State of California et al v. Trump et al

Filing 236

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Border Barrier Projects Undertaken Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2808 and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Department of Defense, David Bernhardt, Mark T. Esper, Kevin K. McAleenan, Ryan D. McCarthy, Steven T. Mnuchin, Richard V. Spencer, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Treasury, United States of America, Heather Wilson. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2019 10:00 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 2, 4th Floor before Judge Haywood S Gilliam Jr.. Responses due by 11/1/2019. Replies due by 11/8/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Proposed Order)(Warden, Andrew) (Filed on 10/25/2019)

EXHIBIT 6

DECLARATION OF ALEX A. BEEHLER
I, ALEX A. BEEHLER, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am the Assistant Secretary of the United States Army (Installations, Energy and
Environment). Among other duties, which are generally reflected in General Order No.
2019-01 "Assignment of Functions and Responsibilities Within Headquarters, Department of
the Army," I am responsible for developing and overseeing policies and programs regarding
military construction, management of real property and installations, real estate contracting,
environmental compliance and conservation, and oversight of all execution functions
performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) related to the Army's military
construction, real property, real estate, and environmental programs.
2. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge and information made available to me in
the course of my official duties.
Section 2808 Project Locations

3. On September 3, 2019, pursuant to the memorandum, "Guidance for Undertaking Military
Construction Projects Pursuant to Section 2808 of Title 10, U.S. Code," the Secretary of
Defense directed the then-Acting Secretary of the Army to undertake expeditiously eleven
border barrier military construction projects as authorized by 10 U.S.C. § 2808. As
previously described in the fifth declaration of Kenneth Rapuano, these eleven border barrier
military construction projects are San Diego 4, San Diego 11, El Centro 5, El Centro 9,
Yuma 6, Yuma 2, Yuma 10/27, Yuma 3, El Paso 8, El Paso 2, and Laredo 7.
4. The projects approved by the Secretary of Defense include a combination of primary and
secondary pedestrian barrier. I have been informed by USACE that primary barrier projects
include the barrier, lighting (including power to supply the lighting), fiber optic detection
cable, and a patrol road on the north side of the barrier. Secondary barrier projects include
only the barrier. Both primary and secondary pedestrian barrier will generally be a 30 ft.
bollard barrier, with bollards at four-inch intervals. There may be certain projects where,
based on site conditions and other factors, the bollard barrier may be 18 ft. For projects
where there is an existing patrol road, those roads may be improved by laying four inches of
gravel and a concrete surface if the grade exceeds 15% or crosses water.
5. I am further informed by USACE that primary fence construction projects require a 60-footwide construction area from the border. Secondary fencing requires a 150 foot-wide
construction area.
6. USA CE has produced a map for all Section 2808 projects that is included at Attachment 1.
The following project-specific information is informed, in part, by information made
available to me by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP):

I

San Diego 4
7. The San Diego 4 project will involve the construction of 1.5 miles of new primary pedestrian
barrier and 2 miles of new secondary pedestrian barrier. The San Diego 4 project area is in
San Diego County, California. It starts 3.6 miles east of the Otay Mesa Port of Entry and
extends east for 2 miles.
8. There is no existing barrier along the 1.5 mile segment of the international border where
USACE will construct the primary pedestrian barrier portion of the San Diego 4 project. The
new primary pedestrian barrier will fill a gap between segments of existing primary
pedestrian barrier.
9. The new secondary barrier will run parallel to and be situated north of the 1.5 miles of new
primary pedestrian barrier that will be constructed as a part of the San Diego 4 project and
then extend east for an additional one-half mile, where it will run parallel to and be situated
north of an existing 18-foot bollard-style primary pedestrian barrier.
10. There are existing patrol roads primarily in the eastern portion of the San Diego 4 project
area. Given the terrain, the existing patrol roads run parallel to, but are not always situated
directly adjacent to, the international border.
San Diego 11
11. The San Diego 11 project will involve the construction of approximately three miles of new
secondary pedestrian barrier, which will span both sides of the Tecate Port of Entry. The San
Diego 11 project area is in San Diego County, California. It starts 2 miles west of the Tecate
Port of Entry and extends east to 1.5 miles east of the Tecate Port of Entry.
12. Within the San Diego 11 project area there is an existing I 0-foot landing-mat-style primary
pedestrian barrier, which consists of panels of corrugated steel that are welded or attached to
metal posts. There is also a patrol road situated immediately north of the primary pedestrian
barrier and mobile light stands have been deployed in the area. As a part of a separate fence
replacement project, CBP is currently replacing the existing landing mat barrier with 30-foot
bollard-style pedestrian barrier and improving the existing patrol road. The new secondary
pedestrian barrier that will be constructed as a part of the San Diego 11 project will be
situated north of-and run parallel to-the existing primary pedestrian barrier and patrol
road.
13. On the U.S. side of the border, the areas immediately adjacent to the Tecate Port of Entry are
developed and urbanized. Similarly, on the Mexican side of the border, the areas that
surround San Diego 11 project area are urbanized and appear to be densely-populated.
El Centro 5
14. The El Centro 5 project will involve the construction of approximately I mile of new
secondary pedestrian barrier that will span both sides of the Calexico West Port of Entry.
2

The El Centro 5 project area is in Imperial County, California. It starts approximately .5
miles west of the Calexico West Port of Entry and extends east to approximately 1 mile east
of the Calexico West Port of Entry.
15. Within the El Centro 5 project area there is 30-foot bollard-style primary pedestrian barrier.
There is an existing patrol road that is situated immediately north of the existing pedestrian
barrier. There are also lighting and cameras. The new secondary pedestrian barrier that will
be constructed as a part of the El Centro 5 project will be situated north of the existing
primary pedestrian barrier and patrol road.
16. For the entire length of the El Centro 5 project area, the areas that surround the project area
on both sides of the international border are urbanized, heavily developed, and appear to be
densely-populated, with the city of Calexico, California, on the U.S. side of the border and
the city ofMexcali, Mexico, on the Mexican side of the border.
El Centro 9
17. The El Centro 9 project will involve the construction of approximately 12 miles of new
secondary pedestrian barrier. The approximately 12 miles of new secondary pedestrian
barrier will be built in two segments, which will be situated on either side of the El Centro 9
project area. The El Centro 9 project area is in Imperial County, California. To the west of
the Calexico West Port of Entry, the El Centro 9 project area begins 1.5 miles west of Border
Monument 223 and extends east to Border Monument 221, which abuts the western terminus
of the El Centro 9 project area. To the east of the Calexico West Port of Entry, the El Centro
9 project area begins one mile east of the Calexico West Port of Entry at or near the eastern
terminus of the El Centro 9 project area and extends east for approximately 3 miles.
18. Within the El Centro 9 project area there is a 30-foot bollard-style primary pedestrian barrier.
There is a patrol road that is situated north of the primary pedestrian barrier. There are also
lighting and cameras. The new secondary barrier that will be constructed as a part of the El
Centro 9 project will be situated north of the primary pedestrian barrier and patrol road.
19. On the U.S. side of the border, the areas that surround the El Centro 9 project area appear to
be comprised primarily of privately owned land that is used for agricultural purposes. On the
Mexican side of the border, the areas that surround the western portion of the El Centro 9
project are also comprised ofland that appears to be used for agricultural purposes. In the
eastern portion of the El Centro 9 project area, the Mexican side of the border is urbanized,
heavily developed, and appears to be densely-populated.
Yuma6
20. The Yuma 6 project will involve the construction of approximately I mile of new primary
pedestrian barrier and construction of 2 miles of new secondary pedestrian barrier. The
Yuma 6 project area is in Imperial County, California, and Yuma County, Arizona. It starts
west of the Andrade Port of Entry one-half of a mile west of the Border Monument 208 and
extends east to the Colorado River. It then resumes on the east side of the Colorado River
3

and extends south for approximately one mile. Approximately 0.2 miles of primary barrier
and 1.5 miles of secondary barrier will be built California.
21. Within the Yuma 6 project area there is existing border infrastructure. In the portions of the
project area that are situated west of the Andrade Port of Entry, there is an existing primary
pedestrian barrier and patrol road that is situated immediately north of the primary pedestrian
harrier. There is a mix of existing primary pedestrian barrier west of the Andrade Port of
Entry. Near the Andrade Port of Entry, the existing pedestrian barrier is a I 0-foot landingmat barrier. Further west, the existing primary pedestrian barrier is an 18-foot bollard-style
barrier. In the area that is immediately adjacent to the Andrade Port of Entry and extends
east to the Alamo Canal, there is no existing barrier. A portion of the new primary pedestrian
barrier that will be constructed as a part of the Yuma 6 project will fill this gap. East of the
Andrade Port of Entry, between the Alamo Canal and the Colorado River, there is a I 0-foot
landing mat-style primary pedestrian barrier. The remaining portion of new primary
pedestrian barrier that will be constructed as a part of the Yuma 6 project will be situated east
of the Colorado River, where there is currently no primary pedestrian barrier. The new
secondary barrier that will be constructed as a part of the Yuma 6 project will be situated
behind the primary pedestrian barrier and patrol road.
Yuma2
22. The Yuma 2 project will involve the replacement of approximately two miles of existing
fencing with new primary pedestrian barrier. The Yuma 2 project area is in Yuma County,
Arizona, on the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR). It starts 2.5 miles west of Border
Monument 198 and extends east to Border Monument 197.
23. The existing pedestrian barrier that will be replaced as a part of the Yuma 2 project is a 12foot bollard and mesh-style fencing. There is also an existing patrol road that is situated
north of the existing pedestrian barrier.
Yuma 10/27
24. The Yuma 10/27 project will involve the construction of approximately 31 miles of new
secondary pedestrian barrier on the BMGR. The Yuma 10/27 project area is in Yuma
County, Arizona. It starts near the western boundary of the BMGR and extends 31 miles east
to the base of the Tinajas Atlas Mountains near the eastern boundary of the BMGR.
25. There is an existing primary pedestrian barrier within the project area. From the western
boundary ofBMGR to approximately 2.5 miles east of Border Monument 198, the existing
12-foot bollard and mesh-style fencing is being replaced with 30-foot bollard-style barrier by
CBP as a part of a separate fence replacement project. As noted above, from 2.5 miles east
of Border Monument 198 to Border Monument 197, as a part of the Yuma 2 project, USACE
will be replacing the existing 12-foot bollard and mesh-style fencing with new primary
pedestrian barrier. There is also an existing patrol road that is situated immediately north of
the existing primary pedestrian barrier. The new secondary pedestrian barrier that will be

4

constructed as a part of the Yuma 10/27 project will be situated north of the pedestrian
barrier and patrol road.
Yuma3
26. The Yuma 3 project will involve the replacement of 31 miles of vehicle barrier with new
primary pedestrian barrier. The Yuma 3 project area is in Yuma County, Arizona. It begins
approximately .4 miles east of the eastern boundary of the BMGR and extends east for 31
miles on or adjacent to the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (Cabeza Prieta) to the
Yuma County and Pima County line.
27. There is existing post and rail-style vehicle barrier within the Yuma 3 project area, which, as
noted above, will be replaced with primary pedestrian barrier as a part of the Yuma 3 project.
There is also an existing patrol road that is situated immediately north of the existing vehicle
barrier in most of the project area.
El Paso 8
28. The El Paso 8 project will involve the replacement of approximately 6 miles of existing
vehicle barrier with primary pedestrian barrier and the construction of approximately 6 miles
of new secondary pedestrian barrier. The El Paso 8 project area is in Hidalgo County, New
Mexico. It starts 1.5 miles west of Border Monument 64 and extends to 2 miles east of
Border Monument 63.
29. Within the El Paso 8 project area there is existing Normandy-style vehicle barrier, which will
be replaced with primary pedestrian barrier as a part of the El Paso 8 project. In addition,
there is an existing patrol road that is situated immediately north of the existing vehicle
barrier. The new secondary barrier will be north of the new primary pedestrian barrier and
the existing patrol road.
El Paso 2
30. The El Paso 2 project will involve replacing 23.51 miles of existing vehicle barrier with
primary pedestrian barrier in three noncontiguous segments. The El Paso 2 project area is in
Hidalgo and Luna Counties, New Mexico. The first two segments of the El Paso 2 project
area are in Hidalgo County, New Mexico. The first segment starts approximately 5.1 miles
east of the Arizona-New Mexico Border and extends east for approximately 4.5 miles. The
second segment starts approximately 3 miles west of the Antelope Wells Port of Entry and
extends to approximately 3 miles east of the Antelope Wells Port of Entry. The third
segment is in Luna County, New Mexico. It starts approximately 20 miles west of the
Columbus Port of Entry and extends west for approximately 12.84 miles.
31. There is existing Normandy-style vehicle barrier within the El Paso 2 project area, which will
be replaced with primary pedestrian barrier. There is also an existing patrol road that is
situated immediately north of the existing pedestrian barrier.

5

Laredo 7
32. Laredo Project 7 involves the construction of approximately 52 miles of new primary
pedestrian barrier. The Laredo 7 project area is in Webb County, Texas. It starts at the
Laredo-Columbia Solidarity Port of Entry Northwest, and extends north along the Rio
Grande River for approximately 52 miles.
USA CE Environmental Planning and Mitigation Efforts

Construction Best Management Practices <BMPs}
33. For all Section 2808 projects, USACE intends to include construction BMPs previously
prepared by CBP for work in the CBP sectors containing Section 2808 projects in order to
minimize or avoid to the extent practicable potential environmental impacts.
34. I am informed by USACE that construction BMPs address general construction activities,
biological resources, air quality, water resources, and cultural resources. For example,
construction BMPs developed for the Yuma Sector have already been included in the first
Requests for Proposal for the Yuma 2 and Yuma I 0/27 construction contracts. These BMPs
include, but are not limited to: (i) using established roads to the maximum extent practicable
and using areas already disturbed by past activities, when available, for staging, parking and
equipment storage; (ii) limiting the application of soil-binding agents to areas that lack
vegetation or are not in or near (i.e., within 100 feet of) surface waters and to months in late
summer or early fall to avoid affecting Federally listed species; (iii) washing hauling and
construction equipment entering the site to prevent the introduction of invasive species,
removing plant/vegetation and soil/debris from construction vehicles leaving the site, to
prevent the removal of invasive specifies from the site and using vegetation removal methods
that allow root systems to remain intact to prevent disturbance that encourages establishment
of invasive plant species; (iv) prohibiting the use of herbicides in streams or other bodies of
water, and areas suitable for or designated as critical habitat of threatened or endangered
plant species; and (v) requiring that treated water from outside the immediate construction
area be used if pumping local groundwater has an adverse effect on the aquatic, marsh, or
riparian dwelling of threatened or endangered species.
35. USACE will provide for on-site environmental monitors during construction to ensure that
contractors adhere to the BMPs.
USACE Environmental Support Teams (ENVst}
36. In addition, I am informed that USACE ENVst are conducting and will continue to conduct
Environmental Baseline Surveys (EBS) prior to construction of Section 2808 projects. EBS
reports will identify, to the extent possible, potential impacts from construction activities and
measures to avoid or minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive resources that could be
undertaken without impeding expeditious construction of Section 2808 projects. In preparing
these reports, USACE may also informally coordinate with other Federal and State agencies,

6

Federally recognized Indian Tribes, and other stakeholders that may have information
relevant to the EBS. The completed EBS reports will be provided to construction personnel.
37. ENV st teams include US ACE chemists, environmental engineers, biologists, explosive
specialists, engineering technicians, and environmental specialists.
38. i am further informed by USACE that ENVst are currently conducting the first outreach
meetings with resource agencies (e.g., land management agencies, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), State resource agencies, and local Tribal governments). The input from
these outreach meetings will inform additional outreach and other environmental measures
that the Department of the Army and USACE may consider implementing. These
environmental measures may include identifying sensitive areas to be avoided during
construction, minimizing impacts to sensitive species, and additional construction BMPs for
Section 2808 construction contracts. The Department of the Army and USACE may also
develop mitigation measures, in coordination with the resource agencies, which may include
small wildlife passages (SWPs), data recovery for archeological or cultural resource sites,
restoration of adjacent areas, and adjusting the project footprint. Data recovery for
archeological or cultural resource sites may include hiring a consultant to measure the site,
photograph the site, and recover items to be catalogued off-site in a museum setting.
Adjusting the project footprint may include such actions as designing a bend in a patrol road
to avoid a cactus.
39. USACE will develop environmental documentation regarding additional measures
undertaken during construction, which will include consideration of pre-construction site
conditions, construction impacts, and any mitigation measures that USACE implements.
Biological Resources
40. I am informed by USACE that, before any ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal
or trimming begins, a biologist (either employed by USACE or contracted by USACE) will
present an environmental awareness program to all personnel who will be on-site. The
presentation will include, at a minimum, information regarding migratory bird species, the
Sonoran pronghorn, the Acufia cactus, the northern jaguar, the Sonoran desert tortoise, the
desert bighorn sheep, the golden eagle, the burrowing owl, the chuckwalla, and the flat-tailed
homed lizard. This presentation will include general identification information for the
species, a description of species habitat, and the sensitivity of the species to human activity,
and will describe measures for avoiding and protecting the species during construction.
Following this presentation, photographs of each species will be posted in the office of the
contractor and resident engineer, where the photographs will remain for the duration of the
construction project. The contractor is responsible for ensuring that employees are aware of
the listed species.
41. These presentations for contractors involved in construction and maintenance of facilities
will also include information regarding the protection of cacti and preservation of a suitable
habitat for cacti.

7

42. If construction or clearing activities are scheduled to take place during nesting season
(typically March 1 through September 1), USACE, either directly or through a contracted
environmental firm, will perform a preconstruction survey for migratory bird species to
identify active nests prior to the start of any construction or clearing activity. If construction
activities will result in the disturbance or harm of a migratory bird, then USACE will
coordinate with the USFWS and relevant State departments of natural resources. A buffer
zone, designed in consultation with USFWS and shaped by the birds' characteristics, may be
established around active nests until nestlings have fledged and abandoned the nest.
43. USACE will also ensure that construction areas that are hydro-seeded for temporary erosioncontrol measures only be native plant species appropriate to the surrounding habitat.
44. Additionally, USACE will ensure that removal of trees and brush in habitats for Federally
listed species will be limited to the smallest amount needed to meet contract requirements.
45. USA CE requires contractors to stop work and notify the USACE contracting officer when a
Federally listed species is found in a project area. Any species of concern, including but not
limited to the Sonoran pronghorn, the northern jaguar, the Sonoran desert tortoise, the golden
eagle, the desert bighorn sheep, the burrowing owl, and the flat-tailed horned lizard, must not
be harmed, harassed, or disturbed. Work may resume when a biologist safely removes the
animal or the animal moves away on its own. A biologist will relocate any Federally listed
species found in the project areas that require relocation.
46. USACE requires all on-site workers to check under their parked vehicles and equipment
prior to driving to see whether there is a Sonoran desert tortoise sheltering underneath the
vehicle or equipment. If a desert tortoise is found sheltering underneath a parked vehicle or
equipment, the desert tortoise must be allowed to move out from under the vehicle or
equipment on its own or a biologist must be contacted to relocate the animal before the
vehicle or equipment can be moved. Any biologist-facilitated relocation will adhere to
current handling guidelines for the Sonoran desert tortoise issued by the Arizona Game and
Fish Department, Revised September 2014.
47. USACE will provide contractors with the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Rangewide Management
Strategy, which includes mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the lizards and their
habitat.
48. USACE requires contractors to design light poles and other pole-like structures to discourage
roosting by birds, particularly ravens and raptors.
49. To prevent entrapment of wildlife species during construction, all excavated, steep-walled
holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep must be covered at the close of each working day by
plywood or installed with one or more escape ramps constructed of dirt fill or wooden
planks. The ramps will be located at no greater than 1,000-foot intervals and will be sloped
less than 45 degrees. Each morning before the start of construction, and before such holes or
trenches are filled, contractors must thoroughly inspect any holes or trenches for trapped
animals. Any animals discovered must be allowed to escape voluntarily (by escape ramps or
8

temporary structures) and without harassment, or be removed from the trench or hole by a
biologist before construction activities resume.
50. To prevent entrapment of wildlife during construction, all hollow vertical bollards must be
covered. Contractors must also use covers from the time the bollards are erected to the time
they are filled.
51. To prevent attracting predators of protected animals, all trash related to food--e.g., wrappers,
cans, bottles, and food scraps-must be disposed of in closed containers and removed daily
from the project sites.
52. USACE is also implementing general construction requirements related to clearing,
grubbing, and plant relocation to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. For example,
contractors will be required to protect the Saguaro cactus "in place." For Yuma 2 and Yuma
I 0/27, if a Saguaro cactus interferes with construction operations, contractors must relocate
the cactus if it is less than ten feet tall. The government has identified 200 Saguaro cacti of
various sizes located within the Yuma 2 and Yuma 10/27 project boundaries. For Yuma 3, if
Saguaro cacti interfere with construction operations, they are to be relocated in accordance
with if53 of this declaration. The government has identified approximately 45 Saguaro cacti
of various sizes located within the Yuma 3 project boundaries. In all cases, USACE will
attempt to relocate cacti as long as they are viable. USACE will develop further specific
criteria as it formulates subsequent requests for proposal.
53. When relocating plants, including the Saguaro cactus, contractors will provide a licensed
arborist or biologist to prepare a relocation plan and oversee the relocation effort. Affected
plants are to be relocated to undisturbed areas at least IO feet away from proposed lighting
and electrical features. Contractors will submit a plant relocation plan, indicating existing
and proposed locations for plants to be relocated, to the USACE contracting officer. The
plant relocation plan will include: (i) the method of removal and placement; (ii) procedures
for fertilizing and watering the plant; (iii) methods for bracing and stabilizing the plant; (iv)
provisions for marking relocated plants so that they will be identifiable during the 12-month
period required for the plant to establish roots in the new soil; and (v) proposed locations for
electrical components, lighting, and fiber optic features.
54. As noted in if61 of the April 25, 2019 Enriquez declaration, the conversion from wire mesh
fencing to bollard barrier fencing will have beneficial impacts for some smaller species,
including the flat-tailed homed lizard. For prior projects where CBP constructed mesh-style
fencing, CBP incorporated small holes in the bottom of the fence that would allow for
migration of smaller species, such as the flat-tailed horned lizard. The bollard fencing will
not require these holes because smaller species will be able to travel through the four-inch
gaps between bollards.
Air Quality
55. USACE requires contractors to water the soil to minimize airborne particulate matter created
from construction activities and to cover bare ground with erosion protection following
9

construction. Mitigation measures will be incorporated to ensure that PMl O emission levels
do not rise above the de minimus threshold required in 40 CFR 51.853(b)(l). These
measures include dust suppression methods to minimize airborne particulate matter that will
be created during construction activities. Standard construction BMPs, such as routine
watering of the patrol, drag, and access roads, will be used to control dust during
construction. Additionally, all construction equipment and vehicles will be kept in good
operating condition to minimize exhaust emissions.·
·
Water Resources
56. USACE requires contractors to implement standard construction procedures to minimize the
potential for erosion and sedimentation during construction. For example, contractors must
minimize or avoid the potential for trapping surface water flows within the roadbed caused
by grading. The specific procedures implemented by contractors will differ depending on the
project location and contractor design submissions. In past, similar projects, contractors have
employed drainage ditches and check dams to control erosion. The depth of any pits created
must also be minimized so animals do not become trapped. Water tankers that convey
untreated surface water must not discard unused water where it has the potential to enter
surface waters or drainages. The contractor's environmental monitor, a USACE-contracted
environmental monitor, or representative from USACE will advise as to appropriate sites for
discarding unused water. If untreated surface water is used, all pumps, hoses, tanks, and
other water storage devices must be cleaned and disinfected with a 10% bleach solution at an
appropriate facility before the equipment is employed at another site. This I 0% bleach
solution must not enter any surface water area. If a new water source is used that is not from
a treated or groundwater source, additional cleaning is required to kill any residual diseasecarrying organisms or invasive species that may affect local threatened or endangered
species.
57. Materials used for on-site erosion control in native habitats must be free of non-native plant
seeds and other plant parts to limit the potential for infestation by non-native species. Since
natural materials cannot be certified as completely weed-free, if natural materials are used for
erosion control, there must be follow-up monitoring to document whether non-native species
have been inadvertently planted and whether appropriate, time-bound control measures
should be implemented in the site restoration plan.
Cultural Resources
58. I am informed that any known cultural resources will be clearly flagged by USACE
environmental monitors for avoidance during construction. Flagging must be completed
before any ground disturbing activities take place. If it is not practicable to avoid such sites
and there may be impacts to known cultural resources, USACE may be required to undertake
other data recovery efforts before beginning any ground disturbing activities. Should any
hitherto unknown archaeological artifacts or human remains be found during construction, all
ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery must stop and the contractor must
immediately notify the USACE Contracting Officer. Work will not resume until it is
authorized by the USACE contracting officer.
10

