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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision For the Yuma Training Range Complex, Arizona

and California

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the Council on Environmental Quality

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy

announces its decision to upgrade the capability of the Yuma Training

Range Complex (YTRC).

DATES: This decision takes effect October 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Questions regarding the environmental impact statement (EIS)

prepared for this action may be directed to Commanding Officer, Marine

Corps Air Station, Box 99160, Yuma, AZ 85369-9160.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ron Pearce, Director, Range

Management Department, (520) 341-3401, fax (520) 341-2216, e-mail

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The decision has been made to approve the

following actions, which are described in more detail in the EIS:

Discontinue authorization for and use of the low-level holding

areas for fixed-wing aircraft over the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife

Refuge (NWR). Allow the corridors for low-level overflights of the

Cabeza Prieta NWR by fixed-wing aircraft to be activated for use on up

to 60 days per year but not more than 7 consecutive days at a time;

implementation of airspace proposals over the Cabeza Prieta NWR will

require the renegotiation of the Memorandum of Understanding among the

Marine Corps, Air Force, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service governing

low-level military aircraft overflights of the Cabeza Prieta NWR.

Replace the 11 existing corridor segments for low-level overflight of

the Cabeza Prieta NWR by rotary-winged aircraft (i.e., helicopters)

with three distinct corridors identified to resolve endangered species

(Sonoran pronghorn and lesser long-nosed bat) protection issues

(Alternatives 1-3, 1-4 and 1-5).

Establish a new restricted area, designated R-2507E, contiguous

with the northeastern side of R-2507S, that will increase the

restricted airspace available to support aviation training operations

without exceeding land boundaries of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial

Gunnery Range (Chocolate Mountain Range) (Alternative 2-3).

Establish an overlying controlled firing area contiguous to R-2507N

to support overhead firing for Naval Special Warfare Group One training

(Alternative 3-2).

Add new target scenarios to the existing Moving Sands and Cactus

West target inert impact areas in the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force

Range (Goldwater Range) (Alternative 4-2).

Construct a narrow-width runway/roadway for AV-8B roadway

operations at auxiliary airfield two in the Goldwater Range

(Alternative 5-2).

Relocate the parachute drop zone for cargo recovery to a position

southeast of auxiliary airfield two (Alternative 6-2).

Establish three ground support zones in the Goldwater Range to

consolidate existing ground support areas in selected intensive use

locations, designate four new individual ground support areas in

unserved locations west of the Gila Mountains, and inactivate the use

of four ground support areas that are not currently needed. The

designation of one new individual ground support area near Stoval

Auxiliary Field inside the retired Multiple Aimpoint Validation test

area but outside of the Mohawk Mountains and Sand Dunes Areas of

Critical Environmental Concern was proposed as part of this

alternative. The Marine Corps will not establish this additional ground

support area at this time (Alternative 7-3).

Install five new Tactical Aircrew Combat Training System range

threat emitters in the Goldwater Range (Alternative 8-2).

Increase the maximum net explosive weight limits for air-to-ground

ordnance delivery at the Chocolate Mountain Range to twelve MK-82 (500-

pound) bombs, six MK-83 (1,000-pound) bombs, or four MK-94 (2,000-

pound) bombs per aircraft pass (Alternative 9-2).

Rescind the prohibition on night ordnance delivery training on the

Chocolate Mountain Range between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. No specific

proposal currently exists to implement this action alternative.

Subsequent environmental documentation will be completed as required

prior to implementing night ordnance delivery under this alternative

(Alternative 10-2).

The proposal to authorize air-to-ground delivery of live ordnance

in the southwestern portion of R-2507 of the Chocolate Mountain Range

has been withdrawn from further consideration (Alternative 11-2). Any

future proposal to authorize air-to-ground delivery of live ordnance in

this area would be evaluated in subsequent environmental documentation,

as appropriate, once a proposal is ripe for consideration.

