectations will not be met. This is due to the small size of the open area creating high levels of competition between hunters, and the fact that species documented occurrence is higher in the closed area of the refuge. Staff will establish a hunter log in, and after the first year will have more accurate data on the actual number of hunters actually stopping and utilizing the refuge.

14

Hunted Species – Migratory game birds: mourning, white-winged, and Eurasian collared-dove Regional Analysis Mourning dove: This is the most common and widely occurring game bird in Arizona. Mourning doves occur from the lowest elevations along the Colorado River upward through forests of ponderosa pines to 8,500 feet. Their staple foods throughout the year are primarily small seeds and cultivated grains. Although some doves can be found nesting on the ground in open prairies, the best nesting habitats are brushlands and woodlands within the Sonoran Desert. In southern Arizona, nesting is essentially over by mid-August, and some of the early-hatched juveniles have already migrated by late July. By the first week of September, the migration of most nesting populations is usually underway, the juveniles typically leaving before the adults (AZGFD05).

White-winged dove: There are two types of white-winged dove populations in Arizona: a thinly scattered population found throughout the Sonoran Desert and the surrounding countryside (including towns and residential neighborhoods), and colonial populations that nest collectively along river bottoms adjacent to agricultural areas. Most of the desert and residential area white-winged doves nest only once and migrate out of the State prior to the opening of the dove season on September 1. The colonial white-winged doves, however, usually nest twice before departing for their wintering areas in southwestern Mexico. These are the white-winged doves that are most often present after September 1, and which contribute most to the harvest (AZGFD06).

Eurasian collared-dove: The Eurasian collared-dove is an invasive species and a relative newcomer to North America and Arizona. In the 1970s, a shipment of Eurasian collared-doves was sent to an exotic bird dealer in the Bahamas in place of an order of ringed-neck turtle doves (also known as the Barbary dove). They were then accidentally released and quickly made their way to Florida by the mid-1980s. They grew in numbers, and then began making their way westward. The Christmas bird counts performed annually by the Audubon Society place the first recorded sightings in Arizona in 2001. Since that time, their numbers have been steadily increasing and can be found in all areas of the State (AZGFD07).

Local Analysis It is understood that the above species utilize the refuge as part of much larger territories/ranges, taking advantage of the water resources that are found within the refuges closed area. There has been no hunting allowed in the past; therefore, the refuge has no refuge specific species harvest information available. There have been no trend surveys conducted for the above species on LCNWR. The above migratory game bird species have been observed and documented on refuge by refuge staff and refuge volunteers, with higher occurrences in the closed area of the refuge.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

15

Impacts expected from not implementing any of the action alternatives are minimal. The refuge would continue current management with no hunting allowed in the 810 acres, and the above migratory game bird species would continue to utilize the refuge periodically as part of their larger territories/ranges. The species overpopulating the refuge is not a concern at this time. Temporary disturbances of the species from current use by visitors would continue to result along the 2.5 miles trail that is located within the 810 acres. Approximately 200 visitors per year utilize this refuge trail.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Short-term impacts expected include disturbance and temporary displacement of hunted species due to hunter presence. The refuge estimates, however, that there would be limited mortality to the hunted species, and that impacts on local populations will be negligible due to the small size of the refuge open area and due to the species being observed more often in the closed area of the refuge. Impacts to regional populations are expected to be negligible given that the above species are hunted throughout unit 30A and the entire State in accordance with State hunting regulations. Statewide take for each dove species can range between 80,000 and 1 million doves (AZGFD 2016), and any harvest of these species on the refuge is not expected to reach more than one percent of the overall statewide harvest. Due to the refuge’s small hunt area of approximately 810 acres, any take of animals on refuge will not affect the overall population of the species within State hunt unit 30A, which is approximately 1,728 square miles (On X maps 2018). Hunted Species – Upland Game: Gambel’s quail, scaled quail, cottontail, black-tailed jackrabbit, gray fox, coati, badger, striped, hooded, spotted, and hog-nosed skunks, bobcat, raccoon, ring-tailed cat and coyote Regional Analysis Quail: Gambel's quail is by far the best known. Found throughout the State, this bird is often hunted in open desert country. The scaled quail is found primarily in the open country of eastern Arizona; this quail, too, is more likely to run than hold. Gambel's quail is found throughout the Sonoran and Mojave deserts upward in elevation through semi-desert grassland and chaparral to the edges of pinyon-juniper woodland and pine forest. The scaled quail is a bird of semi-desert grasslands and the Chihuahuan desert, preferring open plains and foothills. Clutch and brood sizes are often large, ranging up to a dozen or more chicks, and both the cock and the hen care for the young. Quail populations are dependent on seasonal rainfall and may fluctuate greatly from year to year. Gambel’s and scaled quail form fall and winter coveys that are likely to remain in the same general area where they were raised. Quail seasons and bag limits varied in response to quail numbers and the success of the hatch. In some years, such as 1946–8, reproduction was so poor that no season was authorized. It was believed that unless the ratio of young to adult quail observed on summer surveys was more than 2.1:1, a hunt could not be justified, and even when there was a season, it might be only two days long with a five-bird bag limit. In the 1950s and early 1960s, research showed that hunting mortality was compensatory to natural mortality, and a standardized season from mid-October through the end of the month, followed by another season from November 1 through the end of January, gradually became the norm, along with a 15-bird bag limit. Later, the

16

month of November was also opened to quail hunting and the closing date delayed until mid-February. These season dates are still used today for Gambel’s and scaled quail (AZGFD08).