Harm to Wildlife and Other Natural Resources in California and New Mexico

59. I have been informed by USFWS that statements made in the declaration of Paul Enriquez,
dated April 25, 2019, regarding threatened and endangered species are still accurate.
Additional information from USFWS and USACE regarding allegations found in the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying declarations are as follows:
Chiricahua Leopard Frog
60. I am informed by USFWS that there is no USFWS designated critical habitat for the
Chiricahua leopard frog in the project areas, and so no critical habitat will be lost. I am also
informed by USFWS that critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog does not cross the
international border and, as stated above, the bollard barrier will allow small species to
traverse the border. For these reasons, the plaintiff's alleged harms concerning the
Chiricahua leopard frog are misplaced.
Gila Monster
61. USFWS has provided the following additional information on the expected effect of Section
2808 construction on Gila monsters in New Mexico. This information corresponds to ,r,r 58
and 59 of the Enriquez declaration:
a. Records of Gila monsters in the counties of Dona Ana, New Mexico, and Luna,
New Mexico, are exceedingly rare and outside the range where most State records
document the presence of Gila monsters.
b. Indirect effects to Gila monsters caused by the presence of border barriers, such as
limiting their movement patters, are not expected based on the size and physical
abilities of Gila monsters compared to potential restrictions associated with
proposed bollard fencing.
c. Gila monsters are expected to occur in various densities along the Yuma Projects,
particularly where habitat complexity and vegetation heterogeneity are higher and
where rock structures or subsurface retreats are common. Specifically, in the
Lower Colorado subdivision ofSonoran Desertscrub where the Yuma projects
occur, Gila monsters are more frequently encountered between the creosote bushwhite bursage series and the paloverde-cactus of the Arizona upland, where
topographical relief tends to be greater. Since such topography is less common in
the Yuma project areas, there are fewer expected impacts to Gila monsters.
d. I am informed that, for the foregoing reasons, in the region that includes the
Yuma Projects, and particularly where mountain ranges intersect with the
international border, the potential for loss of an unknown number of individual
Gila monsters as a result of construction activity, would not have an appreciable
effect on the larger, contiguous population of Gila monsters.
Burrowing Owl
62. USACE advises that the construction BMPs used for Yuma 2 and Yuma I 0/27 Requests for
Proposal include provisions requiring that burrowing owl surveys be conducted 30 days
II

before any construction begins in burrowing owl areas; active burrows be flagged and
include a 250-foot buffer; and active burrows that-cannot be avoided be collapsed. There are
two restrictions on whether contractors may collapse a burrow. If construction is taking
place during the owl's nesting period, which lasts from February 15 through September 15,
contractors will first ascertain whether there are eggs or young in the burrow before a burrow
is collapsed, consistent with guidelines developed by the Burrowing Owl Consortium of
California. See Attachment 2. If young are present, burrows will not be collapsed until they
fledge.
Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard
63. USACE has advised me that the contractors for Yuma 2 and Yuma 10/27 are required to
comply with the mitigation and compensation measures identified in the Flat-tailed Horned
Lizard Rangewide Management Strategy (Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency
Coordinating Committee. 2003, pp. 58-62). In addition, the Requests for Proposal for Yuma
2 and Yuma 10/27 include construction BMPs specific to the flat-tailed homed lizard, among
other construction BMPs. These construction BMPs require that:
a. All on-site personnel must attend a worker awareness presentation given by a
biologist that holds a letter of completion for attending the flat-tailed horned
lizard biomonitor training, prior to conducting any construction activity in the
Yuma Desert Management Area;
b. A biologist will be present during construction activities. The biologist will
oversee compliance with protective measures for the flat-tailed horned lizard and
serve as the primary field contact for matters related to the flat-tailed horned
lizard. The biologist is responsible for telling the construction supervisor to halt
activities that violate the mitigation terms and conditions;
c. A biologist must be present to monitor any ground-disturbing construction
activities The biologist will survey the work area before ground clearing to locate
and remove any flat-tailed horned lizards present in the active work area; and
d. A biologist must inspect areas that will be disturbed by construction activities
before any such activities take place and relocate any flat-tailed horned lizards, in
danger of being injured or killed. The biologist must also inspect all excavations
for flat-tailed horned lizards before backfilling any excavated land and relocate
any such animals found during excavation, provided that such an inspection is
safe and practical. Any land that is left excavated overnight must be covered or
have an escape ramp installed to prevent entrapment of the flat-tailed horned
lizard. The biologist will inspect for flat-tailed horned lizards under all equipment
that has remained idle for 15 minutes or more prior to moving the equipment.
Northern Jaguar
64. As conceded in the States' Summary Judgment brief, Section 2808 projects are only
"adjacent" to a northern jaguar critical habitat in New Mexico. According to the USFWS,
passage across the international border in Arizona will still be possible notwithstanding
Section 2808 construction. USFWS defines a critical habitat as those areas that contain the
12

physical and biological features essential to the conservation of a species. Critical habitat is
generally limited to those areas that are either occupied by the species or those areas outside
the geographic area occupied by the species that are essential to the conservation of the
species. According to USFWS' critical habitat designation, there have only been seven
individual jaguars detected in the United States since 1982, with all of them occurring in
areas where critical habitat has been designated. Further, the most recent known breeding
event in the United States, according to USFWS, was in 1910. Thus, the States' assertion
that the New Mexico project will "bisect" a jaguar migration corridor (States' SJ Brief at 30)
is exaggerated. In light of the above, the evidence does not support plaintiffs' suggestion or
assertion that the Yuma and El Paso Projects will significantly harm the jaguar population or
jaguar recovery in the United States.
White-Sided Jackrabbit
65. The white-sided jackrabbit population crosses the border at the Animas Valley. Plaintiffs
claim that the species will be harmed by construction of border barrier at El Paso 2 and El
Paso 8. I am informed that the segment of El Paso 2 between monuments 67 and 69 is on the
west side of the Animas Valley. Additionally, the east side of the Animas Valley is not
included in El Paso Project 8. Furthermore, USFWS declined to list the jackrabbit or any of
its subspecies or populations as threatened or endangered and to designate critical habitat
under the Endangered Species Act. 75 Fed. Reg. 53615 (Sept. I, 2010). USFWS rejected the
assertion that impacts with Border Security vehicles was a cause of the species' decline. Id.
at 53623-24. In declining to list the United States populations of the jackrabbit as threatened
or endangered, USFWS also determined that the portion of the jackrabbit population in the
United States "represent[s] less than one percent of the range of the species," that the United
States populations "are peripheral populations occurring in an area where the species was
never known to be abundant," and that "[t]he loss of these populations is not likely to result
in a significant gap in the range of the taxon." Id. at 53628.
Mexican Wolf and Aplomado Falcon
66. Plaintiffs claim that, "[t]he New Mexico Projects will bisect important wildlife habitats,
impairing the access of the Mexican Wolf and other endangered species to those habitats. Id.
Ex. 4 (Nagano Deel. ,r 25); Ex. 5 (Traphagen Deel. ,r,r 18-19, 23-24)." States SJ Brief at 25.
More generally, plaintiffs also assert that there are credible threats to the Aplomado falcon.
Nagano ,r 13-34; Vanderplank ,r 20-22.
67. There is insufficient evidence to support the suggestion that Section 2808 projects will
significantly harm the population or recovery of the Mexican wolf or Aplomado falcon. As
stated in if55 of the Enriquez declaration, the recovery criteria for Mexican wolf specifically
contemplates "two demographically and environmentally independent populations," one in
the United States and one in Mexico, "such that negative events (e.g. diseases, severe
weather, natural disasters) are unlikely to affect both populations simultaneously." Id.
According to USFWS, having two resilient populations provides redundancy, which in turn
provides security against extinction from catastrophic events that could affect a population.
Recovery criteria also call for achieving a specific genetic target to ensure that genetic threats
13

are adequately alleviated. USFWS recognizes the benefits of connectivity (wolves naturally
dispersing between populations) to improve genetic diversity, but has also stated-that it
"do[ es] not expect the level of dispersal predicted between any of the sites (particularly
between the United States and northern Sierra Madre Occidental) to provide for adequate
gene flow between populations to alleviate genetic threats or ensure representation of the
captive population's gene diversity in both populations." Id. Therefore, USFWS crafted a
recovery strategy for the Mexican wolf that relies on the initial release of wolves from
captivity to the wild and the translocation of wolves between populations as a necessary form
of management to alleviate genetic threats during the recovery process. Id. USFWS
specifically stated that "connectivity or successful migrants are not required to achieve
recovery" of the Mexican wol£ Id. at 15.
68. Similarly, according to USFWS, Aplomado falcon pairs likely number into the hundreds and
are distributed among three populations and four countries. The Simpson Draw pair likely
account for less than I% of Aplomado falcons. Therefore, I am informed that, even if the
proposed construction resulted in the loss of one pair, it is not likely to significantly reduce
the subspecies' survival or recovery probabilities. Further, at stated at '1[57 of the Enriquez
declaration, USFWS has not designated any critical habitat for the Aplomado falcon because
there is ample suitable habitat to support falcons in Arizona and New Mexico. Similarly,
USFWS has not designated any critical habitat for Mexican wolf.
Mule Deer, Mountain Lion, and Bighorn Sheep
69. The States' allege that the Section 2808 projects in New Mexico "will completely block
habitat corridors for [mule deer, mountain lions, and bighorn sheep] and impair New
Mexico's ability to protect these important corridors." States' SJ Brief at 25. As stated at
'1[61 of the Enriquez declaration, these assertions are directly at odds with CBP's prior
analysis of similar projects, including the recent Santa Teresa project. In the Santa Teresa
project, CBP concluded that such construction would result only in minor adverse effects to
wildlife.
Ouino Checkerspot Butterfly, California Gnatcatcher, and Vernal Pool Species
70. Neither the Clark nor the Gibson declarations identifies any members of these species that
have been found in the Section 2808 project areas. As stated above, USA CE will complete
EBS reports that will identify, to the extent possible, potential impacts from construction
activities and measures to avoid or minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive resources
that could be undertaken without impeding expeditious construction of Section 2808 projects.

Recreational and Aesthetic Harms
San Diego 4
71. The San Diego 4 project area is undeveloped, mountainous, and is situated south of the Otay
Mountain Wilderness Area.
a. Sierra Club - Guerrero Declaration
14

1.

11.

Guerrero claims to visit the Otay Open Space Preserve once a month. ('II 5)
The Otay Open Space Preserve is at least three miles north of the San
Diego 4 project area. Therefore, San Diego 4 is unlikely to affect
Guerrero's recreational or aesthetic experience in the Area.
Guerrero claims that construction would add a destructive human element
to a peaceful desert landscape. ('II 6) As noted in 'I[! 0 of this declaration,
there are already roads in the construction area, and CBP patrols the
region regularly. In addition, there is existing primary pedestrian barrier
in the eastern portion of the San Diego 4 project area. Therefore,
construction at San Diego 4 would not constitute an additional
"destructive" human element and a more secure border barrier may
actually reduce the need for other border enforcement activities in the
area. Furthermore, the Otay Mountain Wilderness and surrounding
undeveloped areas are large relative to the narrow construction corridor
required for USACE activity.

b. Sierra Club - Watman Declaration
1.

Watrnan claims to hike in the Otay Mountain Wilderness frequently to
"get away from hustle and bustle" and to lead tours in the wilderness ('11'11
6-8). Watrnan further claims that construction would "block" his ability to
enjoy the Wilderness ('II 12), thereby preventing further border tours, and
ruin his sense of tranquility and being alone in nature ('II 13). These claims
are exaggerated for the reasons stated above, i.e., there is existing
infrastructure and CBP already patrols the area. Again, the surrounding
protected and undeveloped areas are large when compared to the narrow
construction corridor required for this project. The Otay Mountain
Wilderness is approximately 18,500 acres, or approximately 26 square
miles.

c. Sierra Club - Wellhouse Declaration
1.

11.

Wellhouse also mentions the Otay Open Space Preserve and her concern
that San Diego 4 could destroy habitat within the Area ('II 6). As discussed
above, the Otay Open Space Preserve is at least three miles north of the
San Diego 4 project area, and there will be no construction activities
within the Area.
Wellhouse also claims that border barrier construction will severely
impact her enjoyment of open spaces around the project area ('II 8). These
claims are exaggerated for the reasons stated above.

San Diego 11
72. As stated above, the land on either side of the border at this location already appears to be
heavily developed and urbanized.
15

a. Sierra Club - Watman Declaration
i. Watman claims, among other things, that the secondary barrier will mar
his views of the American mountain ranges when he visits Mexico (118).
As noted above, primary fence is already being replaced with 30-foot
bollard fencing through a CBP replacement project. Therefore, the project
area consists largely of previously disturbed land that already functions as
a CBP law enforcement zone.
b. Sierra Club - Wellhouse Declaration

i. Wellhouse claims that the construction will severely affect her enjoyment
of open spaces around the project area (18). This claim is exaggerated
given the existing infrastructure, CBP patrols, and narrow construction
corridor related to this project. Additionally, the San Diego 11 project
area already functions as a law enforcement zone and most ofland is
already disturbed.
El Centro 5
73. As stated above, for the entire length of the El Centro 5 project area, the areas that surround
the project area on both sides of the international border are urbanized, heavily developed,
and appears to be densely-populated.

a. Sierra Club - Ramirez Declaration
Ramirez claims that "Construction along the border will make me less
likely to hike Mount Signal and enjoy outdoor recreational activities; and
when I do undertake those activities, my enjoyment of them will be
irreparably diminished. This additional barrier will further obstruct my
sight line into Mexico." (15)
ii. These claims are exaggerated because it is unclear how a secondary fence
prohibits views of the mountains. Further, the area is already disturbed,
functions as law enforcement zone, and is urbanized on both sides of the
port of entry. El Centro 5 will not alter Ramirez's ability to enter Mexico
to hike Mount Signal-or return to the United States-through the
Calexico port of entry.
1.

El Centro 9
74. As described above, on the U.S. side of the border, the areas that surround the El Centro 9
project area appear to be comprised of primarily privately-owned land that is used for
agricultural purposes. On the Mexican side of the border, the areas that surround the western
portion of the El Centro 9 project are also comprised ofland that appears to be agricultural
land. In the eastern portion of the El Centro 9 project area, the Mexican side of the border is
urbanized, densely-populated, and appears to be heavily developed.

16

a. Sierra Club - Ramirez Declaration
i. Ramirez claims that "Construction along the border will make me less
likely to hike Mount Signal and enjoy outdoor recreational activities; and
when I do undertake those activities, my enjoyment of them will be
irreparably diminished. This additional barrier will further obstruct my
sight line into Mexico." (ii 5)
11. It is unclear how a secondary fence prohibits views of the mountains.
Further, the area is already disturbed, functions as law enforcement zone,
and is urbanized on both sides of the port of entry. An additional
pedestrian fence in this urbanized landscape will not substantially alter the
view. El Centro 9 will not alter Ramirez's ability to enter Mexico to hike
Mount Signal-or return to the United States-through the Calexico port
of entry.
Yuma6
Sierra Club - Bevins Declaration

75. Bevins claims that this project will fragment the vista in this area and disrupt desert views.
He implies that, due to this project, he won't be able to birdwatch or enjoy the natural
features of the land. (ilil 7-8) Bevins further claims that the area is currently "not heavily
fortified." Id.
76. As noted above, there is already fencing near the project area. Thus, there is no basis to
claim that the project will have significant aesthetic impacts. The new pedestrian fencing
will be situated immediately adjacent to the Andrade port of entry and for approximately one
mile along the Colorado River. Most of the new secondary fencing will be located behind
existing fencing. This area already functions as a law enforcement zone and is mostly
disturbed land.
Sierra Club - Del Val Declaration

77. Del Val is concerned that construction will detract from natural beauty. (ii 7) Again, there is
already significant existing infrastructure in the area, which Del Val admits by mentioning
other wall projects. (ii 8) The area also already functions as a law enforcement zone.
Sierra Club - Meister Declaration

78. Meister says that she feels uncomfortable that CBP watches her as she bird watches and that
the Yuma 6 project could exacerbate the issue. (ii 16) However, there is existing
infrastructure in the project area. Further, the area is already functioning as a law
enforcement zone, this is already a factor in her use of the area. USACE construction does
nothing to change this dynamic.

17

Projects on BMGR (Yuma 2 and Yuma 10/27)
79. Management ofBMGR is shared between the U.S. Air Force (BMGR East) and the U.S.
Marine Corps (BMGR West). As shown in Figure 1.1 in the BMGR Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plan (INRMP) (Attachment 3), the southernmost point ofBMGR
East is not near the U.S.-Mexico border.
80. The Department of the Navy has informed me that approximately 75 percent ofBMGR West
is made available to the public for recreational use, as shown in Figure 7.1 of the BMGR
INRMP. Regarding the border itself, approximately 10 miles of the 31 miles of border fence
on BMGR West are accessible to members of the public with a U.S. Marine Corps-issued
permit. These 10 miles of border can be accessed through three roads or any number of foot
trails. Only these three roads leading to the border through BMGR West are accessible to the
public, and these roads require a U.S. Marine Corps-issued permit. There is no unfettered
public access anywhere in BMGR West.
81. I am further informed that areas within BMGR West that are currently open to the public for
recreation through a U.S. Marine Corps-issued permit will remain open to the public for such
purposes, subject to occasional temporary closures to support military activities that present
safety hazards or have security requirements. Roads that are currently open to the public
within BMGR West will remain open to the public, although accessibility to some roads may
be limited while construction projects are underway. Additional details regarding public
access to BMGR and recreation in BMGR are provided in Figures 2.8 and 7.1 and Sections
2.3.6 and 7.2 of the BMGR INRMP.
Yuma2
Sierra Club - Broyles Declaration

82. Broyles claims that "my enjoyment of these areas also will also be damaged by the incessant
lighting associated with the wall and its construction, and the widening of roads and
attendant noise and dust associated with construction." (ii 17) While Broyles does not
specify exactly which areas are concerned, it appears that Broyles is referring to BMGR and
Cabeza Prieta. (ii 18) Broyles also claims that barrier construction will "blight a landscape
whose core attractions include unimpeded views across the border" (ii 18) and that that "the
presence of a thirty-foot wall would reduce the size of the Refuge and Range available for
enjoyable public use." (ii 16). These claims are exaggerated because there is already a
pedestrian barrier and patrol road in this area, the small corridor required for construction
already functions like a law enforcement zone, and construction impacts will be temporary.
Sierra Club - Hartman Declaration

83. Hartman claims that "wall segments will fundamentally alter my experience of these lands
[i.e., Yuma 2, 3, and 10/27], by intruding upon the natural beauty, and historical
connectedness of people and species, that I visit these areas to experience. The roads and
lighting will likewise diminish the features I hold dear." (ii 15) These claims are conclusory
18

and exaggerated due to the existing infrastructure, narrow construction corridor, and given
that the area already functions like a law enforcement zone.

Sierra Club - Tuell Declaration
84. Tuell expresses concern about the impact of construction on Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument and Quitobaquito Springs. ('I[ I 0) Neither this nor any other Section 2808 project
is on or affects these two areas.
Yuma 10/27

Sierra Club - Broyles Declaration
85. See ,r 82 of this declaration.

Sierra Club - Hartman Declaration
86. See ,r 83 of this declaration.
Yuma3
87. As discussed above, there is existing post and rail-style vehicle barrier within the Yuma 3
project area, which will be replaced with primary pedestrian barrier as a part of the Yuma 3
project. There is also an existing patrol road that is situated immediately north of the existing
vehicle barrier in most of the project area.

a. Sierra Club - Broyles Declaration
1.