Develop three new individual targets and redevelop targets at seven

inactive individual target sites in the Chocolate Mountain Range

(Alternative 12-2).

Relocate the two off-range ground support areas and drop zone to

positions inside the Chocolate Mountain Range boundary (Alternative 13-

2).

Inactivate use of Training Area 1 and Firing Zones 1 and 2 for

ground training activities, and relocate the Naval Special Warfare

Group One training activities conducted in those locations to Training

Area 2, to be redesignated Special Warfare Training Area 4. In

addition, develop Special Warfare Training Area 4 to accommodate

relocated weapons training by Naval Special Warfare Group One. As a

result of this action, a training requirement of Naval Special Warfare

Group One currently cannot be met. A proposal may be developed by the

Department of the Navy to establish a range capable of supporting a 360

degree field of fire. Though no proposal currently exists, it seems

likely an alternative that would be evaluated is the Chocolate Mountain

Range. Environmental documentation would be prepared, as appropriate,

once a proposal is ripe for consideration. In addition, any proposal to

expand Naval Special Warfare Group One training activities or construct

new facilities on the Chocolate Mountain Range would be evaluated in

subsequent environmental

[[Page 53027]]

documentation, as appropriate. Training Area 1 and Firing Zones 1 and 2

will continue to be active for aviation training (Alternative 14-2).

Alternatives Considered

The proposed actions are functionally independent of each other and

have stand alone value for improving the YTRC. Alternatives were

identified that met mission requirements while maximizing protection

for the environment. As a result, only three alternative sets had more

than one action alternative identified. For the remaining 11

alternative sets, only the proposed action and no action alternatives

were identified. The no action alternative to each proposal would

result in no changes to existing YTRC facilities or procedures. In

addition to the preferred alternatives and no action alternatives, the

EIS considered the following alternatives in detail:

Replace the 11 existing corridor segments for low-level overflights

of the Cabeza Prieta NWR by rotary-wing aircraft with three distinct

corridors. The three corridors of this alternative include different

locations than those proposed in preferred Alternative 1-5 (Alternative

1-2).

Allow the corridors for low-level overflights of the Cabeza Prieta

NWR by fixedwing aircraft to be activated for use on up to 36 days per

year but not for more than seven consecutive days at a time

(Alternative 1-6).

Establish a new restricted airspace, designated as R-2507E

contiguous with the northeastern side of R-2507S, that will increase

the restricted airspace available to support aviation training

operations over the southeast section of the Chocolate Mountain Range

and adjoining offrange lands (Alternative 2-2). This is different from

the selected alternative as it would establish airspace outside of the

Range land boundary.

Establish three ground support zones to consolidate existing ground

support areas in selected intensive use locations, designate four new

individual ground support areas in unserved locations west of the Gila

Mountains, designate one new individual ground support area near Stoval

Airfield at the western end of the retired Multiple Aimpoint Validation

test area inside the Mohawk Mountains and Sand Dunes Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern, and close four ground support areas that are no

longer needed (Alternative 7-2).

Selected and Environmentally Preferred Alternatives

The environmentally preferred alternative for an action alternative

is generally one that avoids or minimizes new ground disturbance,

minimizes noise on sensitive receptors, or results in a net beneficial

environmental affect. This discussion identifies the environmentally

preferred alternative for each action alternative and provides the

rationale in those cases when the environmentally preferred alternative

was not chosen.