Cottontail: Despite, or perhaps because of, their relative abundance, little is known about the life histories of Arizona cottontails. Only one study has been conducted on desert cottontails, and none on eastern and mountain cottontails. Although we know that cottontail rabbits may vary from amazing abundance in one year to relative scarcity the next, we have little insight as to what factors other than winter rainfall control their numbers. Cottontail rabbits are very prolific and those feeding on green growth may have up to five litters of two to four young a year. Although the desert cottontail is able to breed throughout the year, most young rabbits are produced in spring when the new growth of plants is most available. At other times of the year, selected foods include twigs, newly emerging grasses, weeds, and even cacti. Cottontails rarely drink, and free water does not appear to be a requirement for either their survival or reproduction. The cottontail hunting season has always been year-long in Arizona, and the bag limit has been 10 rabbits per day for many years. Although some hunters consider cottontail hunting with a .22 rifle as their primary sport, cottontails traditionally have been taken in Arizona in conjunction with dove and quail hunting. As a consequence of the wide fluctuations in both cottontail and quail numbers, the annual take of cottontails is highly erratic, ranging from a reported high of about 850,000 rabbits in 1979 to less than 45,000 in 2002 (AZGFD09).

Black-tailed jackrabbit: Arizona’s jackrabbit populations are not systematically surveyed, nor are their harvests and hunt success reported. Many small mammals in Arizona are hunted and are R-selected species which are generally very abundant across the landscape and hunting does not impact them negatively. Therefore the state does not have bag-limits on them and do not need to track harvest data (AZGFD R.Tucker, personal communication, December 6, 2019).

Gray fox: Gray fox are the most numerous and most often seen fox. They are regularly active during daylight hours and are found throughout the State. Kit fox prefer sandy areas and are almost exclusively nocturnal spending much of the day underground. Gray fox account for the majority the fox taken and trapped in Arizona. The annual take of about 3,500 fox by hunters, predator callers, and trappers has been relatively stable in recent years and not a major source of mortality in the Statewide fox population. Diseases such as rabies, distemper, and other canine sickness, as well as drought-related factors, control the fox population much more than any human related source of mortality (AZGFD10).

Coati: Coatis occur in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and south through Mexico and Central America into the far northwestern portion of South America and in over nearly the entire south half of Arizona. White-nosed coatis primarily occur in mixed conifer forest, coniferous and mixed woodlands, and juniper savanna; they are also commonly observed in montane scrub, Chihuahuan desert scrub, closed basin scrub, plains-mesa grassland, and desert grassland (Biota Information System of New Mexico 2008a).

17

Badger: Badgers feed primarily on burrowing rodents such as prairie dogs and ground squirrels but also take snakes, lizards, and insects on occasion. Mating in these usually solitary animals takes place in the summer, the young being born the following spring due to delayed implantation. Primarily a nocturnal animal, badgers are sometimes encountered during the early morning hours. Although the take of badger pelts averaged more than a 1,000 a year in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the number of these animals recently trapped in Arizona is virtually insignificant. A few badgers are undoubtedly also taken incidental to pursuing other game, but these numbers too are very small. In all, probably less than 50 badgers a year are taken in the State (AZGFD11).

Skunk: The most common of the species by far is the cat-sized striped skunk that occurs throughout Arizona. The striped skunk is not only Arizona's most frequently seen skunk, it is also the largest. These skunks are active throughout the year and do not hibernate even in northern Arizona; the males instead form communal dens with several females. The closely related hooded skunk is the striped skunk's Mexican counterpart. It is generally confined to southeastern Arizona, although specimens have reportedly been taken as far north as Flagstaff and the Mogollon Rim. The western spotted skunk has been reported from every county in Arizona, however it appears to favor rocky, mountainous areas. The hog-nosed skunk occurs primarily in southeastern Arizona although specimens have been obtained from as far north as Flagstaff and the Hualapai Mountains. Formerly a major furbearer, striped skunks in Arizona have dropped in average take to fewer than 100 per year since 1995. This is in some ways unfortunate, as uncontrolled populations of these animals are prone to rabies and constitute a health hazard to other carnivores, as well as to humans (AZGFD12).

Bobcat: Hunters report taking approximately 2,000 bobcats a year. Most of these are taken by hunters pursuing other game or by predator calling. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, when bobcat prices were high and foothold traps could be used on public land, Arizona trappers caught and exported roughly 6,000 bobcats a year, with a high in 1980 of over 9,500. This number has fallen substantially due to the law making foothold traps unlawful on public land and the decrease in the value of a bobcat pelt. Today trappers report taking less than 1,000 bobcats annually (AZGFD13).

Raccoon: A relatively common animal along Arizona’s perennial streams, lakes, and reservoirs, raccoons can also be found near some of the larger stock tanks and in rural areas where permanent water is available. Both pursued with dogs as game, and trapped as a fur-bearer, the raccoon is one of only a few species in Arizona that can be legally taken with a firearm at night. Because of their limited distribution near water, “coons” have never been important fur-bearers, and annual harvests from trapping have rarely exceeded 1,000 pelts. With the decline in trapping activity over the past 10 years, this take has been reduced to only a few dozen raccoons a year. Although its nocturnal habits make for few incidental takings, the raccoon’s status as a game animal appears more stable. Hunt questionnaire data from general license

18

buyers indicate an annual harvest of another 1,200 animals a year. Most of this harvest is undoubtedly by hunters with hounds (AZGFD14).

Ring-tailed cat: Ring-tailed cats are found in rocky areas throughout Arizona with about the only areas devoid of ringtails being flat, alluvial valleys. Ring-tailed cats are not a target species for trappers and usually taken incidentally. With the decline in the number of trappers, as well as the prohibition on the use of foot hold traps, the number of ringtail cats taken Statewide has declined significantly to less than 50 animals a year (AZGFD15).