Broyles also claims that barrier construction will "blight a landscape
whose core attractions include unimpeded views across the border." ('II 18)
There is already existing vehicle barrier on this land, which is being
replaced with pedestrian barrier.

b. Sierra Club - Hartman Declaration
i. Hartman claims that "wall segments will fundamentally alter my
experience of these lands (i.e., Yuma 2, 3, and 10/27), by intruding upon
the natural beauty, and historical connectedness of people and species, that
I visit these areas to experience. The roads and lighting will likewise
diminish the features I hold dear." ('II 15). This claim is exaggerated due to
the existing barrier infrastructure in the Yuma 3 project area, the narrow
corridor required for construction, and the fact that this already functions
as a law enforcement zone.

19

El Paso 8
88. Within the El Paso 8 project area there is existing Normandy-style vehicle barrier, which will
be replaced with primary pedestrian barrier as a part of the El Paso 8 project. In addition,
there is an existing patrol road that is situated immediately north of the vehicle barrier. The
new secondary barrier will be constructed immediately north of the new primary pedestrian
barrier and the existing patrol road.
·

a. Sierra Club - Ardovino and Bixby Declarations
1.

Ardovino and Bixby both claim to recreate in these areas; however, there
appears to be only private land surrounding this project area. In addition,
there will be a small construction footprint relative to the size of the
surrounding land.

b. Sierra Club - Roemer Declaration
i. Roemer claims that pedestrian barrier will negatively impact views of the
area. (,r 15) This claim is exaggerated given the narrow construction
corridor relative to the size of the surrounding land.

c. Sierra Club - Walsh Declaration
i. Walsh claims that the project will affect her "interest in enjoying and
recreating in the large geographic zone in the El Paso Sector." (,r 10) This
claims is exaggerated because, as she notes herself, the area surrounding
this project is vast and the construction corridor required for this project is
relatively narrow.
El Paso 2
89. As noted above, there is existing Normandy-style vehicle barrier within the El Paso 2 project
area, which will be replaced with primary pedestrian barrier. There is also an existing patrol
road that is situated immediately north of the existing pedestrian barrier.
a. The facts related to El Paso 8 claims in the Ardovino, Bixby, Roemer, and Walsh
Declarations apply equally to El Paso 2.
Laredo 7

Sierra Club - Miller Declaration
90. Miller claims that the project will affect him "aesthetically" as he conducts research along the
Rio Grande River. ('If 10) As noted above, all land along this project is private land.

20

Sierra Club - Thompson Declaration

91. Thompson claims that the project will make it "impossible or extremely difficult" to view
historic sections of the border in the future. ('1[ 13) This claim is exaggerated since all land
along this project is private land.

***

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
current knowledge.
Executed on: October 25, 2019

21

ATTACHMENT A

TASK FORCE BARRIER
2808 PROJECT SEGMENTS

1 2

3

4
6 5

7
8

9

DATE: 15 OCTOBER 2019
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TASK FORCE BARRIER

2808 PROJECT SEGMENTS
_
^

San Diego 4 (1&2)
2.159933 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.555761, -116.877791
LAT/LON End: 32.560134, -116.841443

Border
Monuments

CBP
Detailed
Sectors

San Diego 4
(1&2)

BLM
FWS

_
^

Roosevelt
Reservation

0
25

US/Mexico
Boundary

_
^

1
25

_
^

2
25

San Diego 4 (1&2)
1.445787 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.555351, -116.877742
LAT/LON End: 32.55774, -116.853184

Sources:
Service Layer Credits:
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community
Projection:
GCS_WGS_1984

0 0.25 0.5

1

1.5
Miles

³

1 inch = 1 miles

Page 1 of 9
15 October 2019

SAN DIEGO 4 (1&2)
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TASK FORCE BARRIER

2808 PROJECT SEGMENTS
X
_
^
San Diego 11
3.139795 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.574273, -116.658113
LAT/LON End: 32.578708, -116.604533

_
^
7

24

_
^

6
24

24
5

_
^

_
^

4B
24

X

_
^

24
4

TECATE

CBP
Detailed
Sectors

Port of Entry
Border
Monuments

BLM

San Diego
11

Roosevelt
Reservation
US/Mexico
Boundary

_
^

3
24

Sources:
Service Layer Credits:
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community
Projection:
GCS_WGS_1984

0 0.25 0.5

1

1 inch = 1 miles

1.5
Miles

³

Page 2 of 9
15 October 2019

SAN DIEGO 11
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TASK FORCE BARRIER

El Centro 9
3.235974 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.6664, -115.478381
LAT/LON End: 32.670706, -115.423154

El Centro 5
0.314142 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.664417, -115.50539
LAT/LON End: 32.665027, -115.500321

CALEXICO
EAST
CALEXICO

_
^ X

_
^

_
^

5
22

_
^

4
22

3
22

El Centro 9
9.190083 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.652982, -115.662162
LAT/LON End: 32.664411, -115.505437

_
^

2
22

2808 PROJECT SEGMENTS

1
22

_
^

_
^

9
21

X

El Centro 5
0.242559 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.666097, -115.482527
LAT/LON End: 32.6664, -115.478381

X
_
^

CBP
Detailed
Sectors

Port of Entry
Border
Monuments

BLM

El Centro 5

_
^

8
21

_
^

DOD

El Centro 9

Roosevelt
Reservation
US/Mexico
Boundary

Sources:
Service Layer Credits:
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community
Projection:
GCS_WGS_1984

0 0.75 1.5

3

1 inch = 2 miles

4.5
Miles

³

Page 3 of 9
15 October 2019

EL CENTRO 5
EL CENTRO 9
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TASK FORCE BARRIER

2808 PROJECT SEGMENTS
X
_
^

Yuma 6 (1&2)
1.4 miles Secondary
LAT/LON Start: 32.716566, -114.758754
LAT/LON End: 32.718519,-114.736834
ANDRADE

_
^

20
7

_
^

X

_
^

6
20

Yuma 6 (1&2)
1.128755 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.718695, -114.719492
LAT/LON End: 32.704197, -114.726013

CBP
Detailed
Sectors

Port of Entry
Border
Monuments

BLM

Yuma 6
(1&2)

Roosevelt
Reservation
US/Mexico
Boundary

8
20

Yuma 6 (1&2)
1.186851 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.719052, -114.719175
LAT/LON End: 32.704065, -114.725726

Sources:
Service Layer Credits:
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community
Projection:
GCS_WGS_1984

0 0.25 0.5

1

1.5
Miles

³

1 inch = 1 miles

Page 4 of 9
15 October 2019

YUMA 6 (1&2)
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TASK FORCE BARRIER

Yuma 10/27
37.219827 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.418317, -114.559724
LAT/LON End: 32.23754, -113.963064

20
0

_
^
_
^
9

19

2808 PROJECT SEGMENTS
_
^

_
^

Border
Monuments

CBP
Detailed
Sectors

19
8

Yuma 2

_
^

FWS

19
7

Yuma 3

DOD

Yuma 10/27

_
^
_
^
5

19

Roosevelt
Reservation

_
^

US/Mexico
Boundary

19
4

6
19

_
^
3

19

_
^

2
19

_
^

1
19

_
^

0
19

_
^

9
18

_
^

8
18

Sources:
Service Layer Credits:
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community
Projection:
GCS_WGS_1984

0 1.25 2.5

5

1 inch = 4 miles

7.5
Miles

³

Page 5 of 9
15 October 2019

YUMA 10/27
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TASK FORCE BARRIER

2808 PROJECT SEGMENTS
_
^

_
^

8
19

Yuma 2
2.334848 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.365314, -114.386621
LAT/LON End: 32.357924, -114.3624

Border
Monuments

CBP
Detailed
Sectors

Yuma 2

DOD

Yuma 10/27

Roosevelt
Reservation
US/Mexico
Boundary

19
7

_
^
Sources:
Service Layer Credits:
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community
Projection:
GCS_WGS_1984

0 0.25 0.5

1

1 inch = 1 miles

1.5
Miles

³

Page 6 of 9
15 October 2019

YUMA 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TASK FORCE BARRIER

Yuma Sector
Tucson Sector

_
^

Yuma 3
38.717395 miles
LAT/LON Start: 32.232924, -113.955219
LAT/LON End: 32.199285, -113.846509

_
^
9

18

_
^

8
18

Border
Monuments

CBP
Detailed
Sectors

Yuma 3

FWS

Yuma 10/27

_
^

6
18

_
^

DOD

_
^

5
18

Roosevelt
Reservation

_
^
_
^

US/Mexico
Boundary

18
3

18

18
4

_
^
7

2808 PROJECT SEGMENTS

_
^

2
18

_
^

1
18

Sources:
Service Layer Credits:
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community

_
^

0
18

_
^

9
17

_
^

8
17

Projection:
GCS_WGS_1984

0 1.25 2.5

5

1 inch = 4 miles

7.5
Miles

³

Page 7 of 9
15 October 2019

YUMA 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TASK FORCE BARRIER

El Paso 2
12.903374 miles
LAT/LON Start: 31.783722, -108.182442
LAT/LON End: 31.783708, -107.963193

_
^

_
^

_
^

34

__ _
^^ 1^

33

3

35

37

_ _ _ _ _
^ ^ ^ ^ 6^

40

3

_
^

30

_
^

29

Tucson Sector
El Paso Sector

41

_
^

2808 PROJECT SEGMENTS

_
^

X

_
^

_
^

Border
Monuments

45

_
^
6
_
^

BLM

El Paso 2
El Paso 8
(1&2)

47

4

El Paso 8 (1&2)
5.815567 miles
LAT/LON Start: 31.332916, -108.715858
LAT/LON End: 31.33337, -108.61763

CBP
Detailed
Sectors

Port of Entry

FS
FWS

_
^
8

4

Roosevelt
Reservation

49

_
^

US/Mexico
Boundary

_
^

50

_
^

74

_
^

73

_
^

71

_
^

_
^

El Paso 2
4.53497 miles
LAT/LON Start: 31.332323, -108.962631
LAT/LON End: 31.332292, -108.885946

_
^

68

_
^

67

_
^

66

_
^

65

_
^

64

_
^

75

70

_
^

76

_
^

_
^

63

_ _
^ 1^
6

ANTELOPE
WELLS

X
_
^

60

_
^

51

_ _
^ 8^
5

_
^

57

_ _
^ 5^
5

_
^

54

_
^

53

El Paso 2
6.099999 miles
LAT/LON Start: 31.333368, -108.582412
LAT/LON End: 31.333407, -108.47926

Sources:
Service Layer Credits:
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community
Projection:
GCS_WGS_1984

0 2.5 5

10

1 inch = 8 miles

15
Miles

³

Page 8 of 9
15 October 2019

EL PASO 2
EL PASO 8
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TASK FORCE BARRIER

Del Rio Sector
Laredo Sector

2808 PROJECT SEGMENTS
X

CBP
Detailed
Sectors

Port of Entry
Laredo 7

Roosevelt
Reservation

Laredo 7
52.45904 miles
LAT/LON Start: 28.196854, -100.208841
LAT/LON End: 28.121442, -100.070333

US/Mexico
Boundary

Sources:
Service Layer Credits:
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community
Projection:
GCS_WGS_1984

0 1.25 2.5

5

1 inch = 4 miles

7.5
Miles

³

Page 9 of 9
15 October 2019

LAREDO-COLUMBIA

LAREDO 7

X

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TASK FORCE BARRIER

ATTACHMENT B

BURROWING OWL SURVEY PROTOCOL
AND MITIGATION GUIDELINES

Prepared by:
The California Burrowing Owl Consortium

April 1993

INTRODUCTION
The California Burrowing Owl Consortium developed the following Survey Protocol and
Mitigation Guidelines to meet the need for uniform standards when surveying burrowing owl
(Speotyto cunicularia) populations and evaluating impacts from development projects. The
California Burrowing Owl Consortium is a group of biologists in the San Francisco Bay area
who are interested in burrowing owl conservation. The following survey protocol and mitigation
guidelines were prepared by the Consortium’s Mitigation Committee. These procedures offer
a decision-making process aimed at preserving burrowing owls in place with adequate habitat.
California’s burrowing owl population is clearly in peril and if declines continue unchecked the
species may qualify for listing. Because of the intense pressure for development of open, flat
grasslands in California, resource managers frequently face conflicts between owls and
development projects. Owls can be affected by disturbance and habitat loss, even though there
may be no direct impacts to the birds themselves or their burrows. There is often inadequate
information about the presence of owls on a project site until ground disturbance is imminent.
When this occurs there is usually insufficient time to evaluate impacts to owls and their habitat.
The absence of standardized field survey methods impairs adequate and consistent impact
assessment during regulatory review processes, which in turn reduces the possibility of effective
mitigation.
These guidelines are intended to provide a decision-making process that should be implemented
wherever there is potential for an action or project to adversely affect burrowing owls or the
resources that support them. The process begins with a four-step survey protocol to document
the presence of burrowing owl habitat, and evaluate burrowing owl use of the project site and
a surrounding buffer zone. When surveys confirm occupied habitat, the mitigation measures are
followed to minimize impacts to burrowing owls, their burrows and foraging habitat on the site.
These guidelines emphasize maintaining burrowing owls and their resources in place rather than
minimizing impacts through displacement of owls to an alternate site.
Each project and situation is different and these procedures may not be applicable in some
circumstances. Finally, these are not strict rules or requirements that must be applied in all
situations. They are guidelines to consider when evaluating burrowing owls and their habitat,
and they suggest options for burrowing owl conservation when land use decisions are made.
Section 1 describes the four phase Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol. Section 2 contains the
Mitigation Guidelines. Section 3 contains a discussion of various laws and regulations that
protect burrowing owls and a list of references cited in the text.
We have submitted these documents to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
for review and comment. These are untested procedures and we ask for your comments on
improving their usefulness.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

i

SECTION 1 BURROWING OWL SURVEY PROTOCOL
PHASE I: HABITAT ASSESSMENT
The first step in the survey process is to assess the presence of burrowing owl habitat on the
project site including a 150-meter (approx. 500 ft.) buffer zone around the project boundary
(Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973).
Burrowing Owl Habitat Description
Burrowing owl habitat can be found in annual and perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands
characterized by low-growing vegetation (Zarn 1974). Suitable owl habitat may also include
trees and shrubs if the canopy covers less than 30 percent of the ground surface. Burrows are
the essential component of burrowing owl habitat: both natural and artificial burrows provide
protection, shelter, and nests for burrowing owls (Henny and Blus 1981). Burrowing owls
typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, such as ground squirrels or badgers, but also
may use man-made structures, such as cement culverts; cement, asphalt, or wood debris piles;
or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement.
Occupied Burrowing Owl Habitat
Burrowing owls may use a site for breeding, wintering, foraging, and/or migration stopovers.
Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat can be verified at a site by an observation of at
least one burrowing owl, or, alternatively, its molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains,
eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance. Burrowing owls exhibit high
site fidelity, reusing burrows year after year (Rich 1984, Feeney 1992). A site should be
assumed occupied if at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow there
within the last three years (Rich 1984).
The Phase II burrow survey is required if burrowing owl habitat occurs on the site. If
burrowing owl habitat is not present on the project site and buffer zone, the Phase II burrow
survey is not necessary. A written report of the habitat assessment should be prepared (Phase
IV), stating the reason(s) why the area is not burrowing owl habitat.
PHASE II: BURROW SURVEY
1. A survey for-burrows and owls should be conducted by walking through suitable
habitat over the entire project site and in areas within 150 meters (approx 500 ft.) of
the project impact zone. This 150-meter buffer zone is included to account for
adjacent burrows and foraging habitat outside the project area and impacts from
factors such as noise and vibration due to heavy equipment which could impact
resources outside the project area.

Burrowing Owl Survey
and Mitigation Guidelines

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

1

2. Pedestrian survey transects should be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of
the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines should be no more
than 30 meters (approx. 100 ft.), and should be reduced to account for differences
in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. To efficiently survey
projects larger than 100 acres, it is recommended that two or more surveyors conduct
concurrent surveys. Surveyors should maintain a minimum distance of 50 meters
(approx. 160 ft.) from any owls or occupied burrows. It is important to minimize
disturbance near occupied burrows during all seasons.
3. If burrows or burrowing owls are recorded on the site, a map should be prepared of
the burrow concentration areas. A breeding season survey and census (Phase III) of
burrowing owls is the next step required.
4. Prepare a report (Phase IV) of the burrow survey stating whether or not burrows are
present.
5. A preconstruction survey may be required by project-specific mitigations no more
than 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity.
PHASE III: BURROWING OWL SURVEYS, CENSUS AND MAPPING
If the project site contains burrows that could be used by burrowing owls, then survey efforts
should be directed towards determining owl presence on the site. Surveys in the breeding season
are required to describe if, when, and how the site is used by burrowing owls. If no owls are
observed using the site during the breeding season, a winter survey is required.
Survey Methodology
A complete burrowing owl survey consists of four site visits. During the initial site visit
examine burrows for owl sign and map the locations of occupied burrows. Subsequent
observations should be conducted from as many fixed points as necessary to provide visual
coverage of the site using spotting scopes or binoculars. It is important to minimize disturbance
near occupied burrows during all seasons. Site visits must be repeated on four separate days.
Conduct these visits from two hours before sunset to one hour after or from one hour before to
two hours after sunrise. Surveys should be conducted during weather that is conducive to
observing owls outside their burrows. Avoid surveys during heavy rain, high winds (> 20
mph), or dense fog.
Nesting Season Survey. The burrowing owl nesting season begins as early as February 1 and
continues through August 31 (Thomsen 1971, Zam 1974). The timing of nesting activities may
vary with latitude and climatic conditions. If possible, the nesting season survey should be
conducted during the peak of the breeding season, between April 15 and July 15. Count and
map all burrowing owl sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows with owl sign. Record
numbers of pairs and juveniles, and behavior such as courtship and copulation. Map the
approximate territory boundaries and foraging areas if known.
California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

2

Survey for Winter Residents (non-breeding owls). Winter surveys should be conducted
between December 1 and January 31, during the period when wintering owls are most likely to
be present. Count and map all owl sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows with owl sign.
Surveys Outside the Winter and Nesting Seasons. Positive results, (i.e., owl sightings)- outside
of the above survey periods would be adequate to determine presence of owls on site. However,
results of these surveys may be inadequate for mitigation planning because the numbers of owls
and their pattern of distribution may change during winter and nesting seasons. Negative results
during surveys outside the above periods are not conclusive proof that owls do not use the site.
Preconstruction Survey. A preconstruction survey may be required by project-specific
mitigations and should be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity.
PHASE IV: RESOURCE SUMMARY, WRITTEN REPORT
A report should be prepared for CDFG that gives the results of each Phase of the survey
protocol, as outlined below.
Phase I: Habitat Assessment
1. Date and time of visit(s) including weather and visibility conditions; methods of
survey.
2. Site description including the following information: location, size, topography,
vegetation communities, and animals observed during visit(s).
3. An assessment of habitat suitability for burrowing owls and explanation.
4. A map of the site.
Phase II: Burrow Survey
1. Date and time of visits including weather and visibility conditions; survey methods
including transect spacing.
2. A more detailed site description should be made during this phase of the survey
protocol including a partial plant list of primary vegetation, location of nearest
freshwater (on or within one mile of site), animals observed during transects.
3. Results of survey transects including a map showing the location of concentrations
of burrow(s) (natural or artificial) and owl(s), if present.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

3

Phase III: Burrowing Owl Surveys, Census and Mapping
1. Date and time of visits including weather and visibility conditions; survey methods
including transect spacing.
2. Report and map the location of all burrowing owls and owl sign. Burrows occupied
by owl(s) should be mapped indicating the number of owls at each burrow. Tracks,
feathers, pellets, or other items (prey remains, animal scat) at burrows should also
be reported.
3. Behavior of owls during the surveys should be carefully recorded (from a distance)
and reported. Describe and map areas used by owls during the surveys. Although
not required, all behavior is valuable to document including feeding, resting,
courtship, alarm, territorial, parental, or juvenile behavior.
4. Both winter and nesting season surveys should be summarized. If possible include
information regarding productivity of pairs, seasonal pattern of use, and include a
map of the colony showing territorial boundaries and home ranges.
5. The historical presence of burrowing owls on site should be documented, as well as
the source of such information (local bird club, Audubon society, other biologists,
etc.).