YTRC Airspace Alternatives

Discontinuing flight holding areas (Alternative 1-3) is

environmentally preferred over no action (Alternative 1-1) as this

action would eliminate the potential for noise from aircraft that may

use the holding areas. No action and replacing the 11 rotary-winged

corridors with 3 corridors to resolve endangered species protection

issues (Alternative 1-5) are environmentally preferred over replacing

the 11 corridors with 3 corridors that overlie areas of greater

sensitivity to Sonoran pronghorn and lesser long-nosed bats

(Alternative 1-2). No action may be environmentally preferable to

Alternative 1-5 in terms of recreation use as it does not include

helicopter overflights of the Childs Valley; however, the minimal

occurrence of overflights associated with the Weapons Tactics

Instructor course is not regarded as a significant intrusion of the

Cabeza Prieta NWR. Alternative 1-5 was developed in cooperation with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game and Fish

Department to increase training flexibility while also reducing impacts

to the endangered Sonoran pronghorn during the semiannual Weapons

Tactics Instructor Courses. This alternative, though, will increase the

potential for wildlife exposure to noise. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Biological Opinion of April 17, 1996, addressing the actions

being evaluated in the YTRC EIS determined that noise associated with

this action alternative will not jeopardize the existence of the

Sonoran pronghorn. The Biological Opinion also determined that other

listed species will not be adversely affected by noise resulting form

this action alternative. Therefore, noise impacts on wildlife from this

action alternative are not considered significant. Accordingly,

Alternatives 1-3 and 1-5 were chosen as they meet the military

requirements of the Marine Corps, provide the best level of protection

for sensitive biological resources, and have minimal impacts on

recreational users of the Goldwater Range.

No action is environmentally preferred over allowing fixed-wing

overflights of the Cabeza Prieta NWR on up to 60 days per year

(Alternative 1-4) and allowing fixed-wing overflights of the Cabeza

Prieta NWR on up to 36 days per year (Alternative 1-6) because taking

no action would limit the days low-level flights and thus limit the

noise exposure to wildlife and the potential noise exposure to refuge

visitors. Alternative 1-4 would also increase the potential for

wildlife exposure to noise. The Sonoran pronghorn is the only federally

listed species that may be adversely affected by noise from this action

alternative. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion of

April 17, 1996, addressing the actions being evaluated in the YTRC EIS

determined that noise associated with this action alternative will not

jeopardize the existence of the Sonoran pronghorn. The Biological

Opinion also determined that other listed species will not be adversely

affected by noise resulting form this action alternative. Therefore,

noise impacts on wildlife from this action alternative are not

considered significant. Accordingly, Alternative 1-4 was chosen as it

meets mission requirements of the Marine Corps while not significantly

impacting sensitive noise receptors.

An aggregate noise effect will occur from implementing Alternative

1-5 whether fixed-wing aircraft use of low-level airspace over Cabeza

Prieta occurs as described by Alternative 1-4 or not. Low-level

overflight of Cabeza Prieta NWR by rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft

occurs on the same days only during the semiannual Weapons Tactics

Instructor courses. Rotary-wing aircraft could overfly the Charlie Bell

Pass area during Weapons Tactics Instructor courses for the first time

as a result of implementation of Alternative 1-5, thus adding the noise

of rotary-wing aircraft to fixed-wing aircraft in this area. At the

same time, realignment of the rotary-wing corridors per Alternative 1-5

will reduce rotary-wing overflights and noise at Tule Well Camp. Fixed-

wing aircraft noise will remain as the predominant aircraft noise

source at both locations during the Weapons Tactics Instructor courses.

With implementation of Alternative 1-4, fixed-wing aircraft noise alone

would affect Cabeza Prieta NWR during non-Weapons Tactics Instructor

course periods. None of the proposed action alternatives will

significantly reduce civilian access to airspace. Restrictions on

civilian use of the YTRC airspace have been ongoing and will continue

as a measure to protect all airspace users by separating dissimilar

uses. However, when the airspace has not been scheduled for military

use it has been and will

[[Page 53028]]

continue to be open to use by civilian aircraft. The EIS evaluation of

cumulative noise impacts determined that the action alternatives will

not result in a significant cumulative noise impact with any other

aircraft use of the YTRC airspace. When emissions from military

aircraft are considered cumulatively with other emission sources, the

resulting air quality within the YTRC region remains below de minimis.