Coyote: Coyotes are Arizona’s most common predator and found throughout the entire State. The take of coyotes by hunters has been relatively stable during the past 10 years, about 13,000 hunters taking an average of between 30,000 and 40,000 coyotes a year. Most of these animals are taken while "varmint calling," while hunting other game, or simply as opportunities arise. Formerly, trappers rivaled sport hunters in the number of coyotes taken, but the reported take of trapped coyotes during the past 10 years has averaged approximately 700 a year. The principal reason for this reduced take is undoubtedly is the decline in market value of a coyote pelt as well as the prohibition of the use of foothold traps on public land (AZGFD16).

Local Analysis It is understood that the above species utilize the refuge as part of much larger territories/ranges, taking advantage of the water resources that are found within the refuges closed area. There has been no hunting allowed in the past; therefore, the refuge has no refuge specific species harvest information available. There have been no trend surveys conducted for the above species on LCNWR. The above upland game species have been documented on refuge, in the open area with trail camera traps. The majority of occurrences however, have occurred within the refuges closed area where water is typically present year round.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Impacts expected from not implementing any of the action alternatives are minimal. The refuge would continue current management with no hunting allowed in the 810 acres, and the above migratory game bird species would continue to utilize the refuge periodically as part of their larger territories/ranges. The species overpopulating the refuge is not a concern at this time. Temporary disturbances of the species from current use by visitors would continue to result along the 2.5 miles trail that is located within the 810 acres. Approximately 200 visitors per year utilize this refuge trail.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Short-term impacts expected include disturbance and temporary displacement of hunted species due to hunter presence. The refuge estimates, however, that there would be limited mortality to the hunted species, and that impacts on local populations will be negligible due to the small size of the refuge open area and due to the species being observed more often in the closed area of the refuge. Statewide harvest in 2014 was 1,074 bobcats; 24,792 coyotes; 4,173 foxes; and 909 raccoons (AZGFD 2016). Given that these species, along with quail, rabbit, coati, badger, skunk, and ring-tailed cat are hunted throughout unit 30A and the entire State in

19

accordance with State hunting regulations, we do not expect hunting for any of these species on the refuge to impact regional populations. Any take on the 810-acre area open to hunting on the refuge for any of these species is not expected to be more than one percent of the overall statewide harvest of these species. Given that the refuge has been closed to hunting since its establishment in 1988, it is projected that many hunters, up to approximately 1,200, will visit the area during the first year of hunting. After the first year of hunting, it is assumed that hunter numbers will drop to lower numbers.

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species The refuge supports a diversity of wildlife species in southeastern Arizona, including game and nongame species, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates, which are important contributors to the overall biodiversity on the refuge. More than 340 species of birds have been documented on refuge, along with approximately 43 species of reptiles and approximately 67 species of mammals.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Impacts expected from not implementing any of the action alternatives are minimal. The refuge would continue current management with no hunting allowed in the 810 acres, and the species would continue to pass through or reside on the refuge, utilizing what reliable water resources are located in the closed area. Severe decline or overpopulation under this alternative is not expected for other wildlife and aquatic species at this time. Temporary disturbances of the species from current use by visitors would continue to result along the 2.5 miles trail that is located within the 810 acres. Approximately 200 visitors per year utilize this refuge trail.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The proposed hunt will result in minor short-term impacts for non-hunted resident and migratory wildlife. Impacts will include disturbance and temporary displacement of non-hunted resident wildlife and migratory wildlife due to hunter presence. The significance is minimal given that hunters will only be allowed in the open area, which is approximately 810 acres of the refuges total 2,765 acres. The disturbance impacts on non-hunted resident wildlife and migratory wildlife will be similar to impacts generated by other visitor uses such as wildlife observation and photography. However, hunting will not be allowed year-long like some other visitor uses; hunting will only take place approximately 6 months out of the year. During the approximate 6 months of the year when hunters can be present, the non-hunted species would be able to move into the closed area of the refuge for relief from hunter presence and disturbance.

Threatened and Endangered Species and other Special Status Species The refuge was established primarily for the conservation and management of two of the eight native fish species of the Río Yaqui watershed, the Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea) and the Yaqui topminnow (Poeciliopsis sonoriensis). Other listed species that depend on refuge habitats include the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) and Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. Recurve). Yaqui chub, Yaqui topminnow, Chiricahua leopard frog, and Huachuca water umbel are found year-round at LCNWR. The only location they currently survive year-round is in the closed area of the refuge. This area is immediately

20

across Leslie Canyon Road from the open area, and is upstream from the open area. The terrain in the open area, which is nearest this sensitive habitat, is very steep and rough making hunting of any species in that part of the open area difficult and unlikely. During seasonal flooding, the water in Leslie Creek will reach into the open area, but generally dries up quickly. Hunting on LCNWR will take place from August through February each year, the majority of hunt seasons will be during the dry season and chances of any of these species being present in the open area are very low.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) There are no impacts expected from not implementing any of the action alternatives. The refuge would continue current management with no hunting allowed in the 810-acre area and would maintain the closure for the closed area. These species are supported by the sensitive habitat in the closed area and would continue to receive the needed protection, which includes annual monitoring, salvaging, and reintroductions. Occasional trespass by individuals entering the closed area would continue which results in temporary disturbance to species in the closed area. On average, the refuge captures on camera approximately 5 trespass instances per year.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The proposed action and alternatives will not impact any species of special management concern. While there are endangered species in close proximity to the 810-acre area, the terrain in that part of the open area does not favor hunting. Hunting, along with all public entry, would continue to be prohibited in the closed area. Occasional trespass by individuals entering the closed area is expected to slightly increase, which results in temporary disturbance to species in the closed area. With an increase in visitation by hunters the refuge expects the trespass numbers to range from 10 to 20 instances per year.