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

4

Burrowing: Owl Survey Protocol
April 1993
Phase I
Habitat Assessment
Project Area Plus 150 m

Phase II
Burrow Survey
project Area Plus 150 m
100% coverage of
suitable habitat
maximum 30 m
transect spacing
l

l

Figure 1.
Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

5

SECTION 2 BURROWING OWL MITIGATION GUIDELINES
The objective of these mitigation guidelines is to minimize impacts to burrowing owls and the
resources that support viable owl populations. These guidelines are intended to provide a
decision-making process that should be implemented wherever there is potential for an action
or project to adversely affect burrowing owls or their resources. The process begins with a
four-step survey protocol (see Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol) to document the presence of
burrowing owl habitat, and evaluate burrowing owl use of the project site and a surrounding
buffer zone. When surveys confirm occupied habitat, the mitigation measures described below
are followed to minimize impacts to burrowing owls, their burrows and foraging habitat on the
site. These guidelines emphasize maintaining burrowing owls and their resources in place rather
than minimizing impacts through displacement of owls to an alternate site.
Mitigation actions should be carried out prior to the burrowing owl breeding season, generally
from February 1 through August 31 (Thomsen 1971, Zarn 1974). The timing of nesting activity
may vary with latitude and climatic conditions. Project sites and buffer zones with suitable
habitat should be resurveyed to ensure no burrowing owls have occupied them in the interim
period between the initial surveys and ground disturbing activity. Repeat surveys should be
conducted not more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activity.
DEFINITION OF IMPACTS
1. Disturbance or harassment within 50 meters (approx. 160 ft.) of occupied burrows.
2. Destruction of burrows and burrow entrances. Burrows include structures such as
culverts, concrete slabs and debris piles that provide shelter to burrowing owls.
3. Degradation of foraging habitat adjacent to occupied burrows.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Occupied burrows should not be disturbed during the nesting season, from February
1 through August 31, unless the Department of Fish and Game verifies that the birds
have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from those burrows
are foraging independently and capable of independent survival at an earlier date.
2. A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat, calculated on a 100-m (approx. 300 ft.)
foraging radius around the natal burrow, should be maintained per pair (or unpaired
resident single bird) contiguous with burrows occupied within the last three years
(Rich 1984, Feeney 1992). Ideally, foraging habitat should be retained in a long-term
conservation easement.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

6

3. When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, burrows should be enhanced
(enlarged or cleared of debris) or created (by installing artificial burrows) in a ratio
of 1:1 in adjacent suitable habitat that is contiguous with the foraging habitat of the
affected owls.
4. If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation (see
below) is preferable to trapping. A time period of at least one week is recommended
to allow the owls to move and acclimate to alternate burrows.
5. The mitigation committee recommends monitoring the success of mitigation programs
as required in Assembly Bill 3180. A monitoring plan should include mitigation
success criteria and an annual report should be submitted to the California
Department of Fish and Game.
AVOIDANCE
Avoid Occupied Burrows
No disturbance should occur within 50 m (approx. 160 ft.) of occupied burrows during the nonbreeding Season of September 1 through January 31 or within 75 m (approx. 250 ft.) during the
breeding Season of February 1 through August 31. Avoidance also requires that a minimum of
6.5 acres of foraging habitat be preserved contiguous with occupied burrow sites for each pair
of breeding burrowing owls (with or without dependent young) or single unpaired resident bird
(Figure 2).
MITIGATION FOR UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
On-site Mitigation
On-site passive relocation should be implemented if the above avoidance requirements cannot
be met. Passive relocation is defined as encouraging owls to move from occupied burrows to
alternate natural or artificial burrows that are beyond 50 m from the impact zone and that are
within or contiguous to a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat for each pair of relocated
owls (Figure 3). Relocation of owls should only be implemented during the non-breeding
season. On-site habitat should be preserved in a conservation easement and managed to promote
burrowing owl use of the site.
Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 50 m
(approx. 160 ft.) buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances: One-way doors
should be left in place 48 hours to insure owls have left the burrow before excavation. One
alternate natural or artificial burrow should be provided for each burrow that will be excavated
in the project impact zone. The project area should be monitored daily for one week to confirm
owl use of alternate burrows before excavating burrows in the immediate impact zone.
Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent
reoccupation. Sections of flexible plastic pipe or burlap bags should be inserted into the tunnels
California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

7

AVOIDANCE

Non-breeding season

Breeding season

1 Sept. - 31 Jan.

1 Feb. - 31 Aug.
No impacts within
75 m of occupied
burrow

No impacts within
50 m of occupied
burrow
Occupied
burrow

Occupied
burrow
Maintain
at least 6.5 acres
foraging habitat

Maintain
at least 6.5 acres
foraging habitat

Figure 2. Burrowing owl mitigation guidelines.
Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

8

ON-SITE MITIGATION
IF AVOIDANCE NOT MET
(More than 6.5 acres suitable habitat available)

Passively relocate
at least 50 meters
from Impact Zone

Occupied
burrow

Maintain at least 6.5 acres
suitable habitat per pair
or resident bird

Figure 3. Burrowing owl mitigation guidelines.
Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

9

during excavation to maintain an escape route for any animals inside the burrow.
Off-site Mitigation
If the project will reduce suitable habitat on-site below the threshold level of 6.5 acres per
relocated pair or single bird, the habitat should be replaced off-site. Off-site habitat must be
suitable burrowing owl habitat, as defined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol, and the site
approved by CDFG. Land should be purchased and/or placed in a conservation easement in
perpetuity and managed to maintain suitable habitat. Off-site mitigation should use one of the
following ratios:
1. Replacement of occupied habitat with occupied habitat: 1.5 times 6.5 (9.75) acres per
pair or single bird.
2. Replacement of occupied habitat with habitat contiguous to currently occupied habitat:
2 times 6.5 (13.0) acres per pair or single bird.
3. Replacement of occupied habitat with suitable unoccupied habitat: 3 times 6.5 (19.5)
acres per pair or single bird.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

10

SECTION 3 LEGAL STATUS
The burrowing owl is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). The MBTA makes it
unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R.
Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by
implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California
Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their
nests or eggs. Implementation of the take provisions requires that project-related disturbance
at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle
(March 1 - August 15, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of
reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) or the loss of habitat upon
which the birds depend is considered “taking” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or
imprisonment. Such taking would also violate federal law protecting migratory birds (e.g.,
MBTA).
The burrowing owl is a Species of Special Concern to California because of declines of suitable
habitat and both localized and statewide population declines. Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provide that a species be considered as
endangered or “rare” regardless of appearance on a formal list for the purposes of the CEQA
(Guidelines, Section 15380, subsections b and d). The CEQA requires a mandatory findings of
significance if impacts to threatened or endangered species are likely to occur (Sections
21001(c), 21083. Guidelines 15380, 15064, 15065). Avoidance or mitigation must be presented
to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
CEQA AND SUBDIVISION MAP ACT

CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 directs that a mandatory finding of significance is required for
projects that have the potential to substantially degrade or reduce the habitat of, or restrict the
range of a threatened or endangered species. CEQA requires agencies to implement feasible
mitigation measures or feasible alternatives identified in EIR’s for projects which will otherwise
cause significant adverse impacts (Sections 21002, 21081, 21083; Guidelines, sections 15002,
subd. (a)(3), 15021, subd. (a)(2), 15091, subd. (a).).
To be legally adequate, mitigation measures must be capable of “avoiding the impact altogether
by not taking a certain action or parts of an action”; "minimizing impacts by limiting the degree
or magnitude of the action and its implementation”; "rectifying the impact by repairing,
rehabilitating or restoring the impacted environment”; "or reducing or eliminating the impact
over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.”
(Guidelines, Section 15.370).
Section 66474 (e) of the Subdivision Map Act states “a legislative body of a city or county shall
deny approval of a tentative map or parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if
California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

11

it makes any of the following findings:... (e) that the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat”. In recent court cases, the court upheld that
Section 66474(e) provides for environmental impact review separate from and independent of
the requirements of CEQA (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles,
263 Cal. Rptr. 214 (1989).). The finding in Section 66174 is in addition to the requirements
for the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

12

LITERATURE CITED
Feeney, L. 1992. Site fidelity in burrowing owls. Unpublished paper presented to Raptor
Research Annual Meeting, November 1992. Seattle, Washington.
Haug, E. A. and L. W. Oliphant. 1990. Movements, activity patterns, and habitat use of
burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. J. Wildlife Management 54:27-35.
Henny, C. J. and L. J. Blus. 1981. Artificial burrows provide new insight into burrowing owl
nesting biology. Raptor Research 15:82-85.
Martin, D. J. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75:446456.
Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring burrowing owl populations: Implications of burrow re-use. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 12: 178- 180.
Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal
Airport. Condor 73: 177-192.
Zam, M. 1974. Burrowing owl. U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Technical Note T-N 250. Denver, Colorado. 25pp.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines

13

ATTACHMENT C

BARRY M. GOLDWATER RANGE
INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

INRMP UPDATE
August 2018

Prepared for:
U.S. Department of the Air Force, Luke Air Force Base
U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
In cooperation with:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge
and
Arizona Game and Fish Department

Prepared by:
Colorado State University
Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands

U. S. Air Force
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan 2018 Update
Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR)
Arizona

This installation-specific environmental management plan is based on the U.S. Air Force’s (USAF)
standardized Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) template. This INRMP has
been developed according to the Sikes Act Improvement Act (16 U.S. Code § 670 et seq., as amended
through 2014) in cooperation with applicable stakeholders, which may include cooperating agencies
and/or local equivalents, to document how natural resources will be managed. Non-U.S. territories
will comply with applicable Final Governing Standards. Where applicable, external resources,
including Air Force Instructions; Marine Corps Orders; USAF Playbooks; United States Marine Corps
(USMC) Handbooks; and federal, state, local, Final Governing Standards, biological opinions, and
permit requirements, are referenced herein.
About This Plan

The Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) is unique in that management of the range is shared between
the USAF and USMC. Whereas this 2018 INRMP follows the USAF standardized template, USMCspecific policies have been incorporated and the plan adheres to Marine Corps Order (MCO) 5090.2A
with changes 1–3 of the Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual (USMC 2013).

Certain sections of the USAF INRMP template begin with standardized, USAF-wide “common text”
language that addresses USAF and Department of Defense policies and federal requirements. For
USAF INRMPs this common text language is restricted from editing to ensure that it remains standard
throughout all plans. Due to the joint management of the BMGR this text has been edited to include
USMC language as appropriate.

NOTE: The terms ‘Natural Resources Manager’ (NRM) and Point of Contact (POC) are used throughout
this document to refer to the installation person responsible for the natural resources program,
regardless of whether this person meets the qualifications within the definition of a natural resources
management professional in U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4715.03, with change 1 (DoD
Instruction 2017a).

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS

................................................................................................................................................... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW AND SCOPE .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY................................................................................................................................ 1-3
1.3 AUTHORITY ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.1 Agency Responsibilities ........................................................................................................................ 1-5
1.3.2 Arizona Game and Fish Department Authority .................................................................................... 1-6
1.3.3 U.S. Border Patrol Authority ................................................................................................................ 1-7
1.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANS ........................................................................................................................ 1-8
1.5 INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION ................................................................. 1-9

CHAPTER 2 INSTALLATION PROFILE .................................................................................................... 2-10
2.1 INSTALLATION OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................. 2-10
2.1.1 BMGR History ..................................................................................................................................... 2-12
2.1.2 BMGR Missions .................................................................................................................................. 2-16
2.1.3 Surrounding Communities ................................................................................................................. 2-16
2.1.4 Local and Regional Natural Areas ...................................................................................................... 2-18
2.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2-18
2.2.1 Climate ............................................................................................................................................... 2-18
2.2.2 Landforms .......................................................................................................................................... 2-20
2.2.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................... 2-23
2.2.4 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................... 2-23
2.3 ECOSYSTEMS AND THE BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................... 2-25
2.3.1 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................................... 2-25
2.3.2 Turf and Landscaped Areas ................................................................................................................ 2-35
2.3.3 Fish and Wildlife................................................................................................................................. 2-35
2.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need ........................... 2-38
2.3.5 Wetlands and Floodplains.................................................................................................................. 2-44
2.3.6 The BMGR Road System and Public Access........................................................................................ 2-44
2.4 MISSION IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 2-50
2.4.1 Natural Resource Constraints to Mission and Mission Planning ....................................................... 2-50
2.4.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................ 2-51
2.4.3 Current Major Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 2-64
2.4.4 Remediation Activities ....................................................................................................................... 2-65
2.4.5 Potential Future Impacts.................................................................................................................... 2-65
2.4.6 Natural Resources Needed to Support the Military Mission .............................................................. 2-66
2.5 IMPACTS FROM RECREATION, ILLEGAL BORDER TRAFFIC AND DETERRENCE EFFORTS ..................................................... 2-67

CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ................................................................. 3-71
CHAPTER 4 GENERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................... 4-72
CHAPTER 5 TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 5-75
CHAPTER 6 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING ............................................................................... 6-76
6.1 RECORDKEEPING ............................................................................................................................................. 6-76
6.2 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................................... 6-76

CHAPTER 7 NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT .................................................... 7-77
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.1 FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT..................................................................................................................... 7-77
7.1.1 Camera Trapping ............................................................................................................................... 7-79
7.2 OUTDOOR RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 7-79
7.3 CONSERVATION LAW ENFORCEMENT................................................................................................................... 7-83
7.4 MANAGEMENT OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.................................................................................... 7-84
7.4.1 Sonoran Pronghorn ............................................................................................................................ 7-84
7.4.2 Desert Tortoise ................................................................................................................................... 7-89
7.4.3 Bats .................................................................................................................................................... 7-90
7.4.4 Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard ................................................................................................................... 7-92
7.4.5 Acuña Cactus ..................................................................................................................................... 7-93
7.4.6 Migratory Birds and Eagles ................................................................................................................ 7-94
7.4.7 Monarch Butterfly .............................................................................................................................. 7-97
7.5 WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION ....................................................................................................................... 7-97
7.6 WETLANDS PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................... 7-99
7.7 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................. 7-99
7.8 FOREST MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................... 7-99
7.9 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 7-99
7.10 AGRICULTURAL OUTLEASING............................................................................................................................ 7-101
7.11 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 7-101
7.11.1
Invasive Plants ............................................................................................................................. 7-102
7.11.2
BMGR East Trespass Livestock .................................................................................................... 7-115
7.12 BIRD/WILDLIFE AIRCRAFT STRIKE HAZARD (BASH) ............................................................................................. 7-120
7.13 COASTAL ZONE AND MARINE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 7-123
7.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION.................................................................................................................. 7-123
7.14.1
Traditional Ecological Knowledge................................................................................................ 7-127
7.15 PUBLIC OUTREACH......................................................................................................................................... 7-128
7.15.1
BMGR Executive Council .............................................................................................................. 7-129
7.15.2
BMGR Intergovernmental Executive Committee ......................................................................... 7-129
7.16 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) ....................................................................................................... 7-130

CHAPTER 8 MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................... 8-132
CHAPTER 9 INRMP IMPLEMENTATION, UPDATE, AND REVISION PROCESS ......................... 9-135
9.1 NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STAFFING AND IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................. 9-135
9.2 MONITORING INRMP IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 9-135
9.3 ANNUAL INRMP REVIEW AND UPDATE REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................... 9-136
9.3.1 INRMP Update and Revision Process ............................................................................................... 9-136

CHAPTER 10 ANNUAL WORK PLANS................................................................................................... 10-138
10.1 ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................................... 10-140

CITED REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 147
APPENDIX A BMGR EAST AND WEST 2012–2017 INRMP MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS AND
STATUS OF ACTION ITEMS ............................................................................................................................ 157

FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1: GENERAL LOCATION AND SURROUNDING LAND OWNERSHIP OF BMGR. ......................................................................... 1-2
FIGURE 2.1: REGIONAL WEATHER STATION LOCATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 2-22
FIGURE 2.2: ARIZONA NATURAL VEGETATION. ........................................................................................................................................ 2-27
FIGURE 2.3: BMGR EAST NATURAL VEGETATION COMMUNITIES. ....................................................................................................... 2-31
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIGURE 2.4: BMGR EAST VEGETATION MAP.. ......................................................................................................................................... 2-34
FIGURE 2.5: BMGR WEST VEGETATION COMMUNITIES.. ...................................................................................................................... 2-37
FIGURE 2.6: AGFD CONDUCTS SURVEYS FOR MANY SPECIES AT BMGR. ............................................................................................ 2-38
FIGURE 2.7: BMGR EAST TRAVEL MANAGEMENT. ................................................................................................................................. 2-47
FIGURE 2.8: BMGR WEST TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................. 2-49
FIGURE 2.9: CURRENT MILITARY USE AT BMGR EAST .......................................................................................................................... 2-58
FIGURE 2.10: RESTRICTED AIRSPACE AT BMGR EAST .......................................................................................................................... 2-59
FIGURE 2.11: CURRENT MILITARY USE AT BMGR WEST ...................................................................................................................... 2-60
FIGURE 2.12: HUMANITARIAN AID DROPS RESULT IN WASTE BEING LEFT IN THE DESERT .............................................................. 2-67
FIGURE 2.13: EXAMPLE OF BERMS FOUND ADJACENT TO DRAG ROADS ............................................................................................... 2-68
FIGURE 2.14: MEASURING ELEVATIONS USING A ROD AND AUTO-LEVEL ............................................................................................ 2-70
FIGURE 7.1: BMGR PUBLIC ACCESS FOR RECREATION ........................................................................................................................... 7-81
FIGURE 7.2: SONORAN PRONGHORN FAWNS AT CABEZA PRIETA NWR IN 2003 ............................................................................. 7-85
FIGURE 7.3: PROTECTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT AT BMGR EAST ...................................................................................................... 7-86
FIGURE 7.4: PROTECTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT AT BMGR WEST. ................................................................................................... 7-87
FIGURE 7.5: BAT SURVEY TECHNIQUES ..................................................................................................................................................... 7-90
FIGURE 7.6: BASELINE SURVEYS FOR THE FTHL .................................................................................................................................... 7-92
FIGURE 7.7: CAMERA TRAPS CAPTURE WILDLIFE WATERING SITES BEING USED BY UDAS. ............................................................ 7-98
FIGURE 7.8: WILDFIRE AT BMGR EAST .................................................................................................................................................7-100
FIGURE 7.9: FIRE SCAR ON SAGUARO CACTUS AT BMGR EAST...........................................................................................................7-100
FIGURE 7.10: SAHARA MUSTARD AT BMGR ..........................................................................................................................................7-103
FIGURE 7.11: BUFFELGRASS OUTBREAK WITHIN AREA B. ..................................................................................................................7-104
FIGURE 7.12: FOUNTAIN GRASS INFESTATION.......................................................................................................................................7-104
FIGURE 7.13: COLOCYNTH PLANTS, FLOWER, AND FRUITS ..................................................................................................................7-105
FIGURE 7.14: BUFFELGRASS INFESTATION ALONG SR 85 ...................................................................................................................7-106
FIGURE 7.15: SAHARA MUSTARD ALONG THE STAC RANGE ROAD ...................................................................................................7-106
FIGURE 7.16: SPREAD OF INVASIVE BUFFELGRASS ALONG SR 85 ......................................................................................................7-107
FIGURE 7.17: A USAF C-130 APPLYING HERBICIDE ALONG A ROADWAY AT BMGR EAST ..........................................................7-108
FIGURE 7.18: BMGR WEST GIS CLOUD APP INVASIVE SPECIES MAPPING. .....................................................................................7-114
FIGURE 7.19: TRESPASS FERAL BURROS IMPACTING AREAS OF BMGR EAST ..................................................................................7-115
FIGURE 7.20: IMPACT TO NATIVE VEGETATION BY TRESPASS LIVESTOCK.........................................................................................7-115
FIGURE 7.21: EXAMPLE OF STRATEGIC FENCING BEING USED TO LIMIT TRESPASS LIVESTOCK .....................................................7-117
FIGURE 7.22: TRESPASS LIVESTOCK AT BMGR EAST ..........................................................................................................................7-118
FIGURE 7.23: WILD HORSE AND BURRO HMAS ....................................................................................................................................7-119
FIGURE 7.24: TURKEY VULTURES REPRESENT A MAJOR BASH THREAT...........................................................................................7-120
FIGURE 7.25: F-16 PREPARING FOR TAKE-OFF AT GILA BEND AFAF ..............................................................................................7-120

TABLES

TABLE 1.1: INRMP ELEMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE SIKES ACT AND MLWA OF 1999......................................................................... 1-5
TABLE 2.1: INSTALLATION PROFILE .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-10
TABLE 2.2: COMMUNITY POPULATIONS SURROUNDING BMGR, 2010–2015. ................................................................................ 2-17
TABLE 2.3: ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BMGR NATURAL VEGETATION COMMUNITIES, AS ASSESSED BY THE
NATURE CONSERVANCY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2-28
TABLE 2.4: BMGR EAST VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 2-33
TABLE 2.5: BMGR WEST VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 2-36
TABLE 2.6: THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED. ............................... 2-40
TABLE 2.7: BMGR EAST DESIGNATED ROAD SYSTEM 2012 AND 2018 ............................................................................................ 2-46
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE 2.8: BMGR WEST DESIGNATED ROAD SYSTEM 2012 AND 2018 ......................................................................................... 2-48
TABLE 2.9: BMGR EAST CURRENT MILITARY TRAINING FACILITIES, FEATURES, AND USE.............................................................. 2-55
TABLE 2.10: BMGR WEST CURRENT MILITARY TRAINING FACILITIES, FEATURES, AND USE......................................................... 2-61
TABLE 4.1: THE BMGR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ......................................................................................................................... 4-72
TABLE 7.1: BAT SPECIES DETECTED AT BMGR ....................................................................................................................................... 7-91
TABLE 7.2: INVASIVE PLANT TREATMENT EFFORTS FOR BMGR WEST, 2015–2017..................................................................7-112
TABLE 7.3: SUMMARY OF BASH MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN ANNUALLY 2012–2016 AT THE GILA BEND AFAF
AND OTHER AREAS AT BMGR EAST .....................................................................................................................................................7-121
TABLE 7.4: SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SURVEY RESULTS FOR FOUR LOCATIONS AT GILA BEND AFAF AND BMGR EAST.............7-122
TABLE 8.1: RESOURCE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT GOALS. ......................................................................................................................8-133
TABLE 10.1: BMGR EAST 5-YEAR ACTION PLAN FY 2019–2023. ............................................................................................ 10-140
TABLE 10.2: BMGR WEST 5-YEAR ACTION PLAN FY 2019–2023 ............................................................................................ 10-144
TABLE A.1: ACTION ITEMS, LISTED BY MANAGEMENT ELEMENT NUMBER AND TITLE, PROPOSED FOR BMGR EAST IN
THE 2012–2017 INRMP, AND ACTION ITEM STATUS/PROGRESS AS OF EARLY 2018. .......................................................... A-158
TABLE A.2: ACTION ITEMS, LISTED BY MANAGEMENT ELEMENT NUMBER AND TITLE, PROPOSED FOR BMGR WEST IN THE
2012–2017 INRMP, AND ACTION ITEM STATUS/PROGRESS AS OF EARLY 2018. .................................................................. A-161

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

iv

ACRONYMS
ADC
ADOT
AFAF
AFB
AFI
AGFD
AGL
AHAS
ALF
AML
AMSL
ANG
ARNG
ARS
ASSP
AUX
AZ
AZDA
BASH
BEC
BGEPA
BLM
BMGR
BP
CBP
CLEO
CRP
DoD
DOI
DZ
EIS
EMS
EO
EOD
ESA
ESM
ETAC
FIFRA
FLPMA
FONSI
FTHL
FW
FY
GEOFidelis
GIS
GPS
HMA