No action (Alternative 2-1) is environmentally preferred over

establishing a new restricted airspace that extends beyond the

Chocolate Mountain Range boundary (Alternative 22) and establishing a

new restricted airspace within the Range boundary (Alternative 2-3). No

action would avoid the potential for bighorn sheep to be exposed to an

increase in aircraft noise and would limit the area of noise exposure.

However, Alternative 2-3 would have no significant environmental

affect. Accordingly, Alternative 2-3 was chosen as it met the mission

requirements of the Marine Corps while not significantly impacting

sensitive noise receptors.

No action (Alternative 3-1) is environmentally preferred over

establishing a Controlled Firing Area for Naval Special Warfare Group

One training (Alternative 3-2) as the no action alternative avoids

small arms noise that could potentially affect wildlife or residents

that live near the Range. However, Alternative 3-2 would have no

significant environmental affects. Accordingly, Alternative 3-2 was

chosen as it meets mission requirements of the Marine Corps while not

significantly impacting sensitive noise receptors.

Goldwater Range Alternatives

Adding new target scenarios at Moving Sands and Cactus West targets

(Alternative 4-2) and no action (Alternative 4-1) are indistinguishable

in regard to environmental preference. Alternative 4-2 would result in

either no affect or no change from the no action alternative. However,

Alternative 4-2 is more beneficial in its military training capability.

No action (Alternative 5-1) is environmentally preferable over

constructing a runway/roadway for AV-8B aircraft operations

(Alternative 5-2) because it avoids the loss of several acres of flat-

tailed horned lizard habitat and avoids particulate emissions

associated with construction activities. Construction of the facility,

though, will be accomplished in accordance with the Flat-Tailed Horned

Lizard Range Wide Management Strategy and the environmental analysis

determined that air emission impacts resulting from facility

construction will not significantly degrade air quality. Accordingly,

Alternative 5-2 was chosen as it meets mission requirements of the

Marine Corps while not significantly impacting sensitive biological

resources or air quality.

Relocating a drop zone from its current location to a position

southeast of auxiliary airfield two (Alternative 6-2) is

environmentally preferable over no action (Alternative 6-1).

Alternative 6-2 would move the drop zone to an area of less sensitive

flat-tailed horned lizard habitat, reduce the potential for flat-tailed

horned lizard mortality from vehicle activity, eliminate conflicts with

the explosive ordnance disposal operating area, and reduce the slight

potential conflict with general aviation.

No action (Alternative 7-1), restricting ground units to existing

ground support areas, is environmentally preferable over establishing

new ground support areas (Alternatives 7-2 and 7-3). The no action

alternative avoids new ground disturbance and associated effects such

as the potential for soil erosion and the loss of flat-tailed horned

lizard and Sonoran pronghorn habitat. In a comparison of Alternatives

7-2 and 7-3, the selected alternative, 7-3, is environmentally

preferred as it avoids the creation of a ground support area within an

Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Nonetheless, there would be a

potential increase of impacts to flat-tailed horned lizard habitat and

a small increase in ground activity within the range of the Sonoran

pronghorn. Impacts to these two species are not considered significant

as the action alternative is being implemented using protocols

established in the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Range Wide Management

Strategy, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion of

April 17, 1996, addressing the actions being evaluated in the YTRC EIS

determined that the action will not jeopardize the existence of these

species. Accordingly, the selected alternative was chosen as it meets

mission requirements of the Marine Corps while not significantly

impacting sensitive biological resources.

No action (Alternative 8-1) to maintain the existing Tactical

Aircrew Combat Training System range is environmentally preferable over

expanding the capability of this range by installing five new threat

emitters (Alternative 8-2). The no action alternative avoids the

potential for soil erosion, surface water sedimentation following

rainfall, vegetation loss, particulate matter increases, and changes to

the landscape that are associated with ground disturbance and facility

installation. However, each threat emitter site will only result in the

disturbance of 1,500 square feet. Efforts will be made to avoid

vegetation whenever possible during emitter installation. The emitters

will be located along an existing power line and will not be out of

keeping with facilities one would expect to find on the Goldwater

Range. Emitter installation and operation would not significantly

impact the environment. Accordingly, the selected alternative, 8-2, was

chosen as it meets the mission requirements of the Marine Corps while

not significantly impacting sensitive biological resources, air

quality, or visual resources.