An Intra-Service Section 7 was completed in conjunction with this environmental assessment.

Vegetation Vegetation in LCNWR is Chihuahuan desert scrub, which includes creosote brush, ocotillo, agave, mesquite, and some grasses. The vegetation of special management concern is the Huachuca water umbel, currently found only in the closed are of the refuge.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Negligible impacts expected from not implementing any of the action alternatives. The refuge would continue current management with no hunting allowed in the 810 acres and would maintain the closure for the closed area. Minimal vegetation disturbance would continue with other public uses, specifically along the 2.5-mile trail which see approximately 200 visitors per year. Huachuca water umbel is supported by the sensitive habitat in the closed area and would continue to receive the needed protection, which includes annual monitoring and reintroductions as needed.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Approximately 29 percent of the refuge would be open to hunting during the specified seasons. The refuge service road in LCNWR doubles as a trail for visitors. Most visitors are

21

documented traveling through LCNWR, hiking on the service road, or hiking in Leslie Creek. The refuge terrain is steep and rough, generally limiting visitors to the canyon bottoms. While it is expected that hunters may travel off trail and hike in areas that other visitors typically do not, the amount of expected hunters is lower than non-consumptive users, with hunters ranging from 620 to 1,238 and non-consumptive users exceeding 15,000 each year. Negligible effects are expected to overall Chihuahuan desert scrub vegetation from trampling of hunters due to the rough terrain, and in comparison low number of hunters. Huachuca water umbel is supported by the sensitive habitat in the closed area and would continue to receive the needed protection, given that hunting, along with all public entry, would continue to be prohibited in the closed area.

Soils The USDA Soil Conservation Service (1978, 2003) identified 4 major soil associations on the refuge including:

1. White House Tubac Forest association which is a deep well drainage, fine textured soil occurring on nearly level to hilly sites.

2. Kimbrough Cave Association, which occurs on level to moderately steep sites as a shallow, well-drained, medium textured soil over a lime-cemented hardpan.

3. Luzena-Faraway Association which is a shallow to very shallow cobbly and gravelly soil overlaying andesita and rhyolite on steep to very steep sites.

4. Totugas Association occurs on similar sites as the Kimbrough Cave Association as a shallow to very deep cobbly and stony loam over limestone.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Negligible impacts expected from not implementing any of the action alternatives. The refuge would continue current management with no hunting allowed in the 810 acres and would maintain the closure for the closed area. Minimal soil disturbance and compaction would continue with other public uses. The refuge service road in LCNWR doubles as a trail for visitors, the road is approximately 1.25 miles long. Most visitors are documented traveling through LCNWR, hiking on the service road, or hiking in Leslie Creek. Soil disturbance from other uses is generally concentrated and occurs on the refuge service road or the dry creek bed.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) The refuge terrain is steep and rough, generally limiting visitors to the canyon bottoms. While it is expected that hunters may travel off trail and hike in areas that other visitors typically do not, the amount of expected hunters is lower than non-consumptive users, with hunters ranging from 620 to 1,238 and non-consumptive users exceeding 15,000 each year. Negligible effects are expected to soil resources from hunters.

Air Quality The refuge is a designated Class II Clean Air Area, as are most National Wildlife refuges, by the Clean Air Act. This means that limited sources of pollution can be permitted on and near the refuge as long as the levels of particulate, matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide do not exceed the class II increments.

22

The refuge is located in a rural setting approximately 90 air miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona and approximately 40 miles north of Agua Prieta, Mexico. Agua Prieta is the largest city near the refuge and has an approximate population of 80,000 people.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Negligible impacts expected from not implementing any of the action alternatives. The refuge would continue current management with no hunting allowed in the 810 acres. Current visitor uses, from over 15,000 visitors a year would continue, with minimal vehicle emissions resulting in visitation.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Negligible impacts expected from implementing hunting on refuge. While hunters cannot currently stop and utilize the refuge for hunting, many still drive through the refuge in route to other hunting areas. These drive through individuals are currently being counted as visitors engaged in wildlife observation, and are already accounted for under Alternative A impacts to air quality. Opening hunting and allowing these individuals to stop and hunt on refuge is not expected to have more than negligible impacts on vehicle emissions.

Water Quality The refuge open area does not have any permanent or seasonal water resources. However, the closed area on the refuge does. Leslie Creek is an intermittent drainage but continues to contribute as a tributary of Whitewater Draw in the Sulphur Springs Valley, which itself is a tributary of the Río Yaqui. The Rio Yaqui is a large river that historically drained portions of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico in the United States, as well as eastern Sonora and western Chihuahua in Mexico. Leslie Creek flows in the closed area during certain months in years with ample summer and winter rains. Most years the flow stops and the creek consist of isolated pools of water. In years of drought the isolated pools have been documented drying up completely.

Direct and Indirect Impacts The refuge believes that its hunt program will have negligible impacts on water quality under either alternative, given that hunting is not going to be allowed in the closed area where the water resources are located.

Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Visitor Use and Experience The refuge does not have a visitor center onsite at LCNWR. Refuge visitation primarily consists of visitors traveling through the refuge on Leslie Canyon Road, engaging in wildlife observation. The refuge offers other non-consumptive uses, including hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, environmental education, and wildlife photography. In the bottom of Leslie Canyon, a refuge staff access road doubles as a trail for visitor wishing to get out on foot to explore more of the refuge. There is a sign-in box and interpretive display at the trial head. The refuge has averaged about 17,086 visitors per year, over the last three years. In FY19,

23

231 individuals signed in, documenting that they were on foot in the open area of the refuge. During the same year over 15,000 individuals traveled through the refuge by vehicle. Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Negligible impacts expected from not implementing any of the action alternatives. The refuge would continue current management with no hunting allowed in the 810 acres and would maintain the closure for the closed area. All other visitor uses would continue as usual, with negligible wildlife and vegetation disturbance, and minimal soil compaction. Refuge visitation generally exceeds 15,000 visitors per year, with FY2019 seeing 19,409 visitors.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) We estimate numbers of hunters for the first hunt year, 2020–2021, to be 620–1,238 hunters, using a percent of unit 30A general hunt permits issued by the State. After the first year, we predict that number will decrease when more accurate information is available from hunters signing in during the first year. Hunting has the potential to visually disturb and audibly disturb refuge visitors engaged in other priority public uses. Temporary wildlife disturbance due to shots being fired could interfere with wildlife observation and wildlife photography. To minimize this potential conflict, the refuge is not allowing year-long hunting on the refuge. However, hunting will be allowed from August through February, and some of these months can be more popular for users involved in hiking on the refuge due to cooler weather. This increases the probability of direct conflicts arising between these two user groups during the hunt seasons. Management, however, is more concerned with safety issues than conflicts between the two user groups, due to the overall low numbers of documented hikers (70 in FY17; 152 in FY18; and 231 in FY19). To minimize safety risks and keep other user groups such as hikers aware and informed of hunting activities in the area, signs will be posted at the head of the hiking trail and hunters will not be allowed to use silent pneumatic weapons. These mitigation efforts will help ensure that the proposed action will not have significant impacts on other wildlife-dependent recreation on the refuge.

Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Cultural Resources There are no documented cultural resources at LCNWR. There are however old remnants of mining in the open area. All mineshafts are secured and closed off for visitor safety. A few foundation pads and wall remnants are still present. Direct and Indirect Impacts Because the refuge does not have any documented cultural resources, the refuge believes that its hunt program will have negligible impacts under either alternative, especially since the mineshafts are closed to the public.

24

Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Refuge Management and Operations Land Use There are no buildings or infrastructure at LCNWR. Leslie Canyon Road is a county-maintained road that is regularly used by local and visiting traffic. Multiple traffic counters located at LCNWR indicate that a vehicle passed through LCNWR an average of 1,606 times in FY19. A 1.25-mile service road in LCNWR doubles as a trail for visitors.

Administration Administering the refuge hunt program does not require any developed facilities on the refuge, however installing a public restroom may need to be considered in the future. It has been estimated that this hunt program will affect the refuge greatest during August through the following January each year (deer hunt seasons).

Current full time employees for LCNWR consists of the project leader, assistant manager, administrative technician, biologist, engineering equipment operator, and law enforcement officer. The law enforcement staffing at the complex has been downsized during recent years. At Leslie Canyon and San Bernardino NWRs, the number of officers has gone from three plus a dual function to one single officer. The single officer has responsibility for significant international border issues along with endangered species and common public use issues. Law enforcement coverage would be strained with greatly increasing public hunting opportunities on both refuges. To meet the objective of providing productive hunts and to maintain resource protection, it is important to balance opportunity with other refuge objectives.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) Land Use: No adverse impacts on land use expected under this alternative.

Administration: Currently the burden of fewer law enforcement officers is noticeable. The refuge budget is shared with San Bernardino NWR. The current law enforcement budget is approximately $99,000.00. Annual refuge operational costs are approximately $494,514.00. No further adverse impacts on administration are expected under this alternative.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Land Use: An increase in traffic on Leslie Canyon Road is expected; however, Cochise County Public Works maintains this road. An increase in foot traffic on the refuge trail is also expected; however, it is not expected to result in an increase in refuge trail maintenance. An increase in littering is expected; this is expected to impact refuge staff by increasing staff hours designated to cleaning up litter.

Administration: It is expected to cost the refuge $50,934.00 annually to operate and manage the annual program, provide brochures and hunting regulations, respond to public inquiries, post signage, collect and analyze hunt data, and conduct enforcement of hunt regulations for 6 months out of the year.

The law enforcement staffing at the complex has been downsized during recent years. At

25

Leslie Canyon and San Bernardino NWRs the number of officers has gone from three plus a dual function to one single officer. The single officer has responsibility for significant international border issues along with endangered species and common public use issues. Law enforcement coverage will be strained with greatly increasing public hunting opportunities on both refuges. To meet the objective of providing productive hunts and to maintain resource protection, it is important to balance opportunity with other refuge objectives.

Affected Socioeconomic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Socioeconomics Local and Regional Economies The refuge is located approximately 20 miles from the city of Douglas, Arizona, with a population of approximately 15,978 (Census 2018). Several other small towns are also within thirty to ninety miles away. The predominant land uses in the vicinity of the refuge are grazing and irrigated farming. The refuge has averaged about 17,086 visitors per year, over the last three years. The majority of visitors are traveling through the refuge and are observing the landscape and animals they may come across. Some visitors spend time on the refuge participating in refuge uses such as hiking, birding, and wildlife photography. Public recreation opportunities are limited in the area immediately surrounding LCNWR.

Sector of the Economy (e.g., Agricultural Practices) Cattle ranching and farming occur in close proximity to LCNWR. Farming crops in the local area includes cotton, corn, wheat, and pecan orchards.