Air Defense Command
Arizona Department of Transportation
Air Force Auxiliary Field
Air Force Base
Air Force Instruction
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Above Ground Level
Avian Hazard Advisory System
Auxiliary Landing Field
Appropriate Management Level
Above Mean Sea Level
Air National Guard
Army National Guard
Arizona Revised Statutes
Arizona Site Stewards Program
Auxiliary Field
Arizona
Arizona Department of Agriculture
Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard
Barry M. Goldwater Range Executive Council
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Bureau of Land Management
Barry M. Goldwater Range
U.S. Border Patrol
U.S. Customs & Border Protection
Conservation Law Enforcement Officer
Comprehensive Range Plan
(U.S.) Department of Defense
Department of the Interior
Drop Zone
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Management System
Executive Order
Explosive Ordnance Disposal
Endangered Species Act of 1973
Environmental Sciences Management
East Tactical Range
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
Finding of No Significant Impact
Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard
Fighter Wing
Fiscal Year
Marine Corps Installation Geospatial Information and Services
Geographic Information System
Global Positioning System
Herd Management Area

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

v

ICRMP
IEC
INRMP
IPMP
KNOZ
MBTA
MCAS
MCO
MLWA
MOU
MP
NEPA
NIPRNet
NM
NPS
NRCS
NRM
NTAC
NWR
OHV
P.L.
PRIA
RMCP
RMD
RMO
RMS
ROD
RS
SGCN
SOP
SR
STAC
SWAP
TAC
TEK
UA
UDA
USACE
USAF
USFWS
USGS
USMC
USN
USNVC
UTC
WFMP
WFRHBA

Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan
Intergovernmental Executive Committee
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
Integrated Pest Management Plan
The new F-35 Auxiliary Landing Zone is known as KNOZ
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
Marine Corps Air Station
Marine Corps Order
Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999
Memorandum of Understanding
Management Policy
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network
National Monument
National Park Service
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Natural Resource Manager
North Tactical Range
National Wildlife Refuge
Off-Highway Vehicle
Public Law
Public Rangeland Improvement Act of 1978
Range Munitions Consolidation Points
Range Management Department
Range Management Office
Rangewide Management Strategy
Record of Decision
Resource-Specific
Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Standard Operating Procedure
State Route
South Tactical Range
State Wildlife Action Plan
Tactical
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
University of Arizona
Undocumented Alien
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Marine Corps
U.S. Department of the Navy
U.S. National Vegetation Classification Standard
Urban Target Complex
Wildland Fire Management Plan
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

ACRONYMS

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) in southwestern Arizona has served as a military training
range since 1941. While federal agency responsibility for natural and cultural resources management
has varied over previous years, the Military Lands Withdrawal Act (MLWA) of 1999 (Public Law 10665) which renewed the approximately 1.7 million-acre military range, assigned this responsibility to
the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy for the eastern and western portions of the range,
respectively. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) and U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), in partnership with the
Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), prepared an
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP), in accordance with the MLWA; the Sikes
Act Improvement Act (hereafter referred to as “Sikes Act”) (16 U.S. Code § 670a et seq., as amended
through 2014); the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S. Code §§ 4321-4370h,
as amended through 1992); and other applicable laws. As provided by the Sikes Act, INRMPs must
be reviewed as to operation and effect on a regular basis, but no less often than every five years. This
2018 INRMP is the second update for the BMGR and is the product of a thorough review of the 2012
INRMP in accordance with the five-year review cycle provided by the Sikes Act and in accordance
with other updating procedures provided by the Sikes Act and the MLWA.
In accordance with the MLWA, the review was facilitated by the preparation of a Public Report that
provides a summary of current use and conditions that have occurred since the 2012 INRMP was
implemented. The use and conditions assessment includes military use, natural and cultural
management actions, public access, public outreach, and environmental remediation actions. This
revised INRMP was updated in consideration of the findings of the Public Report and consultations
with partner agencies and Native American tribes. This update identifies management and other
agency responsibilities and provides summaries of both the historical and current military uses of
the BMGR. It also evaluates the current conditions of natural resources and identifies public access
opportunities.

The USAF and USMC included a preliminary list of projects planned for the next five years to
encourage feedback from the public, partnering agencies and Native American tribes. The resulting
final project list is the heart of the 2018 INRMP update. The projects planned by the USAF and USMC
address the 17 management elements, which are continued from the 2007 INRMP. The 17
management elements are categorized into five general types of actions.
1. Resource management―includes continuing the implementation of the natural resources
inventory and monitoring plans

2. Motorized access―includes some modifications of the existing road network to better meet
management needs that have been identified in the past five years, as described in Chapter
4.0, and continuing efforts to direct the public to use roads remaining open to public access

3. Public use―includes several management elements for providing recreational opportunities
while protecting resources

4. Manage realty―includes addressing the public utility and transportation corridors that pass
through the range and managing new right-of-way requests

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5. Perimeter land use―involves monitoring land uses beyond the range to prevent
encroachment and working with other agencies in regional planning

Each planned USAF or USMC action is identified by federal fiscal year (FY) for which funding is
requested, an estimate of the funding needed for project completion, the expected life span of the
project in years, and potential partners (see Tables 10.1 and 10.2 in Chapter 10). Implementation of
this INRMP is subject to the availability of annual funding appropriated by Congress and none of the
proposed projects or actions shall be interpreted to require obligations or payment of funds in
violation of any applicable federal law, including the Anti-Deficiency Act of 1982 (31 U.S. Code §
1341).

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

viii

CHAPTER 1
1.1

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

Purpose and Scope

The BMGR in southwestern Arizona is a U.S. military installation that encompasses approximately
1.7 million acres. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) use the range for
training military aircrews in the tactical execution of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. To a
lesser extent, the range is also used for other national defense purposes, most of which support or
are associated with tactical air training. The USAF is the primary user of and managing agency for the
eastern portion of the range, referred to as the BMGR East, and the USMC is the primary user of and
managing agency for the western portion of the range, referred to as the BMGR West (Figure 1.1).

The BMGR is an essential national defense training area that produces the combat-ready aircrews
needed to defend the nation and its interests for the USAF, USMC, U.S. Department of the Navy (USN),
Air National Guard (ANG), Army National Guard (ARNG), and Air Force Reserve Command. The BMGR
has been one of the nation’s most productive military reservations for training tactical aircrews since
World War II. As the nation’s third largest military reservation, the BMGR has the training
capabilities, capacities, and military air base support that provide the flexibility needed to sustain a
major share of the country’s aircrew training requirements now and into the foreseeable future.

The predominant use of the BMGR throughout its history has been to provide land and airspace for
tactical air training. The Military Withdrawal Lands Act (MLWA) of 1999 (Public Law 106-65
[hereafter “MLWA of 1999”]), which superseded the MLWA of 1986 (Public Law 99-606) extends
statutory authorization for the BMGR to October 2024 and continues the historical military purposes
of the range. This act reserves the BMGR for use by the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy for
•
•
•

an armament and high-hazard testing area;

training for aerial gunnery, rocketry, electronic warfare, and tactical maneuvering and air
support; and

equipment and tactics development and testing and other defense-related purposes
consistent with those specified in [Public Law 106-65 § 3031(a)(2)].

Parallel to its continuing value as an essential national defense asset, the BMGR is also nationally
significant as a critical component in the largest remaining expanse of relatively unfragmented
Sonoran Desert in the U.S. With the exception of State Route (SR) 85, the land is free of major
developments and is ecologically linked to the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (NM), Cabeza
Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Sonoran Desert NM, and other lands administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as shown in Figure 1.1. Within this contiguous complex, the
BMGR contributes almost 55 percent of the land area and is more than twice the size of any other
component.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1-1

Chapter 1

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

This INRMP is a comprehensive planning document that outlines the significant natural resources of
the BMGR and allows for multiple sustainable uses of those resources. The INRMP defines public
access while ensuring that management and use are consistent with the military purposes of the
range. These purposes are in accordance with the guidance provided for the BMGR by the MLWA and
for all U.S. military installations by the Sikes Act Improvement Act (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] § 670a et
seq., as amended through 2014) (hereafter referred to as “Sikes Act”). Further, management
prescribed by the INRMP benefits threatened and endangered species consistent with federal and
state recovery actions for these species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §
1531 et seq., as amended through 1988).

1.2

Management Philosophy

The USAF is the primary user of and managing agency for the BMGR East. Air Force Instruction (AFI)
32-7064, Integrated Natural Resources Management (USAF 1994b), provides the direction to
implement Air Force Policy Directive 32-70, Environmental Quality (USAF 1994a), and Department
of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4715.03, Natural Resources Conservation Program (DoD 2017a). AFI 327064 explains how to manage natural resources on USAF installations in accordance with applicable
federal, state, and local laws and regulations. AFI 13-212, Range Planning and Operations (USAF
2015a), provides guidance on comprehensive range planning, including the integration of
operational requirements and missions in preparation of INRMPs and ICRMPs. AFI 13-212 further
provides that “Each INRMP and ICRMP will be written [in accordance with] AFI 32-7064 and AFI 327065 (USAF 2016) to support the current and future known mission requirements and will be
amended as mission requirements change significantly.”

The USMC is the primary user of and managing agency for the BMGR West. Guidance for the USMC
INRMP process is provided in Marine Corps Order (MCO) 5090.2A with changes 1–3 of the
Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual (USMC 2013b), DoD 4715.03, and the Handbook
for Preparing, Revising, and Implementing Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans on Marine
Corps Installations (USMC 2004), hereafter referred to as the Handbook. This handbook guides the
preparation, revision, and implementation of INRMPs in compliance with the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the DoD, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and in accordance with the Sikes Act as
implemented by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in Updated Guidance on Implementation of the
Sikes Act Improvement Act (DoD 2002).
The DoD has modified its land management focus over the past two decades from the protection of
individual species to ecosystem management. The two principal reasons for these changes are (1)
the Sikes Act emphasis on promoting effective wildlife and habitat protection, conservation, and
management; and (2) the concern that a disproportionate amount of attention in the past has been
placed on managing the needs of individual, high-profile species in possible conflict with underlying
ecosystem functions.

Ecosystem management incorporates the concepts of biological diversity and ecological integrity in
a process that considers the environment as a complex system functioning as a whole, not as a
collection of parts. In its application, a goal-driven approach is used to manage natural and cultural

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1-3

Chapter 1

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

resources in a manner that supports present and future mission requirements; preserves ecosystem
integrity; is at a scale compatible with natural processes; is cognizant of nature’s timeframes;
recognizes social and economic viability within functioning ecosystems; is adaptable to complex and
changing requirements; and is realized through effective partnerships among private, local, state,
tribal, and federal interests. Traditionally, academic disciplines such as ecology, biogeography,
population genetics, economics, sociology, philosophy, and others are synthesized and applied to the
maintenance of biological diversity. Because ecosystem management is based on ongoing studies of
ecology, biological diversity, and resources management, and because ecosystems are open,
changing, and complex, this planning and management philosophy requires flexibility. Provisions to
allow for adaptive management include monitoring, assessment, reassessment, and adjustment as
necessary
DoD policy guidelines on ecosystem management are intended to promote and protect natural
processes. Those guidelines, however, do not preclude active management intervention deemed
necessary to address issues such as the removal of invasive species; supporting endangered species
recovery or managing barriers to wildlife movement inside or outside of the installation. The DoD
expects its resource managers to use the best available science, collaborative efforts with federal and
state wildlife agencies, and consultations with outside experts and the public in reaching and
implementing management decisions, including specific needs for intervention.

1.3

Authority

The MLWA of 1999 and the Sikes Act provide legal authority for the BMGR INRMP. The MLWA of
1999 provides that the Secretaries of the Navy, Air Force, and Interior jointly prepare an INRMP for
the range. The INRMP shall “include provisions for proper management and protection of the natural
and cultural resources of [the range], and for sustainable use by the public of such resources to the
extent consistent with the military purposes [of the range]. . . .” (Table 1.1).

The MLWA of 1999 also specifies that the INRMP must be prepared and implemented in accordance
with the Sikes Act. The Sikes Act sets forth resource management policies and guidance for U.S.
military installations and requires the preparation of INRMPs for installations—including those, such
as the BMGR, composed of withdrawn lands—with significant natural resources (Table 1.1).

The Sikes Act provides that “The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a program to provide for the
conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations” and that an INRMP is
to be prepared to facilitate implementation of that program. Consistent with the use of military
installations to ensure the preparedness of the Armed Forces, the Sikes Act further specifies that the
Secretaries of the military departments shall carry out a natural resources management program to
provide for
•

•
•

conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations;

sustainable multipurpose use of the resources, which shall include hunting, fishing, trapping
and non-consumptive uses; and
public access—subject to safety requirements and military security—to military
installations to facilitate use.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1-4

Chapter 1

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

Table 1.1: INRMP elements specified in the Sikes Act and MLWA of 1999.
Sikes Act

To the extent appropriate and applicable, provide for the INRMP elements listed below.
Wildlife management, land management, and wildlife-oriented recreation

Wildlife habitat enhancement or modifications

•

Wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration, where necessary for support of wildlife or plants

•

Integration of, and consistency among, the various activities conducted under the plan

•

Establishment of specific natural resources goals and objectives and time frames for proposed actions

•

Sustainable use by the public of natural resources to the extent that the use is not inconsistent with
the needs of wildlife resources

•
•

Appropriate public access, subject to requirements necessary to ensure safety and military security

Enforcement of applicable natural resource laws (including regulations)

•

No net loss in the capability of military installation lands to support the military mission of the BMGR

•
•

MLWA of 1999

The INRMP shall include the provisions listed below.
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

•

Provide for the proper management and protection of the natural and cultural resources of
withdrawn lands.

Provide that any hunting be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2671 (the
general military policy for hunting, fishing, and trapping on military reservations).
Identify current the BMGR test and target impact areas and related buffer or safety zones.

Provide necessary actions to prevent, suppress, and manage brush and range fires that occur
within or outside the BMGR as a result of military activities.

Provide that all gates, fences, and barriers constructed are designed and erected to allow wildlife
access to the extent practicable and consistent with military security, safety, and sound wildlifemanagement use.

Incorporate any existing management plans pertaining to the BMGR, to the extent that INRMP
preparers mutually determine that incorporation of such plans into the INRMP is appropriate.

Include procedures to ensure that the periodic reviews of the plan under the Sikes Act are
conducted jointly by the Secretaries of the Navy, USAF, and Interior, and that affected states,
Native American tribes, and the public are provided a meaningful opportunity to comment upon
any substantial revisions to the plan that may be proposed.

Provide procedures to amend the plan as necessary.

The MLWA of 1999 transferred federal jurisdiction for managing the natural and cultural resources
of the BMGR from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretaries of the USAF and Navy. However, the

1.3.1

Agency Responsibilities

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1-5

Chapter 1

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

Secretary of the Interior retains some oversight responsibilities as well as a role in updating the
INRMP. The Secretary of the USAF, who now has primary surface-management responsibility for the
BMGR East, delegated local command and control for the BMGR East to the Commander of the 56th
Fighter Wing (56 FW) at Luke Air Force Base (AFB). As a result, Luke AFB also assumes responsibility
for preparing and implementing the INRMP for the BMGR East. Similarly, the Secretary of the Navy,
who has primary surface-management responsibility for the BMGR West, delegated local command
and control for the BMGR West and responsibility for preparing and implementing the INRMP for
that portion of the range to the Commanding Officer of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma.
Therefore, the Commanders of Luke AFB and MCAS Yuma provide local command and control for
military operations, public access and use, and resource-management activities on a daily basis for
their respective portions of the BMGR.
Although the USAF and USMC hold the primary surface-management responsibility for the BMGR,
the Secretary of the Interior and AGFD are responsible for its natural resources. The Secretary of the
Interior was assigned a role by the MLWA of 1999 to assist the Secretaries of the USAF and Navy in
jointly preparing the INRMP and conducting periodic reviews of the INRMP for updating the plan as
necessary. This role has been delegated to the Manager of Cabeza Prieta NWR.

As provided by the MLWA of 1999, the Secretary of the Interior also has the authority to transfer land
management responsibility for the BMGR from the USAF and/or USMC to the DOI if the Secretary
determines that (1) the USAF or USMC has failed to manage natural and cultural resources in
accordance with the INRMP, and (2) this failure is resulting in significant and verifiable degradation
of the natural or cultural resources of the BMGR. Another provision of the MLWA of 1999 directs the
USAF and/or USMC to consult with the DOI before using the BMGR for any purpose other than the
purposes for which it was withdrawn and reserved. The Arizona State Director of the BLM has the
local responsibility for representing the DOI in such oversight activities and consultations.

The state of Arizona has primary jurisdiction over wildlife management within the BMGR, except
where pre-empted by federal law. Nothing in the MLWA of 1999 or Sikes Act either diminishes or
expands the jurisdiction of the state with respect to wildlife management. In addition, AGFD is the
responsible state agency for providing safe opportunities for off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation
in Arizona.

1.3.2

Arizona Game and Fish Department Authority

Established in 1929 under Title 17 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS), AGFD is governed by the
Arizona Game and Fish Commission. Under the provisions of ARS 17-231, the Arizona Game and Fish
Commission establishes policy for the management, preservation, and harvest of wildlife. Under the
umbrella of the Commission, the AGFD’s mission is “To conserve, enhance, and restore Arizona’s
diverse wildlife resources and manage for safe, compatible outdoor recreation opportunities for
current and future generations” (AGFD 2017a).

The primary wildlife management responsibilities of AGFD were recognized in the 2007 INRMP and
continue without change to include
•

developing and maintaining habitat assessment/evaluation, protection, management, and

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1-6

Chapter 1

•
•
•
•
•
•

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

enhancement projects (e.g., artificial water developments and Sonoran pronghorn
[Antilocapra americana sonoriensis] food plots);
conducting wildlife population surveys;

managing wildlife predators and endangered species or special status species (management
of federally listed endangered species is a responsibility shared with the USFWS);
enforcing hunting regulations;

establishing game limits for hunting, trapping, and non-game species collection;

issuing hunting permits; and

assisting and advising the DoD to manage OHV use in terms of habitat protection and
advocating for user opportunities.

In managing the state’s wildlife, AGFD continues to make determinations on the appropriateness and
need to transplant wildlife into or out of the BMGR. Should wildlife transplants affecting the BMGR
be proposed, appropriate environmental studies and regulatory compliance would be completed, as
required, prior to implementing any specific proposal.

The entire range is potentially subject to the presence of undocumented aliens (UDAs) and smuggling
traffic because of its proximity to the international border (Figure 1.1). Therefore, the range is heavily
patrolled by U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agents seeking to interdict and apprehend
smugglers and illegal entrants. CBP is also charged with installing border infrastructure as needed to
deter illegal crossings and maintaining operational control of the border (Homeland Security Act of
2002, P.L. 107-296, 6 U.S. C. §§ 101 et seq. [U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2002]; Section 102
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208, as
amended); 8 U.S.C. § 1103, Aliens and Nationality; and other acts). Within CBP, the U.S. Border Patrol
(BP) is the delegated authority for “detecting and preventing the entry of terrorists, weapons of mass
destruction, and unauthorized aliens into the country, and to interdict drug smugglers and other
criminals between official points of entry.” Within the BMGR East, the BP coordinates with Range
Management Office (RMO) Conservation Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) and Pima and Maricopa
County Sherriff Offices. Within the BMGR West, the BP coordinates with Range Management
Department (RMD) CLEOs, Yuma County Sheriff’s Office, and Yuma County Search and Rescue.

1.3.3

U.S. Border Patrol Authority

In January 2007, the Department of Homeland Security waived numerous environmental, natural
and cultural resources conservation actions and endangered species protection laws in order to
ensure the expeditious construction of the border fence along the international boundary within the
BMGR and adjacent public lands (Federal Register 2007), (Sikes Act; MLWA; National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; ESA 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.; Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. §
1251 et seq.; Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1131 et seq.; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 16
U.S.C. § 470 et seq.; National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd-668ee;
and Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.; Haddal et al. 2009).

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1-7

Chapter 1

1.4

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

Integration with Other Plans

“Mission requirements and priorities identified in [this INRMP] shall, where applicable, be integrated
in other environmental programs and policies” (USMC 2004). Implementation of this INRMP will
support and sustain the military mission of the range with no net loss in the capability of the BMGR
lands to support the mission. The INRMP is incorporated (i.e., referenced as appropriate) into the
BMGR East Comprehensive Range Plan (CRP, in prep.) and MCAS Yuma Range and Training Areas
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Station Order 3710.6J (USMC 2014).

In accordance with the MLWA of 1999, the INRMP provides for protection of the cultural resources
of BMGR by prescribing that natural resources management actions be fully supportive of and
compliant with the prescriptions of the ICRMP for the range (see Section 7.14). INRMPs and ICRMPs
for military installations are prepared as separate but integrated plans rather than as components of
a single plan. The following ICRMP goals are also adopted as goals in the INRMP.
•

•

Support military operations through proactive management of cultural resources.
Fulfill legal obligations for protection of historic properties.

Address Native American concerns, including disposition of cultural items.

AFI 13-212 requires USAF installations to review and coordinate all range-related documents,
including INRMPs, ICRMPs, and subordinate plans to ensure compatibility with the CRP and other
range plans. INRMPs often incorporate subordinate plans that address installation actions such as
pest control or wildfire suppression. Furthermore, each INRMP and ICRMP shall be written to
support the mission requirements identified in the CRP and shall be amended as mission
requirements change significantly.
•

MCO 5090.2A (USMC 2013b) requires that USMC INRMPs and the installation master plan shall
identify the boundaries of endangered and threatened species habitat, wetlands, and other
geographically specific areas important to natural resources stewardship. MCO 5090.2A also
requires that the Wildland Fire Management Plan (WFMP) shall be incorporated into or consistent
with the INRMP and ICRMP and that the Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) is reviewed by the
Natural Resources Manager for consistency with the INRMP.
Since the completion of the 2012 INRMP, several subordinate plans have been prepared and
implemented. These plans, listed below, are referenced throughout this INRMP.
•

•
•
•
•

CRP (East) (in prep.)