The combination of implementing alternatives 4-2, 5-2, 6-2 and 7-3

jointly would affect a larger area of flat-tailed horned lizard

habitat. However, the overall affect is on a relatively minor portion

of the species range and is not significant. In addition, this action

alternative will comply with the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Range Wide

Management Strategy. Ground disturbing activities that result from

implementing these alternatives would cause a minimal potential for

increased soil erosion and surface water sedimentation following

rainfall in locations that were not previously disturbed. The threshold

for PM10 emissions that would require a conformity

determination in compliance with the Clean Air Act is 100 tons per

year. Implementation of this alternatives grouping will result in an

increase of PM10 emissions of 22.22 tons per year.

Accordingly, a conformity determination is not required and the impact

is considered not significant. Goldwater Range cumulative effects

evaluated recreational use managed by the Bureau of Land Management;

operations of the U.S. Border Patrol; wildlife management planning and

operations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Department of

Game and Fish, and the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Technical

Advisory Team; highway planning of the Yuma Metropolitan Planning

Organization; military operations of the Marine Corps and the U.S. Air

Force. A plethora of unimproved roads and off-road driving areas that

are contrary to current management plans exists. As discussed in the

EIS, the Marine Corps will not create new roads and will ensure that

its ground vehicles only use designated roads. Marine Corps ground

activities will not cumulatively create additional roads or off-road

driving areas that are

[[Page 53029]]

counter to existing management plans. Impacts to biological resources

result from aircraft and vehicular use of the Goldwater Range. Marine

Corps activities will not significantly affect these resources

cumulatively. Marine Corps activities will cumulatively result in air

quality degradation. However, this degradation will not violate Arizona

air quality standards.

Chocolate Mountain Range Alternatives

Maintaining the existing net explosive weight limits per no action

(Alternative 9-1) is indistinguishable environmentally over increasing

weight limits for air-to-ground ordnance delivery (Alternative 9-2).

While the selected alternative will increase the ordnance weight limit

allowed per aircraft pass, the total weight limit of each aircraft

dropping ordnance will not increase. Accordingly, noise levels will

increase, but this increase is not significant. In addition, the target

areas have been used extensively over the past 50 years and no longer

contain constituent elements of critical habitat for the desert

tortoise. Ordnance detonation of increased explosive weight loads per

aircraft pass will not significantly impact this species or its

habitat.

No action (Alternative 10-1) is environmentally preferred to

authorizing night ordnance delivery training (Alternative 10-2). No

action avoids increases in noises at night that may affect off-range

residences and nocturnal wildlife species. However, as noted earlier,

no specific proposal exists to drop ordnance during these hours.

Environmental documentation will be prepared pursuant to NEPA, as

appropriate, when a proposal is ripe for consideration.

No action (Alternative 12-1) is environmentally preferred over

developing three new targets and redeveloping seven inactive targets

(Alternative 12-2). No action avoids effects that may be associated

with ground disturbance, such as the potential for soil erosion,

surface water sedimentation following rainfall, minor losses of

vegetation, increases in particulate emissions, and potential effects

on cultural resources. Target development would not significantly

impact the environment. Accordingly, the selected alternative, 12-2,

was chosen as it meets mission requirements of the Marine Corps while

not significantly impacting sensitive biological resources or air

quality.

While relocating two ground support areas and a drop zone to

positions inside the Range boundary (Alternative 13-2) may potentially

result in minor vegetation losses, this alternative is environmentally

preferable over no action (Alternative 13-1) because relocation

eliminates the military use of Bureau of Land Management administered

lands outside the Range and eliminates potential safety concerns.