Direct and Indirect Impacts Alternative A (No Action Alternative) No adverse impacts expected to the socioeconomics under this alternative. Current visitation would continue, contributing to the local economy through visitors purchasing fuel, food, and possibly lodging in the area. Refuge visitation is generally lower during the following months: December, May, June, September, and October.

Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) Local and Regional Economies: Hunting on LCNWR, especially during the first year, is expected to bring an increase in visitation to the refuge and the surrounding area. During the first year, it is estimated that 620–1,238 hunters will visit the refuge. Hunters are expected to increase refuge visitation numbers from September through February. Hunters may utilize local businesses and hotels in order to prepare for hunts at LCNWR, potentially brining an increase to the local economy. It is possible that deer and javelina cause some depredation to nearby crops. Hunting on LCNWR may assist in bringing deer and javelina numbers down, which would result in positive impacts (decrease in crop depredation) to that economy.

Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high

26

or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities.

Direct and Indirect Impacts The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives. The Service has identified no minority or low-income communities within the impact area. Minority or low-income communities will not be disproportionately affected by any impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives.

Indian Trust Resources There are not any Indian Trust Resources that may be impacted by the action.

Direct and Indirect Impacts There are no Indian Trust Resources on this refuge and neither alternative will impact any Indian Trust Resources.

Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Impacts can “accumulate” spatially when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They can also accumulate over the course of time from actions in the past, the present, and the future. Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially cancelling out each other’s effects on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource.

27

Anticipated Cumulative Impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Other Past, Present, and

Reasonably Foreseeable Activity Impacting Affected Environment Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Impacts

Hunted Species The State manages their hunt programs to ensure health of species populations and every species listed above is open for hunting in Arizona, and specifically unit 30A. The State performs species surveys and harvest data collection for select species. Information regarding these species is depicted in Hunt Arizona (2016). Eurasian collared-dove is considered invasive and hunter take is not documented. Black-tailed jackrabbit and coati are not included in State harvest reports, but are still open for hunting statewide.

Under current management, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts. The refuge open area is a small 810 acres within the much larger State hunt unit 30A, which is 1,728 square miles (On X maps 2018). Continuing current management and not allowing hunting on our 810 acres is not expected to contribute to any negative cumulative impacts on the hunted species within the state of Arizona, such as overpopulation of any species.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, it is not expected that a hunt program at LCNWR will have any adverse cumulative impacts on the local or regional populations of any species given the small size of LCNWR’s open area in comparison to State hunt unit 30A. Any take occurring on LCNWR will likely not add to the impacts of current hunting within the state hunt unit 30A.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the hunting program rules will be the same as, or more restrictive than, hunting regulations throughout the State of Arizona. By maintaining hunting regulations that are the same as or more restrictive than the State, individual refuges ensure that they are maintaining seasons which are supportive of resident wildlife management on a more regional basis. Such an approach also provides consistency with large-scale population status and objectives. The refuge coordinates with the State regarding the hunting program.

Wildlife management of populations is important to ensure the health of the ecosystem, and the refuge’s hunt program is expected to provide minor, additional beneficial impacts to the cumulative impacts of overall wildlife management in the State.

Other Wildlife-dependent Recreation Public recreation locations in the surrounding area include State wildlife area White Water Draw, west of the refuge, and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands east of the

Under current management, hunters still have the option to pursue game in close proximity to the refuge on small parcels of State lands and BLM lands. Going further away from the refuge hunters have more opportunities on USFS lands or private lands with owner permission. By continuing to not allow hunting on LCNWR, we do

28

refuge in the Chiricahua Mountains. Individual parcels of State trust lands and BLM lands are also in the area. The public can engage in hunting, wildlife observation, photography, hiking, picnicking, and camping in these areas. Many of the visitors that travel through LCNWR are in route to recreate on USFS lands.

not expect to incrementally add to the impacts on other wildlife-dependent recreation in the nearby areas.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts. The refuge will use an adaptive management approach for its hunt program. The refuge will review and revise the program. If necessary, the hunt program can be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute to adverse cumulative impacts of species abundance or habitat health, which would decrease overall visitor experience. A negligible positive cumulative impact is expected for overall hunter experience with the refuge providing a small addition to the areas that hunters can already utilize.

Other Refuge Activities Prescribed burns do not occur on LCNWR and are not a common practice on surrounding lands. The refuge does not typically conduct active management at LCNWR, with the exception of treating individual salt cedar trees when discovered (last treatment was a single tree in 2016).

The refuge believes that its hunt program will not incrementally add to any impacts of other activities occurring on the refuge.

U.S.-Mexico Border Activities LCNWR is approximately 25 miles from the U.S. Mexico international border. In the past, illegal border activities were common on LCNWR.

Vegetation trampling, soil compaction, and littering was clearly noticeable when LCNWR was highly utilized for illegal activities. These illegal activities have greatly reduced at LCNWR over the years, along with the effects on natural resources. Areas of high disturbance are no longer noticeable. Any vegetation trampling, soil compaction, and littering that occurs from continued levels of visitor use, or opening hunting under the proposed action, are not expected to add to any impacts from border activities.

Surrounding Land Use The refuge is surrounded by private lands that are very sparsely populated and small parcels of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and State lands, many of which are State trust properties. Other non-federal and State activities occurring on those lands include farming, ranching, and limited hunting. The

Under current management, negligible cumulative impacts on nearby crops could arise from deer and javelina populations causing crop depredation. However, this is unlikely given that the State allows hunting deer and javelina in this area, and many private landowners allow hunting in their fields to address crop depredation.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, positive cumulative impacts may arise in regards to crop

29

hunting near LCNWR is limited due to the vast reaches of private land where hunters must locate and ask the land owner for hunting permission.