Range and Training Area SOP (West) (USMC 2014)

ICRMP (56th Range Management Office [56 RMO] 2009)

IPMP (Luke AFB 2015)

WFMP (In-progress both East and West)

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1-8

Chapter 1

1.5

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

Interagency Collaboration and Intergovernmental Consultation

A previously existing MOU that established the Barry M. Goldwater Range Executive Council (BEC)
was amended in February 2001 for the purpose of “providing a forum for collaboration by the
statutory decision makers in the management of resources and their uses. . . .” within the BMGR. The
BEC, a local management ad hoc committee, consists of a local senior functional manager for the
USAF, USMC, BLM, USFWS, AGFD, CBP, and directors for the adjacent Sonoran Desert NM, Organ Pipe
Cactus NM, and Cabeza Prieta NWR. The USAF, USMC, and other BEC members meet six times each
year to identify substantive issues, conflicts, or other matters for consideration by this group of
managers and agency decision-makers with direct responsibility for, or potential impact upon, lands
or resources in the BMGR region. BEC members recognize that the exchange of views, information,
and advice relating to the management of natural and cultural resources will help to identify the best
practicable solutions for issues identified.
In accordance with provisions in the MLWA of 1999, the Secretaries of the Navy, Air Force, and
Interior established an Intergovernmental Executive Committee (IEC) in December 2001 to provide
a forum solely for the purpose of exchanging views, information, and advice relating to the
management of the natural and cultural resources within the BMGR. The IEC membership includes
those agencies and Native American tribes that may have a direct responsibility for, potential impact
upon, or direct interest in the lands or resources of the BMGR. IEC meetings are open to the public
and provide non-IEC participants with opportunities to present opinions regarding the BMGR
management policies and procedures to the IEC for discussion and possible action recommendations.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1-9

CHAPTER 2
2.1

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Installation Overview

The BMGR is located in southwestern Arizona in portions of Yuma, Maricopa, and Pima counties
(Figure 1.1). Portions of the BMGR East are located in each of the three counties; the BMGR West is
located entirely in Yuma County. The range is approximately 133 miles across on its longest eastwest axis. The north-south axes vary in width: at the western end, the north-south axis is
approximately 15 miles wide, is generally 18 to 28 miles wide through much of the length of the
range, and then narrows to about 4 miles at its eastern end.

The effective size of the BMGR for supporting military aviation training is nearly 40 percent larger
than its surface area, as the restricted airspace that overlies the range is about 2,766,700 acres. Also
contributing to the effective size of the BMGR is the adjacent Cabeza Prieta NWR, which the MLWA
of 1999 stipulates must be managed to support certain military aviation training needs. The refuge,
which is about 860,000 acres, is entirely within the footprint of the range’s restricted airspace. The
restricted airspace over the refuge extends from the ground surface to 80,000 feet above ground level
(AGL) and is fully incorporated in military aviation training.
Additionally, there are more than 85,000 cubic nautical miles of special use airspace used for military
operations beyond the airspace above BMGR, Luke AFB, and MCAS Yuma, including not only the
adjacent Federal lands, but also Tohono O’ odham lands and other parts of southwestern Arizona, as
well as a region northeast of Flagstaff, AZ (see section 2.1 in Volume 2 [Luke AFB INRMP] and Volume
3 [MCAS Yuma Installation Overview] in this document for details).

Table 2.1: Installation profile.
Office of Primary
Responsibility

56 RMO for the BMGR East and RMD for the BMGR West have overall responsibility
for implementing the natural resources management program and are the lead
organizations for monitoring compliance with applicable federal, state and local
regulations.
BMGR East
56 RMO/ESMN

Point of Contact/
Natural Resources
Manager

7101 Jerstad Lane, Building 500
Luke AFB, AZ 85309
623-856-8487

BMGR West
Natural Resource Specialist
RMD
P.O. Box 99134/Building 151
MCAS Yuma, AZ 85369-9134
928-269-6724

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-10

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Table 2.1: Installation profile.

USFWS Ecological Services
Assistant Field Supervisor for Southern Arizona
201 N Bonita, Ste. 141
Tucson, AZ 85745
520-670-6144

State and/or Local
Regulatory Points of
AGFD
Contact
Regional Supervisor-Region IV
5000 W. Carefree Highway
Phoenix, AZ 85086-5000
602-942-3000
Total Acreage
Managed by
Installation

BMGR—~1.7 million acres
BMGR East—~1 million acres
BMGR West —~700,000 acres
•

•

Biological Opinions

•

•

U.S. MCAS-Yuma in the Arizona Portion of the Yuma Training Range
Complex (Barry M. Goldwater Range West), consultation number 02-21-95F-0114, issued on 17 April 1996, with reinitiations issued on 16 November
2001, 6 August 2003, 21 October 2009, and 3 November 2015.
Luke Air Force Base Use of Ground-Surface and Airspace for Military
Training at BMGR, consultation number 02-21-96-F-094, issued 2 August
1997, with reinitiations issued on 16 November 2001, 6 August 2003, 3
May 2010, and 14 March 2014.
Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site Expansion Project,
consultation number 02-21-92-F-0227, issued on 19 September 1997 with
reinitiations and revised opinions dated 16 November 2001 and 6 August
2003.
BMGR Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, consultation
number 22410-2005-F-0492, issued on 26 August 2005, with reinitiations
issued on 7 January 2013 and March 14, 2014.

(See https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Biological.htm for access to
Biological Opinions.)

Resource
Management
Programs

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Threatened and Endangered Species
Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Wildlife
Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Program
Invasive Species
Integrated Pest Management
Soil Conservation
Cultural Resources Management Program

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-11

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

The BMGR 1 was initially established on 5 September 1941 to support new Army Air Force 2 flying
training programs at Luke Field 3 and Williams Field 4 as the U.S. prepared its armed forces prior to
deploying them to fight in World War II. The initial parcel of land set aside for the range included
most of what is now the BMGR East. By March 1943, additional parcels had been added to the range
to expand the training capacity of the eastern portion of the range and support flight training
programs to the west at Yuma Army Air Base. Three key characteristics of the range were critical to
its intended mission. The range was in close flying proximity to the air bases that it served, was
uninhabited and undeveloped, and was large enough to be divided into several sub-areas that could
safely support simultaneous but independent training missions. The proximity of the BMGR to
military air bases and its size continue to be two of the most important assets of the range for
supporting contemporary military training. Military use has continued to preclude habitation or
development, with the exception of infrastructure needed for military use.

2.1.1

BMGR History

The Yuma Army Air Base 5 was developed as a training command site separate from those at Luke
and Williams fields. This base, and the addition of the western parcels to the gunnery and bombing
range, established a second area of aircrew training operations that were independent from those
conducted in the eastern range areas. This basic east-west split of range resources has been
continued ever since and is currently represented by the BMGR East and the BMGR West divisions of
the range.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt originally designated the BMGR through authority provided to the
president at that time to execute federal land withdrawals. 6 The BMGR remained under
1

2
3
4
5
6

BMGR and its subparts have had a number of official and unofficial names including “Ajo-Gila Bend Aerial
Gunnery Range, “Williams Bombing and Gunnery Range,” “Luke-Williams Bombing and Gunnery Range,”
“Gila Bend Gunnery Range,” “Yuma Aerial Gunnery and Bombing Range,” and “Luke Air Force Range.”
Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range became the official name of the range with the passage of the MLWA
of 1986. This was shortened to BMGR with the passage of the MLWA of 1999. This Act also designated
BMGR East and BMGR West as the names of the eastern (Air Force) and western (Marine Corps)
components, respectively.

The USAF was established as an independent service on 18 September 1947. The Air Force evolved from
the Army Air Service, which became the Army Air Corps in 1926, and then the Army Air Force in June
1941.
Luke Field was renamed Luke AFB in January 1951.

Williams Field was renamed Williams AFB after 1947. Williams AFB was closed in 1993.

Yuma Army Air Base was renamed as Yuma Air Base in 1951 and then designated as Vincent AFB in
1956. In 1959, Vincent AFB became Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Station, Vincent Field, Yuma, and in 1962
it become MCAS Yuma.

“Withdrawing” federal lands is to withhold them by executive or legislative action from settlement, sale,
location, or entry under some or all of the general land, mining, and mineral laws in order to limit or
prohibit activities normally permitted under those laws. Withdrawn lands were then reserved for

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-12

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

administrative withdrawal until 1986 when Congress passed the MLWA of 1986 (Public Law 99606), which renewed the range for military use for another 15 years and provided guidance for its
use and management. The MLWA of 1986 was superseded by the MLWA of 1999 (Public Law 106-65
1999), which renewed the range for an additional 25 years (until October 2024).

The predominant use of the BMGR throughout its history has been to provide land and airspace for
air combat training. During World War II, the training emphasis was on aerial gunnery. The eastern
range area was used primarily for advanced aircrew training in fighter aircraft, including air-to-air
gunnery, air-to-ground gunnery (i.e., strafing), and air combat flight maneuvers. Training in bombing
ground targets was added to the curriculum in the last years of the war. The western range area was
also used for training fighter aircrews, but the principal activity was air-to-air gunnery training for
bomber aircrews.
2.1.1.1

Military Use History

War department development during World War II was limited primarily to three auxiliary air
bases—at Gila Bend, Ajo, and Dateland—and 14 outlying auxiliary airfields. Student aircrews were
sent to the auxiliary air bases for concentrated periods of instruction in gunnery and, for some
classes, bombing training. The base at Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field (AFAF) is the only one of
the three auxiliary air bases that is inside the modern boundaries of the BMGR and continues to
operate as a military installation. The former auxiliary base at Ajo is now Eric Marcus Municipal
Airport, which is a public-use facility. The former auxiliary base at Dateland is now a privately owned
airport that is restricted to authorized users.

Available evidence indicates that the 14 outlying auxiliary airfields were day-use-only facilities
where personnel were not permanently stationed. These airfields likely were used as locations to
rotate aircrews and, possibly, to refuel or rearm aircraft between successive gunnery training
missions. Eight of the 14 outlying auxiliary airfields remain within the modern boundaries of the
BMGR; the other six are in locations that are no longer part of the range. Three of the eight outlying
auxiliary fields that remain inside the BMGR continue to be used for military purposes. The USMC
continues to use Auxiliary Field 2 (AUX-II), located at the far western end of the BMGR West, as a dayuse facility. Within the BMGR East, Stoval Airfield, located southwest of Dateland near the northern
boundary of the BMGR, and AUX-6, located west of Gila Bend AFAF, continue to be used for occasional
training activities.

The BMGR was seldom used for several years following World War II. The outbreak of the Korean
War and the growing concern regarding the Cold War prompted reactivation of the gunnery range,
Luke AFB (formerly Luke Field), Gila Bend AFAF at the gunnery range, and Yuma AFB in early 1951.
Reactivation of the range required substantial repairs and new construction. New target
developments transformed the BMGR East from a predominantly aerial gunnery training facility into
a complex that could support all phases of tactical air combat training. Instruction in air-to-air
specified public (or governmental) purposes. For example, military reservations are withdrawn and
reserved for national defense purposes. The Defense Withdrawal Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-337) provides that
an Act of Congress is required for land withdrawals for military purposes that are more than 5,000 acres
in aggregate.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-13

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

gunnery continued to be an important range function, but the new era also brought training in airto-air missile firing and an expanded emphasis on the use of aircraft for air-to-ground attack using
guns, missiles, rockets, and bombs. Development of the range to support these new training missions
included four ground-controlled subranges; five independently located vehicle convoy subranges; a
camouflage subrange; a realistic tactical subrange; an air-to-air firing subrange; and a napalm (or
fire-bomb) subrange.

USAF use of the BMGR East area during the middle of the Cold War and the Vietnam War era (1960–
1974), continued to focus on the training of aircrews to fly fighter and attack aircraft. The tactical,
ground-controlled, air-to-air gunnery, and air-to-air maneuvering subranges that had been
established during the 1950s were used to provide the necessary training support. However, the
subranges were modified throughout this period to meet evolving training needs. By 1960, North,
South, and East tactical (TAC) ranges were well established in terms of the ground surface areas
dedicated as ordnance impact locations. By 1974, the partitioning of the BMGR East into the four
manned ranges, three tactical ranges, and the air-to-air were completed. They are still in use today.
BMGR East was redeveloped and upgraded in the second half of the 1970s to support training that
would more realistically resemble potential threat areas. East TAC Range was redeveloped to
simulate a European theater, North TAC Range to simulate a Korean theater, and South TAC Range
to simulate a Middle Eastern theater. An electronic warfare range was installed to realistically
simulate the types of air defense threats that aircrews could encounter in actual combat. The USAF
also installed an electronic tracking and telemetry range (now referred to as the Air Combat Tactics
System range). These upgrades and additions generally supported aircrew training needs at the
BMGR East through the end of the Cold War and the first Persian Gulf War in 1991.

The primary use of the western range area from 1950 to 1958 was to support an air-to-air gunnery
and air-to-air rocket firing proficiency program of the USAF Air Defense Command (ADC). This
program was based at the Yuma AFB. ADC was responsible for training and deploying the fighter
interceptor squadrons that defended the U.S. against airborne attack. The range became the single
location to which all ADC units deployed annually for proficiency training. The focus of the
proficiency program from 1951 to 1954 was on air-to-air gunnery. No new development of the BMGR
West surface area is known to have been necessary to support the ADC proficiency training mission.
The USMC became a regular user of the BMGR in 1959 when Vincent AFB was transferred to the
USMC and became Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Station Yuma (MCAS Yuma from 1962 forward). In
contrast to USAF use of the BMGR, which had emphasized and continues to emphasize student
aircrew instruction, USMC training focused and continues to focus primarily on operational aircrews
and units. USMC training stressed air-to-air tactics, gunnery, and missile firing, as well as air-toground weapons use. Two target complexes were constructed within the far-western part of the
range to support air-to-ground weapons training. A rifle range and a built-up training and
administrative site, later called the Cannon Air Defense Complex, were also constructed in this area.
These latter two facilities are still in use.

Through the mid-1970s, the area of the BMGR West east of the Gila and Tinajas Altas Mountains was
regularly used as a fallout area for aerial gunnery and missile training. Today, this use only occurs
during special and infrequent training events. Also during that time, electronic tracking and

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-14

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

telemetry instruments were installed in the eastern portions of the BMGR West to form the electronic
architecture of a Southwest Tactical Training Range, which remains in use and is composed of
ground-based electronic instrument sites used to track, record, and replay the actions of up to 36
aircraft simultaneously as they participate in air-to-air or air-to-ground combat training.

The primary training emphasis within the BMGR West during the late Cold War and first Persian Gulf
War era continued to be readiness training for combat-qualified aviation units. Ground units with a
role to play in the integration of USMC air-ground combat teams were also incorporated in some
exercises to enhance the realism of the training.

Since the early 1990s, there has been a decline in the need for live air-to-air gunnery and missile
firing exercises, but neither the USAF nor the USMC has reduced its requirements for live air-toground weapons training. Both the USAF and USMC have added electronic instrumentation that
simulates air defense systems and refines their targets to keep pace with evolving air combat tactics
and threats.

The land management history of the BMGR differs from that of most federal public lands controlled
by a single federal agency (such as the BLM, USFWS, National Park Service [NPS]) where resource
management is the primary mission. Typical federal agency models are based on a clear purpose and
patterns of management are established by the agency's mission, regulations, past management
plans and practices, past and current land uses, resource conditions, and public involvement.
Management of the BMGR has differed from this model in several important ways. First, there were
no clear DoD or DOI resource management priorities specific for the range until the 1980s. Moreover,
there was no clear authority for resources management, at either federal or state levels. As a result,
there was no development of mutually held goals or coordination of purpose. Second, a
comprehensive natural resources management plan was prepared in 1986 and fully implemented in
1990; subsequently, INRMPs were completed in 2007, 2012, and 2018. Finally, at many points in the
range's history, management agencies have found themselves with competing or conflicting
responsibilities, legal guidance, goals, and purposes without an effective means of resolving these
issues.
2.1.1.2

Land Management History

Primary federal management responsibilities for BMGR lands since 1940 were (or are) as follows.

1. Prior to September 1941: General Land Office and U.S. Grazing Service (these two agencies
were merged in 1946 to form the BLM.
2. September 1941 to December 1958: USAF, full responsibility for the entire range.

3. January 1959 to November 1986: USAF military operations management of the BMGR East;
USN/USMC military operations management of the BMGR West.
4. November 1986 (MLWA of 1986) to November 6, 2001: No change of military operations of
the BMGR. BLM had land management responsibility for the entire range.

5. November 6, 2001 (MLWA of 1999) to November 6, 2024: No change in military operations
of the BMGR. The Secretary of the Air Force and Navy have land management responsibility
for the entire range.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-15

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Considerable progress has been made in recent years towards resolving resource management
issues. The MLWA of 1999 clearly established that the USAF and USMC would be responsible for
managing the natural resources of the range in accordance with the Sikes Act; thus, the 2007 INRMP
became the first plan to be implemented without conflicting federal management guidance. The 2012
update represented the continuation of the implementation of the Sikes Act provisions and provided
direction for proper management and protection of cultural and natural resources on the withdrawn
lands. The 2018 update of the INRMP provided herein maintains this direction and includes planned
projects specific to the FY 2019-2023 timeframe in the five-year INRMP cycle.

The primary mission of the BMGR remains unchanged and has become more critical with the
beddown of F-35s at both installations. Student and operational aircrews training occurs throughout
the range. However, the preeminent activity at BMGR East is advanced training for student aircrews
transitioning to frontline combat aircraft and, at the BMGR West, readiness training for aircrews in
operational combat is predominant. In addition, the BMGR serves the USN, Air Force Reserve
Command, ANG, and ARNG in these capacities. Other installations that regularly practice at BMGR
include MCAS Miramar, Davis-Monthan AFB, Silverbell Army Heliport, and Arizona ANG Base at
Tucson International Airport. In addition to regular users, “casual user” training deployments that
originate from active duty, reserve, and ANG flying units from other areas of the U.S. and allied units
from overseas also train at the range.

2.1.2

BMGR Missions

The perimeter of the BMGR is approximately 350 miles. The adjunct lands are predominantly rural,
undeveloped, and dominated by federal and tribal lands. Federal lands under the jurisdictions of the
BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, or USFWS are dedicated to long-term conservation purposes or a
combination of conservation and multiple public uses. These lands abut with approximately 52
percent of the BMGR perimeter (see Figure 1.1). Additionally, the Tohono O'odham Nation shares 7
percent and private or State Trust lands share approximately 30 percent of the perimeter. The
remaining 11 percent of the perimeter abuts the international boundary between the U.S. and Mexico.

2.1.3

Surrounding Communities

Private, State Trust, and BLM lands are predominant along the northern boundary of the BMGR from
Gila Bend to Yuma along Interstate Highway 8 and along the western range boundary in the vicinity
of Yuma. Much of this land has been converted to agriculture over the past decades. Agricultural crop
production is particularly prevalent west of Gila Bend near the towns of Aztec, Tacna, Wellton, and
Yuma. It is anticipated that new urban development will grow faster than agriculture and change the
mix of land use in the future.
The largest adjacent communities and their population estimates (U.S. Census 2017) are summarized
in Table 2.2. The majority of the population near the BMGR resides in Yuma County. In 2007, when
the housing market collapsed, Yuma County, like most of the nation, experienced a decline in
population growth and construction activity (Yuma County Department of Development Services
2012). Before the recession, growth rates for Yuma County had been both robust and predictable,
with an average growth rate of 3.84 percent between 1980 and 2000 (Yuma County 2012). Since
2010, the county population growth rate has exceeded the historical average. According to the U.S.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-16

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Census, the estimated annual population growth rate was about 5 percent from 2010–2017 (U.S.
Census Bureau 2017).
Table 2.2: Community populations surrounding BMGR, 2010–2017.
City

City of Yuma, Yuma County

2010 U.S. Census Data

Wellton, Yuma County
Tacna, Yuma County

Gila Bend, Maricopa County
Ajo, Pima County

1 2017

93,064

Recent Population Estimates

1,922

2,0691

2,882

602

3,304

96,5021
2,9472

6742

3,6962

U.S. Census population estimates (as of 1 July 2017) (U.S. Census Bureau 2017).
2016 U.S. Population estimates unavailable; estimates retrieved from the 2010–2016 American
Community Survey at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml.

2

The federal government owns approximately 80 percent of the land in Yuma County (Yuma County
2012). Military and agricultural lands represent the two largest segments of unincorporated Yuma
County, with approximately 40 percent used for military purposes. Of the remaining 60 percent, 47
percent is used for agricultural purposes (Yuma County 2012).

The community of Gila Bend lies just north of the BMGR East. It has a population of 2,071 and is the
site of a 280-megawatt solar-generating station (Gila Bend 2017). The Gila Bend planning area
includes approximately 175,000 acres of vacant, relatively flat terrain. Existing land use in Gila Bend
is concentrated in town; scattered land uses include large lot residential, energy generation,
agriculture, and sand and gravel extraction. No master planned communities are located within the
unincorporated portion of the planning area (Gila Bend 2017).

Ajo, in Pima County, is a small community located just south of the BMGR East. Ajo is a former coppermining hub that has recently experienced community growth as BP agents and other government
workers have moved into the area. The community population increases dramatically during the
winter months as people arrive from farther north to enjoy the warmer climate of Arizona.

Tohono O'odham Nation land encompasses approximately 2.8 million acres southeast of the BMGR.
The Nation is organized into 11 districts, with Hickiwan District abutting the BMGR’s most
southeastern border. Hickiwan District’s on-reservation population is 817. The off-reservation
population is 1,259 (Tohono O'odham Nation 2016). The land use includes ranching, livestock
grazing, and seasonal livestock camps.
In 2010, the 56 FW and Tohono O'odham Nation signed an MOU to create a framework for
consultation on DoD activities at the BMGR East. The MOU formalizes the consultation process but
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-17

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

recognizes that the consultation process, in connection with the INRMP and ICRMP, is not included
in its purview. In April 2015, this MOU was renewed for an additional five-year period.

The BMGR and adjacent government lands include a wide array of biologically diverse ecological
gradients that characterize the interface between the Arizona Upland and Lower Colorado River
Valley in the Sonoran Desert. Once considered a barren wasteland, the Sonoran Desert is now
recognized as the most biologically diverse of the great North American deserts. In its entirety, the
Sonoran Desert encompasses about 100,000 square miles in southwestern Arizona, southeastern
California, Baja California, and western Sonora (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 2017). It is the most
tropical of the three North American warm deserts (Chihuahuan, Mojave, and Sonoran) and hosts the
greatest number of plant communities (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 2017).

2.1.4

Local and Regional Natural Areas

The BMGR, Cabeza Prieta NWR, Organ Pipe Cactus NM, Sonoran Desert NM, and contiguous BLMadministered lands occupy landscapes that are ecologically interdependent to the degree that
management working to conserve ecosystem functions and biological diversity in one of these areas
benefits adjacent areas. Further, ecosystem linkages within the BMGR East also extend into
contiguous, largely natural areas of Tohono O'odham Nation lands.