Relocating Naval Special Warfare Group One training activities to a

new Training Area 2 (Alternative 14-2) is environmentally preferable

over no action (Alternative 14-1). While Alternative 14-2 may

potentially result in some soil erosion and surface water sedimentation

following rainfall in Training Area 2, this alternative also reduces

the potential for erosion and surface water sedimentation following

rainfall in the training areas that would be discontinued from use. In

addition, Alternative 14-2 reduces potential impacts on the desert

tortoise by moving ground training activities outside of habitat

designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as critical for this

species.

The aggregate of alternatives 12-2, 13-2 and 14-2 will result in a

minimal potential for increases in soil erosion and surface water

sedimentation following rainfall. The combination of target development

and relocation of Naval Special Warfare Group One training will result

in increased noise at residences south of the Chocolate Mountain Range

boundary; this noise, though, will not be significant. Marine Corps

activities will cumulatively result in air quality degradation.

However, this degradation will not result in a net increase in non-

attainment criteria pollutants. Marine Corps activities when

cumulatively evaluated will remain below de minimis. Air quality is the

only resource that may be cumulatively affected as the Chocolate

Mountain Range is closed to public access. This prohibition on public

entry in conjunction with Marine Corps land management activities has

created a large, well preserved habitat for sensitive biological

species.

Mitigation

The Marine Corps previously adopted measures to protect the

resources of the Goldwater and Chocolate Mountain Ranges. These

measures will be continued and include protocols for appropriate waste

disposal, restrictions on off-road vehicle use, spill containment, and

explosive ordnance disposal sweeps.

To mitigate impacts resulting from the actions being taken, the

Marine Corps will initiate a host of measures as described on pages S-

40 through S-44 of the Final EIS. These measures include requiring

units that deploy to Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma provide an

exercise control group that will be responsible for ensuring the

compliance of their unit with Standing Operating Procedures for the use

of training areas. Also, MCAS Yuma will establish a single point of

contact to receive and investigate report of unauthorized use of

airspace and ground training areas of the Ranges. Finally, MCAS Yuma

will host annual conferences with representatives of agencies involved

with land and resource management on the Goldwater and Chocolate

Mountain Ranges in order to review the previous year's training

activities, share information regarding Range resource protection, and

receive input from the agencies and the public about MCAS Yuma

operations and environmental issues.

The Marine Corps will implement all terms and conditions of the

Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion for the Goldwater Range

issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on April 17, 1996. The

Marine Corps will continue to work with Luke Air Force Base in

evaluating potential effects to Sonoran pronghorn populations from

ordnance delivery and unexploded ordnance at target sites on the North

and South tactical ranges. To this end, the Marine Corps has joined

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Department of Game and

Fish and U.S. Air Force to study noise and risk affects on Sonoran

pronghorn use of target areas on the Goldwater Range. This three year

study, which began in 1997, will assess the long term noise effects of

military overflight and ordnance delivery on the Sonoran pronghorn by

monitoring Sonoran pronghorn use in the North and South TAC Ranges of

the Goldwater Range, response of fawns to noise, and doe/fawn

interactions in the presence of aviation noise.

The Marine Corps has been involved with recovery of the Sonoran

pronghorn since 1993. Examples of this involvement include a 1993-1997

study to evaluate the use of free standing water by the Sonoran

pronghorn by surveying the use of waterholes in the Cabeza Prieta NWR,

an ongoing study initiated in 1994 to determine productivity and

recruitment, range distribution and movement patterns through the use

of radio collars, an ongoing study initiated in 1997 to determine the

use of North and South TAC ranges on the eastern portion of the

Goldwater Range using radio collars, and an ongoing computer analysis

study initiated in 1998 to determine the probability of Sonoran

pronghorn encounters with low-level overflights.