LCNWR is located on the eastern side of the Sulphur springs valley. Within the valley, there are multiple large dairies, crop fields, cattle ranches, and orchards. Lands east of the refuge are primarily private (two large ranches) with some State trust lands mixed in, and are utilized for cattle ranching and grazing. Both properties have conservation easements in place to limit development and cattle grazing. Overgrazing has not been documented on these properties and the grasslands are in good condition. Lands west and south of the refuge are more developed but the area is still very rural, with a mix of large ranches and farms, along with smaller ranchette type properties. These properties are where some crops and orchards are grown. Around the northern portion of the refuge, lands consist of private and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) properties. Hunting of all species listed above does currently occur on lands surrounding the refuge, however the majority of those lands are privately owned and hunters must gain permission from the landowners. The state trust lands and BLM lands are the nearest focus areas for hunting around LCNWR.

depredation for nearby cattle ranches and farms. Allowing deer and javelina hunting on LCNWR may have minor contributions to population management for these species within State hunt unit 30A.

Lead ammunition is permitted for all species on the refuge with the exception of waterfowl. Lead poisoning has been identified as the leading cause of diagnosed death in

Under both alternatives, the refuge has no restrictions on the use of lead ammunition other than federal requirements for non-toxic shot for waterfowl. The refuge encourages non-toxic ammunition but use is voluntary. When looking at the total number of hunter visits (620–1,238) on the refuge compared to the

30

endangered condors and the main obstacle to a self-sustaining population in Arizona and southern Utah. Studies suggest that lead shot and bullet fragments found in animal carcasses and gut piles are the most likely source of lead exposure. Many hunters do not realize that the carcass or gut pile they leave in the field usually contains lead bullet fragments. Gut piles from animals harvested with non-lead ammunition provide an important food source for the condors and should be left in the field (AZGFD 2019).

surrounding GMUs, the continued use of lead ammunition will not incrementally add to lead in environment.

Climate Change Warming, whether it results from anthropogenic or natural sources, is expected to affect a variety of natural processes and associated resources. However, the complexity of ecological systems means that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact climate change will actually have. In particular, the localized effects of climate change are still a matter of much debate. The Service's southwest region has been working with the U.S. Geological Survey, the academic community, and other natural resource management agencies and interest groups to translate available and emerging science into concrete actions that reduce the impacts of a changing climate on the broadly diverse ecosystems in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas

The refuge believes that its hunt program will have negligible impacts on climate change under either alternative.

Summary of Analysis The purpose of this EA is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

31

Alternative A – No Action Alternative As described above, to continue current management practices the refuge would not allow any hunting on LCNWR. There currently is no concern with overpopulation from any species on refuge. However, this alternative will result in a lost recreational opportunity for the public and will not meet or satisfy the purpose and need listed above. LCNWR would not be contributing to hunting which is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use. The refuge has averaged about 17,086 visitors per year, over the last three years. Current visitor uses, from over 15,000 visitors a year would continue, with minimal vehicle emissions resulting in visitation. Most visitors are documented traveling through LCNWR, hiking on the trail, or hiking in Leslie Creek. Approximately 200 visitors per year utilize this refuge trail. Temporary disturbances of species, soils and vegetation, from current use visitors, would continue to result along the 2.5 miles trail that is located within the 810 acres.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative As described above, this alternative will open hunting of select species during approximately 6 months out of the year. It is expected that there will be negligible direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts with this alternative. Mitigation efforts will take place such as only allowing hunting in the open area of the refuge, prohibiting silent pneumatic weapons, posting signs regarding hunting, and reviewing and revising the hunt program as necessary. Temporary wildlife disturbance due to shots being fired could interfere with wildlife observation and wildlife photography. To minimize this potential conflict, the refuge is not allowing year-long hunting on the refuge. Due to the refuges small hunt area of approximately 810 acres, any take of animals on refuge will not affect the overall population of the species within State hunt unit 30A. This alternative helps meet the purpose and needs of the Service as described above because it provides additional wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities on the refuge. However, it will take more time and resources and staff and may potentially create additional conflicts between user groups on the refuge. It is expected to cost the refuge $50,934.00 annually to operate and manage the annual program, provide brochures and hunting regulations, respond to public inquiries, post signage, collect and analyze hunt data, and conduct enforcement of hunt regulations for 6 months out of the year.

The estimated number of hunters during the first year is 620–1,238. While hunters cannot currently stop and utilize the refuge for hunting, many still drive through the refuge in route to other hunting areas. These drive-through individuals are currently being counted as visitors engaged in wildlife observation, and are already somewhat accounted for. Opening hunting and allowing these individuals to stop and hunt on refuge is not expected to have more than negligible impacts on vehicle emissions, soil disturbance and vegetation disturbance. Given all considered, the Service has determined that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of LCNWR and the mission of the NWRS. While it is expected that hunters may travel off trail and hike in areas that other visitors typically do not, the amount of expected hunters is lower than non-consumptive users, with hunters ranging from 620 to 1,238 and non-consumptive users exceeding 15,000 each year. Negligible effects are expected to overall Chihuahuan desert scrub vegetation from trampling of hunters due to the rough terrain, and in comparison low number of hunters, as well as to wildlife disturbance, air quality, and other visitor uses.

32

Monitoring Current trail camera trap monitoring will continue and previous years’ data will be analyzed for future comparisons to ensure that the hunt program at LCNWR will have no significant adverse impacts on the environment.