Lands adjacent to the BMGR that offer the most recreational opportunities include the Sonoran
Desert NM, Cabeza Prieta NWR, and El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve,
Mexico. The Sonoran Desert NM is located along the northeast corner of the range near East Tactical
Range (ETAC); the portion of the monument adjacent to the range was formerly part of the BMGR,
but it was relinquished to the BLM with the passage of the MLWA of 1999. This area is currently
managed by the BLM for semi-primitive recreational opportunities and motorized access to some of
the land. The Cabeza Prieta NWR and Wilderness is located along portions of the BMGR’s southern
border (Figure 1.1).

All of the areas in which recreation is most likely to occur are predominantly undeveloped desert.
Most non-agricultural areas are also undeveloped desert, including the land in Mexico south of the
BMGR boundary and much of the land north of the BMGR along I-8, particularly between the
communities of Gila Bend and Mohawk.

2.2

Physical Environment

The Southwest region of the U.S. is characterized by a hot and arid variable climate that is strongly
influenced by its geographic location and positioning between two circulation regimes. Most of the
annual precipitation typically occurs during mid-winter storms or late summer monsoons. Based on
long-term weather patterns, average annual rainfall in the higher elevations along the easternmost
portion of the BMGR may approach 9 inches and, in the western extremes of the range near Yuma,
average annual rainfall is typically no more than 3 inches. Across the entire range, average rainfall is
less than 5 inches per year. In the Sonoran Desert, however, rainfall patterns are irregular. As a result,

2.2.1

Climate

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-18

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

some range locations may receive little or no rain during the same season or year in which other
areas receive average or above-average precipitation.

The Sonoran Desert is also subject to frequent and sometimes prolonged drought. As a result, some
of the BMGR’s interior valleys receive an average of only 0.5 inches of rainfall annually. Overall effects
of the minimal rainfall are exacerbated by high temperatures and regional evaporation transpiration
potentials that greatly exceed all known rainfall regimes. Summer daytime temperatures often are in
excess of 110 degrees Fahrenheit and annual evaporation potentials, which vary from more than 86
inches in the western part of the range to about 72 inches in the eastern, greatly exceed the available
precipitation. When the stable weather patterns that promote aridity in the BMGR region periodically
break down, all or portions of the range may receive two to three times the normal annual rainfall,
sometimes in only one or a few storms.
The Southwest has become warmer and drier over the past century, and projections indicate this
trend will continue into the twenty-first century (Overpeck et al. 2013). Droughts will become more
severe and precipitation extremes in winter are expected to become more frequent and more intense
(Overpeck et al. 2013). Significant changes in climate in this region will have broad impacts on
ecosystems and consequences for biodiversity (Bagne and Finch 2012).

In the fall of 2011, the BMGR East began a climate monitoring program and installed a network of 12
communication-grade weather stations (Campbell Scientific), manual-download data loggers, and
manual-read precipitation storage gauges. In addition to real-time stations, the BMGR East has
maintained existing rain gauges and manual-download data loggers to increase the number of
climate-monitoring points and provide a more spatially explicit understanding of climate variables.
These stations transmit data in real time and collect measurements on the following climatic
variables (Black 2015).
2.2.1.1

•
•

•
•
•
•

Regional Climate Monitoring Program

Temperature

Relative humidity
Precipitation
Wind speed

Wind direction
Solar radiation
Soil moisture

Real-time weather can be accessed by visiting http://98.191.112.244/index.html. The website
provides real-time visibility to the Luke AFB Weather Squadron, 25th Operational Weather
Squadron, Maricopa County Flood Control Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and regional law enforcement agencies. Access to real-time weather data informs
time-sensitive resource management issues including (Black 2015)
•

•

•

locations and servicing of emergency feed and water stations for endangered species;
timing and control measures for invasive plants; and

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-19

Chapter 2

•

INSTALLATION PROFILE

identifying areas where cultural resources may have been subject to extreme erosion
events.

The BMGR West has five manual-download weather stations and is exploring options to install
communication sensors on the weather stations to also report climate data in real-time. In addition,
several agencies have partnered with the BMGR to gain insight into the spatial and temporal
distribution of precipitation on a regional scale. The study area encompasses a large portion of
southwest Arizona (Figure 2.1). The following partnering agencies participate in this regional
monitoring effort (Black 2015).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

BMGR East (USAF)

BMGR West (USMC)

Cabeza Prieta NWR (USFWS)
Kofa NWR (USFWS)

Organ Pipe Cactus NM (NPS)

Sonoran Desert NM / Ajo Block (BLM)
Yuma Proving Ground (U.S. Army)

Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Natural resources and meteorological staff from partnering agencies aggregate monthly
precipitation data using water year (Oct. 1 to Sept. 30) rather than calendar year (Jan. 1 to Dec. 31),
to avoid splitting up the winter rain. Monthly precipitation values are combined with data from
neighboring agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Cooperative
Observer Program stations throughout the region, the El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar
Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, and the University of Arizona (UA) Meteorological Network; data from
two rain gages at private homes in Ajo and Why are included as well (Black 2015). Aggregated
datasets contain monthly precipitation totals for 160 stations across the region. Interpolation is used
to estimate precipitation at locations without gages, based on measurements from weather stations,
but this can potentially exaggerate the spatial extent of precipitation events due to the highly variable
nature of precipitation in the region, especially during the monsoon season. The current method also
does not consider elevation, which can be influential in precipitation events.
•

Future plans to improve regional climate datasets include adjusting the interpolation methodology
to factor in elevation and further automating the data aggregation and interpolation processes to
improve accuracy. Adding new stations, especially at mountain locations, would allow for more
robust datasets, better capture the spatial variability of precipitation, and improve the understanding
of how elevation influences precipitation. Additionally, expanding the network to include regional
data collected by researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey, NPS, and UA would provide more
surfaces for comparison and improve interpolation results (Black 2015).

The BMGR is located in the Basin and Range Province of Arizona, which is distinguished by broad
alluvial valleys separated by steep, discontinuous mountain ranges that run northwest to southeast.

2.2.2

Landforms

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-20

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

There are 15 named mountain ranges representing two physiographic types: sierras and mesas. The
Mohawk Range, west of the San Cristobal Valley, is made up of rugged sierras that have characteristic
towering jagged profiles. The Aguila Mountains, east of the San Cristobal Valley, are mesas that have
flat tops and steep cliffs. Elevations range from 185 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the
southwest corner of BMGR West to 4,002 feet above AMSL at the eastern edge of BMGR East atop the
Sand Tank Mountains.

The westernmost valley plains are within the Gran Desierto dune system, which extends both to the
west and south and into Mexico. Smaller sand dune systems have also formed in several other range
locations, with the most expansive being Mohawk Sand Dunes in the central portion of the range.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-21

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Volcanic landforms are found on some parts of the range; the most notable is the Sentinel Plain
Volcanic Field. A second volcanic landscape, the Crater Range, consists of eroded basalt-andesite lava
flows with cliff-like escarpments and ridge-forming dikes. Isolated pillars mark the location of
volcanic conduits.
The mountain ranges are formed from igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock types. The
alluvial valleys are deep bedrock basins filled with silt, clay, sand, and gravel deposits. These deposits
can be more than 10,000 feet deep. Along many of the mountain bases, sloping masses of alluvial fill
material, known as bajadas, extend outward like fans to taper more gradually than the mountains
themselves into the generally flat valley floors.

2.2.3

Geology and Soils

In some parts of the range, there are extensive sheet-like formations of lava from past flows. These
flows form irregular plains with rough basalt surfaces. Portions of the largest such lava flow in
southern Arizona extend into the northern part of the range south of the community of Sentinel. The
BMGR region is in a tectonically stable area with few earthquakes and few active faults.

The BMGR East has an aridic soil moisture regime and a hyperthermic soil temperature regime. As a
result, the soils are primarily Aridisols with few occurrences of Entisols, and one small area classified
as Andisols (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2012). The soils are typically shallow
and rocky with thin A horizons and varying texture. They are calcareous in nature, with high drainage
capacity and limited available water holding capacity (NRCS 2012, as cited in Whitbeck 2013).
BMGR East

In accordance with the BMGR INRMP Five-Year Action Plan 2013–2017, UA developed and
implemented a digital soil mapping technique specifically for characterizing the complex alluvial and
eolian deposit-dominated landscape of the BMGR West (Rasmussen and Regmi 2015). This project
resulted in a range-wide, digitally assessed, high spatial resolution soil-landscape classification map
depicting soil landscape variability and distribution (Rasmussen and Regmi 2015). The BMGR West
staff is working with UA to complete a range-wide soil map, incorporating the newly developed soil
mapping technique, within the planning period covered by the 2018 INRMP. The soil map will serve
as a decision-making tool for assessing the potential for erosion and natural hazards.
BMGR West

Principal rivers in the region include the Gila and Colorado Rivers. The Gila River runs east to west
just north of the BMGR boundary and connects to the Colorado River northwest of the range. Surface
water on BMGR lands, however, is very limited. There are no perennial or intermittent streams
present, and ephemeral stream flow occurs only in immediate response to sizeable rainfall events.
Surface water drainage flows outward from the mountain ranges and, for most of the area, ultimately
northward by numerous feeder washes into the larger washes that flow to the Gila River, which in
turn flows west into the Colorado River.

2.2.4

Hydrology

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-23

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Natural flooding events are highly variable in frequency and intensity and can have a large effect on
natural community composition, structure, and function. Some storms cause flash flooding in the
smaller mountain drainages and short-term flooding in the larger valley washes and floodplains.
Some rainwater collects in natural rock catchments (also known as tinajas or tanks), human-modified
natural catchments, or artificially constructed tanks where the water may persist for weeks or
months without recharge until it eventually evaporates or is consumed by wildlife or people.

The BMGR East lies within the central portion of the Sonoran Desert in the Basin and Range Lowlands
hydrogeologic province. There are no perennial or intermittent streams. The presence of surface
water depends on season and precipitation events within the BMGR East. Surface water drainage
flows by ephemeral feeder washes outward from the mountain ranges into larger washes and into
the Gila River, then eventually flowing west-southwest into the Colorado River (56 FW 2010).
Perennial springs, such as Bender Springs in the Sand Tank Mountains, can be found only in the far
eastern portion of the range.
BMGR East

Major wash systems include the San Cristobal/Growler Wash System in the San Cristobal Valley,
Daniels Arroyo in the South Tactical Range (STAC), Tenmile Wash near Range 1 and North Tactical
Range (NTAC), Midway Wash south of Range 2 and 4, and Sauceda and Quilotosa washes in the Sand
Tanks. The San Cristobal/Growler Wash system has a very low gradient along much of its course and
has created a broad, interlacing network of many small, branching and reuniting channels (56 FW
2010). This system is recognized as having some of the best remaining examples of Sonoran Desert
valley bottom floodplain communities in Arizona (56 FW 2010). Daniels Arroyo is the major tributary
to Growler Wash and drains northward from the Growler Mountains and Childs Mountain/Little Ajo
Mountains on the Cabeza Prieta NWR and adjacent BLM lands (56 FW 2010). Tenmile Wash drains
between Childs Mountain, Growler Mountains, and the Crater Range, then northwest to the Gila River
(56 FW 2010). The Tenmile Wash system is wide and flat and traverses north of Range 1 and is the
main drainage for NTAC (56 FW 2010). Sauceda Wash primarily drains the Sauceda Mountains and
Quilotosa Wash primarily drains the Sand Tank Mountains. Both terminate at the Gila River (56 FW
2010).
Groundwater is found primarily in tertiary volcanic rocks and alluvial deposits. Recharge occurs via
infiltration of rainfall runoff and underflow from adjacent alluvial basins. Groundwater quality is
found to be poor and typically includes high concentrations of total dissolved solids and fluoride (56
FW 2010).

Wells registered to the USAF are located at Gila Bend AFAF, NTAC, and at Range Munitions
Consolidation Point 1 (56 FW 2010). Production wells at Gila Bend AFAF and Range Munitions
Consolidation Point 1 currently supply water for construction, dust control, potable water supply for
selected facilities, and maintenance activities (56 FW 2010).

Flooding may occur along the major washes resulting from brief, intense summer monsoon events
or longer-duration winter and spring rainfall events. Significant rainfall events over the past few
years have caused considerable erosion on the ETAC, sometimes temporarily making roads
impassable. In 2014, a section of the road between SR 85 and Range 1 washed away, affecting daily

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-24

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

travel to and from several ranges and damaging a previously recorded archaeological site (CRP, in
prep.).
BMGR West consists of three major watersheds: Yuma Desert Wash, which drains west into the
Colorado River, and Coyote and Mohawk washes, which drain to the north into the Gila River (Duan
et al. 2017).
BMGR West

In June 2015, BMGR West began to monitor erosion across the range using three field methods: (1)
deployment of a three-dimensional camera, (2) ground-based light detection and ranging (also
known as LIDAR), and (3) manually measuring erosion using an electronic, survey-grade theodolite
total station (Duan et al. 2017). Monitoring erosion will help the BMGR West resource managers
prioritize erosion-prone areas and identify whether wind or rainfall runoff erosion is dominant
(Duan et al. 2017). The results have implications in developing restoration strategies for selected
sub-basins across the range (Duan et al. 2017).

2.3

Ecosystems and the Biotic Environment

Ecoregions delineate areas of general similarity in ecosystem type and the type, quality, and quantity
of environmental resources. Ecoregions are identified through the spatial patterns and composition
of biotic and abiotic phenomena, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use,
wildlife, and hydrology. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for classifying
different levels of ecological regions, with Level I being the coarsest and Level IV the most detailed.
The BMGR lies within the Level III Sonoran Basin and Range Ecoregion, which encompasses several
Level IV ecoregions (Griffith et al. 2014). They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the
research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystem components. Ecoregions are
critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across various agencies
and organizations.

The range has maintained its ecological integrity over the past 80 years, largely because its mission
predominantly utilizes the airspace above the range. Furthermore, the restrictions placed on land
use exclude grazing and mineral extraction, and they limit both development and public access to
some degree (Rosenberg 2015).
Nearly 290 species of Sonoran Desert plants characteristic of the Arizona Upland and of the Lower
Colorado River Valley are reported to occur at BMGR. Vegetation of the Arizona Upland is restricted
principally to portions of the range east of SR 85, where the slopes and upper bajadas of the Sand
Tank and Sauceda Mountains influence the soils and precipitation regimes that shape the plant
communities. Vegetation within the remaining portion of the range is characteristic of the Lower
Colorado River Valley plant communities. The distribution of plant communities in both of these
areas is influenced by the diverse landscape of the range, in which the series of widely spaced rugged
mountain ranges, broad valley plains, sand dune systems, surface water drainages, and playas are the
most important features.

2.3.1

Vegetation

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-25

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Agriculture grazing, and mineral extraction have extensively modified the Sonoran Desert vegetation
(NPS 2016). Over 3,000 years ago, early agricultural practitioners constructed massive systems of
irrigation canals along major river valleys, and crop seeds were sown near washes to capture runoff
during rainy seasons (NPS 2016). When the Europeans arrived, they introduced Eurasian plants,
animals, and microbes that transformed the landscape in “an ecological revolution. . . .” (NPS 2016).
Mining and livestock grazing were the two largest land uses, which by the mid-19th century had
caused substantial degradation in the central and southern Sonoran Desert, with numerous accounts
of overgrazing and subsequent abandonment (NPS 2016). In 1937, a coarse-scale vegetation map
was developed for Arizona (Figure 2.2) (Nichol 1937). Nichol classified the mountains as “Palo VerdeCacti, and Burr Sage” and the valleys as “Creosote Bush + Salt Brush” (Nichol 1937).
2.3.1.1

Historical Vegetative Cover

As a part of the 2007 INRMP planning process, The Nature Conservancy reviewed the ecological
structure, composition, and processes of the current vegetation cover and identified 13 natural
communities. Nine of these 13 natural communities and their estimated sizes, based on the best
available geographic information system (GIS) information, are as follows.
2.3.1.2

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Current Vegetative Cover

Valley Bottom Floodplain Complex—29,000 acres

Dune Complex and Dune Endemics—30,000 acres

Creosote Bush (Larrea tridentata) - Bursage (Ambrosia spp.) Desert Scrub —1,360,000
acres
Creosote Bush - Big Galleta (Hilaria rigida) Scrub—24,000 acres

Paloverde (Parkinsonia spp.) - Mixed Cacti - Mixed Scrub on Bajadas —191,000 acres
Paloverde - Mixed Cacti - Mixed Scrub on Rocky Slopes —63,000 acres
Sand Tank Mountains Uplands—10,000 acres

Elephant Tree (Bursera microphylla) - Limberbush (Jatropha cinerea) on Xeric Rocky
Slopes—91,000 acres
Desert Playa—170 acres

Areas occupied by the Salt Desert Scrub community and by the Desert Tinajas/Springs community
are small and were not estimated as part of the 2007 assessment. Two xeroriparian communities are
associated with washes. The extent of these communities is best described in linear units:
•

•

Valley Xeroriparian Scrub—2,325 linear miles

Mountain Xeroriparian Scrub—400 linear miles

These natural communities are described in terms of their ecological characteristics (composition,
structure, function/ecological process, physiographic occurrence, and associated soil characteristics)
in Table 2.3 and their locations are illustrated in Figure 2.3. The xeroriparian communities align with
the washes shown in Figure 2.3. (The isolated point data for Salt Desert scrub communities east of
the Copper Mountains and east of the Mohawk Mountains are not illustrated.)
•

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-26

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Figure 2.2: Arizona natural vegetation (Nichol 1937).
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-27

Chapter 2

Table 2.3: Ecological characteristics of the BMGR natural vegetation communities, as assessed by The Nature Conservancy.
Natural
Community
Element

Valley Bottom
Floodplain
Complex

Dune Complex
and Dune
Endemics
Creosote Bush
– Bursage
Desert Scrub
Creosote Bush
– Big Galleta
Scrub
Paloverde –
Mixed Cacti –
Mixed Scrub on
Bajadas

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Function/
Ecological Process

Composition

Structure

Characteristic vegetation includes creosote bush,
triangle-leaf bursage (A. deltoidea), white bursage
(A. dumosa), acacias (Acacia spp.), paloverdes,
mesquites (Prosopis spp.), and annual and
perennial grasses.

Community occurs as patchy, shifting mosaics
of sparse vegetation in relatively dry areas
interspersed with dense vegetation within
shallow depressions where water accumulates.
Linear occurrences of vegetation characteristic
of the Valley Xeroriparian Scrub community
may be present within this complex.

Forms on nearly flat terrain
(valley bottoms) where sheet
flow may be an important
hydrological phenomenon.
Vegetation provides forage,
cover, nesting sites, and perches
for wildlife.

Vegetation is located at the base of pediments
and extends onto valley floors. Examples are
found in the Growler and San Cristobal Valleys.

Generally forms on deep loams and
sandy loams that are often prone to
accelerated erosion.
Area consists of sand dune complexes.

Vegetation is primarily dominated by creosote
bush. Woody and non-woody cacti and rosette
succulents commonly occur on rocky slopes.
Seasonally present perennial grasses with some
perennial forbs dominate the sparse herbaceous
layer.

Includes extensive networks of Valley
Xeroriparian Scrub communities with large
patches of active and stabilized dune
complexes. Vegetation typically includes sparse
to moderately dense layers of microphyllous
and broad-leaved evergreen subshrubs and
shrubs less than 7 feet tall.

Linear xeroriparian systems and
large patch dune fields nested
within the creosote bushbursage-matrix dominate.

Active, stabilized, and partially stabilized dunes
found in valleys. Dune complexes are found west
of the Mohawk Mountains, in the Gran Desierto
southeast of Yuma, in San Cristobal Valley, and
in the northern Growler Valley.

This community is found on lower bajadas and
intermountain basins that are generally flat or
on gentle to moderate slopes. Vegetation on the
lower bajadas and valley west of the Sauceda
Mountains is a good example of this community.

Substrate is usually sandy or gravelly
alluvium derived from limestone and
metamorphic rocks. Soils are typically of
low salinity.

This community may be found growing on flat
ridges, low gradient slopes and among stabilized
sand dunes in portions of the Mojave and
Sonoran deserts. The only mapped occurrence of
the community is located in the Sentinel Plain
area.

Soils generally consist of sandy loam.
These soils are well-drained.

This community typically surrounds rocky
slopes of low mountain ranges. The best
example of this community occurs on the lower
slopes and bajadas of the Sand Tank Mountains.

Soil generally consists of gravelly
alluvium derived from basalt. Soil
substrates are generally coarsetextured, shallow, gravelly clay loams.
Caliche is a common characteristic.

Complex is generally sparsely vegetated by
scattered forbs and grasses. May include shrubs
and dwarf shrubs such as white bursage.
Stabilized dunes may support creosote bush and
mesquites while active dune fields may lack
vegetation.

Dominant shrub is Creosote bush. Big galleta is
the sole or dominant grass in the herbaceous
layer. White or triangle-leaf bursage can be a codominant.

Vegetation has a conspicuous but relatively
sparse layer of saguaro cactus (Carnegiea
gigantea). A sparse to moderately dense short tree
/ tall shrub canopy is also present and consists of
paloverde and creosote bush and, less
prominently, ironwood and ocotillo (Fouquieria
splendens). A sparse herbaceous layer dominated
by perennial grasses and forbs with some annuals
is present.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018-2023

Community occurs as patchy shifting mosaic
within Creosote Bush – Bursage Desert Scrub.
Includes active open dunes, stabilized dunes,
and stabilized flat, sand sheets. This complex
has a sparse and seasonally variable
herbaceous layer with a sparse cover of shrubs
that are less than seven feet tall.

Scattered shrubs and dense grasses typically
form the first two layers of vertical structure of
this complex. A tree canopy provides a third
layer when mesquite is present.

The dominant vegetation occurs in sparse to
moderately dense woody layers of short shrubs,
tall shrubs, and short trees, ranging from 1.5 to
16 feet tall. The herbaceous layer is generally
sparse with scattered perennial grasses and
forbs. The uppermost layer consists of a layer
of large, columnar cacti.

Contains a high number of
endemic species that have
adapted to moving sand. Water
may be held for long periods just
under the surface by sand.