[[Page 53030]]

The Marine Corps, in coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department, will continue to conduct

long-term studies to assess the effects of low-level aviation on the

Sonoran pronghorn. These studies will measure and analyze the effects

of Marine Corps low-level overflights on the Sonoran pronghorn,

including the Weapons Tactics Instructor course. If the preliminary or

final conclusions of a study indicate that Marine Corps activities are

resulting in adverse affects on the Sonoran pronghorn, or any other

threatened or endangered species, the Marine Corps will reinitiate

Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The

Marine Corps will actively engage in the Sonoran pronghorn recovery

effort by developing and implementing appropriate priorities

established by the Sonoran Pronghorn Core Working Group, including but

not limited to ground plot watering, fence modification, and

coordination with cross-border Mexican conservation efforts.

The Marine Corps will implement those appropriate portions of the

Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Range Wide Management Strategy. The Marine

Corps will also cooperate with the Department of Interior in the

development of a management plan for the Yuma Desert and Sand Dunes

Habitat Management Area, and the Gran Desierto Dunes Area of Critical

Environmental Concern. Finally, the Marine Corps will implement all

terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion for the Chocolate

Mountain Range issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on April

18, 1996, and will support surveys of bat and bighorn sheep

populations.

Ground disturbing activities will be minimized within Areas of

Critical Environmental Concern as much as practicable. Roads closed to

military vehicle traffic will be posted.

Military vehicle access to existing ground support areas along the

El Camino del Diablo backcountry byway in the Goldwater Range will be

via a limited number of designated roads. Off-road use within the

existing support areas will be excluded within the first 100 meters of

this backcountry byway; all other entrance roads will be obscured

within 100 meters of the byway. New support areas will be located at

least 400 meters (about .25 miles) from the byway; military vehicle

access will be limited.

A noise study will be completed to determine the specific noise

impacts that would be anticipated prior to implementing reauthorized

aerial bombing after 10 p.m. in the Chocolate Mountain Range.

Cultural resources will continue to be considered during

implementation of the actions in accordance with the programmatic

agreements with the Arizona and California State Historic Preservation

Officers. Surveys to inventory and evaluate cultural resources within

sites to be developed will occur prior to ground disturbance. In

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officers, Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, and other concerned agencies and

concerned tribes, specific measures will be developed and implemented

to accommodate cultural resources discovered.

With adoption of these measures, the Marine Corps has adopted all

practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the

alternatives selected.

Information Available Subsequent to Completion of the EIS

Subsequent to the completion of the EIS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service adopted the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Range-Wide Management

Strategy. The Marine Corps is a signatory party to this plan.

Information from this plan was used to support the decisions identified

in this Record Of Decision. This species is currently not listed as

endangered or threatened. However, in the event this species is listed

the Marine Corps will seek to reinitiate Section 7 Consultation with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its activities which may affect

this species.

The cactus ferruginous pygmy owl was listed as an endangered

species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after the EIS was

published. In compliance with the terms and conditions of the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Conference Opinion that addresses the actions associated

on the Goldwater Range, the Marine Corps conducted surveys for this

species in all likely habitat east and north of the Cabeza Prieta

Mountains. No owls were found. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

revised the Conference Opinion based on this information and concluded

that the actions associated with the Goldwater Range would not likely

affect this species.

The U.S. Air Force drafted a Biological Assessment, and its

addendums, for military activities associated with the eastern portion

of the Goldwater Range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued an

interim Biological Opinion based on this assessment and addendums.

Information from the interim Biological Opinion was used to support the

decisions identified in this Record Of Decision.

Conclusion

The Department of the Navy believes that there are no outstanding

issues to be resolved with respect to this action. This Record of

Decision is being executed with the concurrence of the Secretary of the

Air Force who is responsible for administering military activities on

the Goldwater Range in accordance with Public Law 99-606.

Dated: September 24, 1998.

Duncan Holaday,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Facilities).

[FR Doc. 98-26352 Filed 10-1-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P