List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted

List of Preparers Tasha Harden, Assistant Refuge Manager

State Coordination Throughout this planning process the refuge supervisor for Arizona met with, in person or by telephone, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) on several occasions. Key meetings occurred on May 17, 2019, September 13, 2019, and October 2, 2019. AZGFD supports the proposed action and requests further regulatory alignment outside the scope of this effort. Cooperation between the AZGFD, FWS, and BANWR has resulted in many positive and mutually beneficial outcomes.

Tribal Consultation N/A

Public Outreach The refuge posted a public notice on the refuge website for a 30-day public scoping period from September 27th 2019 to October 28th 2019. The refuge received one letter from public scoping, voicing support of the proposal and approval to open the area for hunting.

References AZGFD01. 2019. 2019-20 Arizona Hunting Regulations. Retrieved from https://s3-us-west-

2.amazonaws.com/azgfd-portal-wordpress-pantheon/wp-content/uploads/archive/2019-20-Arizona-Hunting-Reguations_WEB_190514.pdf

AZGFD02. 2020. 2020 Spring Turkey, Javelina, Bison and Bear. Retrieved from https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/azgfd-portal-wordpress-pantheon/wp-content/uploads/archive/2020-Spring-Regulations_190905_links.pdf

AZGFD03. 2020. Mule Deer. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/biggame/muledeer/

AZGFD04.2020. Bear. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/biggame/blackbear/

AZGFD05. 2020. Mourning dove. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/smallgame/mourningdove/

AZGFD06. 2020. White-winged dove. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/smallgame/mourningdove/

33

AZGFD07. 2020. Eurasian collared dove. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/smallgame/mourningdove/

AZGFD08. 2020. Quail. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/smallgame/quail/

AZGFD09. 2020. Cottontail. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/smallgame/cottontailrabbit/

AZGFD10. 2020. Gray fox. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/predator/foxes/

AZGFD11. 2020. Badger. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/furbearer/badger/

AZGFD12. 2020. Skunks. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/predator/skunks/

AZGFD13. 2020. Bobcat. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/predator/bobcat/

AZGFD14. 2020. Raccoon. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/furbearer/raccoon/

AZGFD15. 2020. Ringtail. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/furbearer/ringtail/

AZGFD16. 2020. Coyote. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/predator/coyote/

AZGFD17. 2020. Game Management Unit 30A. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/units/tucson/30a/

AZGFD18. 2020. Javelina. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/biggame/javelina/

AZGFD. 2016. 2016 Hunt Arizona. Retrieved from https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/surveydata/

AZGFD. 2017. 2017 Hunt Arizona. Retrieved from https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/azgfd-portal-wordpress-pantheon/wp-content/uploads/archive/HuntAZ2017.pdf

Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M). 2008a. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Species: Coati, White-nosed. Available at: http://bison-m.org/booklet.aspx?id=050165

Census Bureau. July 2018. QuickFacts Douglas city, Arizona. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/douglascityarizona,cochisecountyarizona,AZ,US/PST045218

34

Haig, Susan M. Jesse D’Elia, Collin Eagles-Smith, Jeanne M. Fair, Jennifer Gervais, Garth Herring, James W. Rivers, and John H. Schulz. 2014. The persistent problem of lead poisoning in birds from ammunition and fishing tackle. The Condor. Vol. 116, pp. 408-428.

McBride, Tobias J., Jeff P. Smith, Howard P. Gross, and Michael J. Hooper. 2004. Blood-lead and ALAD activity levels of Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii) migrating through the southern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Raptor Research. Vol. 38, pp.118-124

On X. 2018. Arizona Game Management Unit 30A Wildlife. Retrieved from https://www.onxmaps.com/maps/hunting/arizona/wildlife/arizona-game-management-unit-30a-wildlife

U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service 1978. Soil Survey Cochise County, Arizona. 51pp.

U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service 2003. Soil Survey Cochise County, Arizona. Douglas Tombstone Part. 734pp.

Appendix 1 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS

Cultural Resources

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 – 1996a; 43 CFR Part 7

Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433; 43 CFR Part 3

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm; 18 CFR Part 1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810

Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa – 470aaa-11

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10

Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971)

Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996)

There are no documented cultural resources.

The proposed action includes no ground-disturbing activities, or other activities that might disturb undocumented paleontological, archaeological, or historic sites.

35

36

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS Fish & Wildlife Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR 22 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m Lacey Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; 50 CFR Parts 10, 12, 20, and 21

Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001)

The Environmental Assessment for hunting on LCNWR evaluates the effects of agency actions on endangered species. Hunting will not be authorized in sensitive habitat where endangered species are located.

Natural Resources

Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23

Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.

The proposed action would have negligible effects to air quality.

Refuge does not meet the basic criteria for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Leslie Creek does not meet the basic criteria for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

37

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999)

The proposed action would have negligible effects to invasive species introductions.

Water Resources

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320-330; 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 230-232, 323, and 328

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, 321, 322, and 333

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 141-148

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977)

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977)

The Refuge does not lie in a coastal zone, and contains no rivers, harbors, or navigable waters.

There would be negligible impacts of the proposed action on water quality or water resources.

The Refuge contains no drinking water sources and does not supply drinking water to any community.

The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11988, because implementation of the Hunt Plan would not result in the modification or destruction of floodplains.

The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11990 because implementation of the Hunt Plan would not effect existing wetlands.

38

Attachment 01: LCNWR Vicinity Land Status Map

39

Attachment 02: LCNWR Open and Closed Area; AZGFD 30A Hunt Unit