Located on highly erodable sands
around downcutting desert
washes. Also sometimes found on
hillsides where sand has
accumulated downwind and
vegetation has been dispersed by
birds.
Linear xeroriparian systems are
nested within the matrix of this
community. Climate extremes
may cause die-back of many plant
species.

Physiographic Occurrence

Associated Soil Characteristics

2-28

Chapter 2

Table 2.3: Ecological characteristics of the BMGR natural vegetation communities, as assessed by The Nature Conservancy.
Natural
Community
Element

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Function/
Ecological Process

Composition

Structure

Paloverde –
Mixed Cacti –
Mixed Scrub on
Rocky Slopes

This community is of similar composition to that
of the Paloverde – Mixed Cacti – Mixed Scrub on
Bajadas but contains additional associates such as
teddy bear cholla (Cylindropuntia bigelovii).

This community is found along narrow
drainages throughout large patches of sparse to
clumped vegetative canopies. It generally
occurs on highly irregular bedrock outcrops.

Linear xeroriparian systems are
nested within the matrix of this
community. Climate extremes
may cause die-back of many plant
species.

This community is found throughout low
mountain ranges, primarily above the major
pediments. The best example occurs in the
Sauceda Mountains.

Sand Tank
Mountains
Uplands

Vegetation in this complex includes saguaro
cactus and a sparse to moderately dense
short trees / tall shrubs consisting of
paloverde and creosote bush. Typical associates
include crucifixion thorn (Koeberlinia spinosa) and
Sonora rosewood Vauquelinia californica
sonorensis). Also present is a sparse herbaceous
layer dominated by perennial grasses and forbs.

Large patches of a sparse to clumped vegetative
canopy are found on steep, highly irregular
bedrock outcrops. The structure is variable and
influenced by aspect, edaphic characteristics,
and sheltering cliffs and rocks.

Dynamic processes on landscapes
dominated by this community are
driven by linear xeroriparian
systems that are nested within
the larger community. Climate
extremes may result in the
periodic die-back of many plant
species.

This community occurs at high elevations in
and around the Sand Tank Mountains.

Dominant ecological processes of
desert playas are periodic
flooding and subsequent
evaporation. Large mud cracks at
Las Playas may be related to
volcanic activity.

Large open expanses that support playa lakes
may also serve as sand sources for dunes located
down-wind. Rainfall absorbed into dune fields
may serve as a water source for seepage into the
playa lakes. Many playas include dissected
streambeds that are erased through time.
Mohawk Playa is the best example at BMGR.

Elephant Tree –
Limberbush on
Xeric Rocky
Slopes

Desert Playa

Desert Tinaja /
Spring

The composition of this community is similar to
that of the Paloverde – Mixed Cacti – Mixed Scrub
system, but is characterized by additional
associates. Elephant tree, limberbush, Bigelow’s
nolina (Nolina bigelovii), and Kearney’s sumac
(Rhus kearenyi) are dominant in a mixed canopy.

This community forms large patches with a
sparse to clumped vegetative canopy on highly
irregular bedrock outcrops.

Generally, desert playas in the central Sonoran
Desert are sparsely vegetated, with periodic
emergence of ephemeral species. Large playas in
the Sonoran Desert may have surrounding rings of
vegetation.

Large patches are formed on flat plains and
basins. Deep ravines may be formed as a result
of drainage into the playas but are
subsequently filled in. Desert playas are often
located within a matrix of Creosote
Bush/Bursage Desert Scrub and may be
associated with active and stabilized sand
dunes.

Vegetation of this system may differ with
substrate.

Characteristic vegetation differs between playas
and unpredictable annuals may emerge.
Tinajas are typically small aquatic ecosystems
formed through water accumulation in bedrock
depressions. Vegetation is typically absent or
present as a few individual plants.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018-2023

The community generally appears in the form
of small patches among bedrock exposures.

Linear xeroriparian systems are
nested within the matrix of this
community. Climate extremes
may result in the periodic dieback of many plant species.

The periodic inflow and slow
evaporation are the primary
processes that support tinajas.
Tinajas may retain water
permanently.

Physiographic Occurrence

This community is found throughout low
mountain ranges in the most arid portions of the
Lower Colorado Valley and Arizona uplands of
the Sonoran Desert. Mountain Xeroriparian
Scrub is found throughout this large-patch
community along narrow drainages. Examples of
this community occur in the Tinajas Altas and
Gila Mountains.

This community may occur in bedrock
depressions throughout the Desert Southwest.
Examples include Tinajas Altas and Bender
Springs.

Associated Soil Characteristics
This community occurs on highly
irregular bedrock outcrops. Soils are
generally of the Lithic CamborthidsRock Outcrop-Lithic Haplargids
Association, which are typically
composed of very cobbly to cobbly
loams, very stony to stony loams,
gravelly very fine sandy loams, and rock
outcrops. Soils of these mountains are
subject to slight water erosion.
The community occurs on steep, rocky
slopes. Soils of these mountains are
subject to slight water erosion. They are
comprised principally of the Lithic
Camborthids-Rock Outcrop-Lithic
Haplargids Association, which are
generally very cobbly to cobbly loams,
very stony to stony loams, gravelly very
fine sandy loams, and rock outcrops.
The community is commonly associated
with granite bedrock and granitederived gravels at the base of the
mountains.

Playas are typically associated with
active and stabilized sand dunes.

The community is commonly associated
with bedrock depressions.

2-29

Chapter 2

Table 2.3: Ecological characteristics of the BMGR natural vegetation communities, as assessed by The Nature Conservancy.
Natural
Community
Element

Salt Desert
Scrub

Valley
Xeroriparian
Scrub
Mountain
Xeroriparian
Scrub

Composition

Structure

Two main types of saltbush communities occur.
Saltbush communities found along major riverine
systems typically have been converted to
agriculture. The drier upland type is associated
with creosote bush and numerous cactus species.
The community is dominated by the xeromorphic
shrub, cattle saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa). The
sparse to moderately dense graminoid layer may
be dominated by warm-season, medium-tall and
short grasses. Forb cover is generally sparse.

This community may form large patches on
desert bajadas. Vegetation typically has a
sparse to moderately dense layer of shrubs up
to 7 feet in height.

Characteristic vegetation is highly variable but
typically consists of paloverdes, ironwood,
mesquites, and succulents.

Found in narrow linear strips in downcut
channels with a moderate to dense layer of
trees and shrubs that are generally less than 16
feet tall. Herbaceous layer typically is sparse.

Characteristic vegetation is highly variable and
includes blue and foothill paloverdes (P. florida and
P. microphylla, respectively), ironwood (Olneya
tesota), mesquite, herbaceous and woody
perennial vines, and sparse annual grasses and
forbs.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018-2023

Found in narrow linear strips in downcut
channels with a moderate to dense layer of
trees and shrubs that are generally less than 16
feet tall. Herbaceous layer typically is sparse.

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Function/
Ecological Process

Physiographic Occurrence

Associated Soil Characteristics

The dominant xeromorphic shrub,
Atriplex polycarpa, tolerates
saline or alkaline soils and marks
the extent of deep, fine loams of
significant agricultural value.

This community occurs on both upland and
lowland sites throughout much of the arid and
semi-arid western U.S.

Soils are variable, with depths ranging
from shallow to moderately deep and
textures ranging from sands to loams to
clay.

Channel-constricted flow is the
dominant ecological process.
Frequency and amount of runoff,
shading, and channel scouring
influence xeroriparian vegetation
gradients.

Found on mountain slopes with a grade of less
than 6 percent and extend onto valley bottoms.
This community is predominant in the more arid
areas west of SR 85. Daniels Arroyo is a good
example.

Generally located on course-textured
substrates, but also occurs on gravelly
silty loams.

Periodic flooding, while
infrequent, is tolerated by this
community.

Channel-constricted flow is the
dominant ecological process.

Lowland sites include alluvial flats, drainage
terraces, playas, washes, and interdunal basins,
whereas upland sites include bluffs and gentle to
moderately steep sandy or rocky slopes. An
example of this community occurs within the San
Cristobal Valley.

This community is found on upper bajadas and
low- to moderate-elevation mountain slopes
with more than a 6 percent grade.

Lowland sites may be moderately saline
or alkaline.

May be on exposed bedrock on upper
mountain slopes. Soils are generally not
saline.

2-30

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Southwest Arizona Seamless Mapping Effort

In 1981, the NPS developed a vegetation map for the Organ Pipe Cactus NM following the protocol
developed by P.L. Warren and others from the UA (Malusa and Sundt 2015). Since this time, an effort
has been underway to map all connecting federal land management entities following the same
standardized protocol through the support of the Desert Southwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies
Unit and UA. Completed mapping units include the BMGR West, Organ Pipe Cactus NM, Cabeza Prieta
NWR and BLM lands in the Ajo Block, and portions of the BMGR East (Malusa 2003; McLaughlin et al.
2007; Osmer et al. 2009; Malusa 2010; Shepherd 2011; Whitbeck 2013; Malusa and Sundt 2015;
Weston and Fehmi 2016). Approximately 100,000 acres of the BMGR East remains to be mapped.
When the remaining portions of the BMGR East are completed in FY 2019, one cohesive map will be
produced for all mapped federal lands within southwestern Arizona using a common methodology
and common mapping units. This seamless map will provide a baseline for ecosystem management
decisions and be a useful tool for land and resource managers to better understand how wildlife
species are utilizing the landscape and associated vegetation.

The maps classify vegetation communities following the U.S. National Vegetation Classification
System (USNVC). The hierarchical framework of the USNVC documents community alliances and
associations. Alliance is the broadest level of classification used for vegetation mapping and is defined
by a characteristic range of species composition, habitat conditions, physiognomy, and diagnostic
species, typically where at least one is found in the uppermost or dominant stratum of the vegetation
layer (USNVC 2017). Alliances reflect regional climate, hydrologic, substrate, and disturbance
regimes and trends (USNVC 2017). Communities are typically mapped at a finer-scale-association
level that is based on the characteristic range of species composition, diagnostic species occurrence,
habitat conditions, physiognomy, and local climatic, hydrologic, and disturbance regimes and trends
(USNVC 2017). Occasionally, vegetation communities are mapped down to the subassociation level,
whereas an association typically occurs with a particular landform, such as with White Bursage-Big
Galleta Grass on Dunes (Malusa and Sundt 2015).
Detailed mapping was conducted by the UA in five phases (Table 2.4, Figure 2.4). The first phase
began in 2003 with the mapping of the NTAC and STAC (McLaughlin et al. 2007). Next the ETAC
Range and Area B were mapped, then the western San Cristobal Valley, and then the eastern San
Cristobal Valley, Aguila Mountains, and Sentinel Plain (Osmer et al. 2009; Shepherd 2011; Whitbeck
2013; Weston and Fehmi 2016). To complete the remaining portions of the comprehensive
vegetation-association mapping effort, the following areas are scheduled to be mapped over the
course of FY 2018 and FY 2019.
BMGR East

•

•

Approximately 11,000 acres along the “stair-step” boundary between the easternmost
portion of the range and the Sonoran Desert NM.

Approximately 90,000 acres identified as having a slope greater than 20 percent were
deemed less suitable for Sonoran pronghorn and were not mapped to reduce costs. As of
February 2018, the remaining areas to be mapped are accounted for within the Brittlebush
(Encelia farinose) – Creosote – White Bursage / Yellow Paloverde association.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-32

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Table 2.4: BMGR East vegetation associations.
Creosote / Paloverde – Ironwood

Vegetation Association1

Creosote / Triangle Leaf Bursage
Creosote Floodplain

Creosote – White Bursage – Triangle Leaf Bursage
Creosote Monotype

Brittlebush (Encelia farinose) – Creosote – White Bursage / Yellow Paloverde (90,000
acres unsurveyed)
Creosote – White Bursage

>20 percent Slopes or Mountains

Bursage / Creosote – Wolfberry (Lycium spp.) / Paloverde
Mountain Uplands

Creosote – White Bursage – Big Galleta Grass
Disturbed

White Bursage – Creosote – Teddy Bear Cholla (Cylindropuntia bigelovii)
Creosote – Teddy Bear Cholla
Wolfberry

Creosote – Fagonia (Fagonia spp.) – White Bursage

Saltbush (Atriplex spp.) – Slender Saltbush (A. tenuissima) – Creosote
Creosote / Desert Saltbush (A. polycarpa) / Mesquite

Bursage spp. / Creosote / Yellow Paloverde / Ironwood
White Bursage / Big Galleta Grass / Creosote
White Bursage – Creosote

Jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis) / Lycium Mountains
Mesquite – Paloverde

Honey Mesquite (P. glandulosa) Playa
Brittlebush Terrace
Barren

1 Forward

221,645

Total Acres
148,356
135,891
114,980
110,577
135,513
55,264
29,943
23,529
20,522
19,459
14,647
11,846

9,905
8,074
5,715
5,393
4,165
2,318
1,199

943
872
817

88
71
51

slashes ( / ) separate different strata; the en-dashes ( – ) separate species within a stratum

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-33

Figure 2.4: BMGR East Vegetation Community

2018-2023 Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP)

Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR)

Gila Bend

0

Dateland

Sonoran Desert
National Monument

N

BLM
10

0

Legend

0

City
/Town
Interstate 8
State Route 85

c:J BMGREast
D
D
D
D
D

BMGR West
Cabeza Prieta NWR
Sonoran Desert NM
Tohono O'odham Nation
SLM
State Trust Land

BMGR East Vegetation Associations

-

D
D
D
D

D
D
D

o - Barren
1 o - Creosote Monotype
11 - Creosote - White Bursage
12 - Creosote - Triangle Leaf Bursage
13 - Creosote - White Bursage - Triangle
Leaf Bursage
14 - Creosote - Teddy Bear Cholla
15 - Creosote Floodplain
16 - Creosote - White Bursage - Big Galleta
Grass
17 - Creosote/ Palo Verde - Ironwood
18 - Creosote/ Desert Saltbush/ Mesquite

D
D
D
D

19 - Creosote - Fagonia - White Bursage
21 - Bursage/ Creosote - Wolfberry / Palo
Verde
24 - White Bursage - Creosote - Teddy Bear
Cholla
25 - Bursage spp. / Creosote I Yellow Palo
Verde/ Ironwood
26 - White Bursage/ Big Galleta Grass/
Creosote
28 - White Bursage - Creosote
30 - Jojoba/ Lycium Mountains
31 - Mountain Uplands
50 - Disturbed
60 - Brittlebush Terrace

D

D

63 - Brittlebush - Creosote - White Bursage/
Yellow Palo Verde
70 - Saltbush - Slender Saltbush - Creosote

A
World Geodetic System
1984 (WGS84) Projection
Zone 12N
GCS_WGS_1984

80 - Mesquite - Palo Verde
81 - Wolfberry
82 - Honey Mesquite Playa

Base data from ESRI StreetMap
Hillshade derived from USGS NED
Created By:

Center for
.i# Environmental
...
�
... Management
i.

MILITARY LANDS

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Vegetation mapping efforts began in 2009 and were completed in 2014 (Malusa 2010; Malusa 2012;
Malusa and Sundt 2015; Figure 2.5). The majority of the BMGR West is part of Mojave-Sonoran SemiDesert Scrub Macrogroup, which covers most of the Mojave and Sonoran deserts in the Southwestern
U.S. Within this macrogroup, there are six alliances, including creosote, bursage, saltbush, brittlebush,
watercourse, and blue paloverde. Within these alliances are 23 associations, such as Creosote–Teddy
Bear Cholla. Finally, within these associations are 40 subassociations, the most detailed mapping
unit.
BMGR West

The remainder of the BMGR West falls under the Great Basin & Intermountain Dry Shrubland &
Grassland Macrogroup. This vegetation is characterized by shrubs like Mormon tea (Ephedra viridis)
and is restricted to the north slopes of the higher mountains. On the BMGR West, this macrogroup
comprises one alliance, two associations, and two subassociations (Malusa and Sundt 2015). Figure
2.5 depicts the BMGR West vegetation communities mapped at the association level. The 2015 report,
Vegetation Mapping of the Barry M. Goldwater Range West, Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma, Arizona
(Malusa and Sundt 2015), provides a detailed description of the mapped vegetation subassociations.
Table 2.5 lists and quantifies the broadly categorized vegetation associations (Malusa and Sundt
2015).

This section of the INRMP applies to installations that are developed. The BMGR is an undeveloped
desert and none of the lands are landscaped or have turf. Gila Bend AFAF, on BMGR East, has several
small turf areas and several rows of planted trees. Gila Bend AFAF is operated and maintained by a
USAF Contractor and all turf and landscape areas are maintained by the contractor or sub-contractor
as part of the service contract agreement. The total area of Gila Bend AFAF is approximately 385 acres
with less than 7 acres containing turf or landscaped areas.

2.3.2

Turf and Landscaped Areas

Wildlife found at the BMGR is typical of that found in the Sonoran Desert ecosystem. Available
inventories show that over 200 species of birds, over 60 mammal species, and 10 amphibian species
occur or may potentially occur within the BMGR and the adjacent Cabeza Prieta NWR. Due to the
absence of permanent water sources, the occurrence of amphibians is limited and there are no fish.
Evidence indicates that the diversity and population sizes of wildlife species and the amount of
habitat have remained relatively stable and typical for this portion of the Sonoran Desert. This is
attributed to that fact that land withdrawn for military use excludes or limits other land uses such as
livestock grazing, farming, mining, and off-road vehicle recreation. Due to BMGR’s large size and
interconnectedness with two NMs and one NWR, as well as its distance from metropolitan areas and
anthropogenic impacts, the installation remains one of the last remaining large swaths of pristine
Sonoran Desert.

2.3.3

Fish and Wildlife

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-35

Chapter 2

Table 2.5: BMGR West vegetation associations.
Creosote – White Bursage

Vegetation Association1

Creosote – Bursage / Paloverde – Ironwood
Creosote Monotype

White Bursage – Elephant Tree

White Bursage – Big Galleta Brass
White Bursage – Creosote
Wolfberry

Creosote – Triangle Leaf Bursage

Creosote – White Bursage – Big Galleta Grass
Creosote – Fagonia – White Bursage

Creosote – White Bursage – Triangle Leaf Bursage

Brittlebush – Creosote – White Bursage / Yellow Paloverde
Creosote – Teddy Bear Cholla
Creosote Floodplain

White Bursage – Creosote / Paloverde / Ironwood
Disturbed

Brittlebush – Creosote

White Bursage – Creosote – Teddy Bear Cholla

Mormon Tea – Agave (Agave spp.) / White Bursage
Brittlebush – Ironwood – Blue Paloverde

Arrowleaf (Pleurocoronis pluriseta) / Sumac (Rhus spp.) / Beargrass (Nolina
microcarpa) / Mormon Tea
Brittlebush – White Bursage – Creosote
Barren

Lavender (Hyptis emoryi) – Holly Leaf Bursage (A. ilicifolia)
Blue Paloverde / Holly Leaf Bursage

Desert Holly (A. hymenelytra) – White Bursage
Mesquite – Paloverde Bosque

1 Forward

INSTALLATION PROFILE

275,715

Total Acres
97,543
96,401
49,096
28,040
26,403
15,082
14,252
13,639
11,984
10,629
10,073

9,867
6,256
5,687
4,155
4,075
3,949
2,864
2,600
1,937
1,934

911
444
263
147

19

slashes ( / ) separate different strata; the en-dashes ( – ) separate species within a stratum.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-36

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Figure 2.6: AGFD conducts surveys for many species at BMGR, including flat-tailed horned lizard (left), Le
Conte's thrasher (middle), and bighorn sheep (right).

Threats to wildlife populations and habitat include an increase in the number of trespass livestock.
Vulnerabilities to wildfires (see Section 7.9) created by the expansion of invasive species and
persistent, reoccurring droughts may be related to climate change. Threats to habitat and wildlife
from illegal cross-border traffic have sharply diminished with the completion of the border barrier
fence. Restrictions to military use or public recreation activities to protect or rehabilitate habitat have
not been established.

2.3.4

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Greatest Conservation
Need

There are currently two species listed under the ESA known to occur at BMGR: Sonoran pronghorn
(Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) and acuña cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis).
For its continued survival, the pronghorn (see Section 7.4.1) depends on the Sonoran Desert
ecosystem of the BMGR, Cabeza Prieta NWR, and Organ Pipe Cactus NM. The acuña cactus was
federally listed as endangered in 2013 and is found mainly at BMGR East, Tohono O'odham Nation
Reservations, BLM lands, Organ Pipe Cactus NM, and areas southeast of Phoenix (between Cactus
Forest and Kearny). The lesser long-nosed bat, previously federally listed as endangered, was
delisted in April 2018 (USFWS 2018).
The flat-tailed horned lizard (FTHL) (Phrynosoma mcallii) has no federal protection in the U.S., but it
is listed as threatened in Mexico and is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in Arizona
and a species of concern in California. The FTHL occurs at BMGR West and is managed in accordance
with the Candidate Conservation Agreement and the FTHL Rangewide Management Strategy (RMS),
to which the USMC and AGFD are parties. The FTHL (see Section 7.4.4) occurs at the far western
portion of the BMGR West and has been the subject of considerable ESA and federal court activities.
Much of the FTHL’s historical habitat (possibly as much as 50 percent) in the U.S. has been lost due
to agricultural and residential development. In 2011, the USFWS withdrew its proposed listing, based
in part on protections offered by the 2003 RMS (FTHL Interagency Coordinating Committee 2003).
As a Signatory Agency, MCAS Yuma has incorporated RMS measures into this INRMP, including
participating as an FTHL Interagency Coordinating Committee member and conducting annual
occupancy and demographic surveys and research.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-38

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Peirson’s milkvetch (Astragalus magdalenae peirsonii) is listed as threatened. The plant is found
primarily on the Algodones Dunes in California and the dunes of nearby Gran Desierto de Altar in
northwestern Sonora, Mexico. On the BMGR, a single specimen collected in 1996 near the range’s
western boundary was thought to be Pierson’s milkvetch; however, the specimen was subsequently
assigned to a different subspecies. Peirson’s milkvetch is not currently known to exist in Arizona,
although suitable habitat exists in the Yuma Dunes at the BMGR West. The species was not detected
on surveys conducted in 2003 and 2004 (BMGR Task Force 2005). The only Biological Opinion
addressing effects of the BMGR military activities on Peirson’s milkvetch was issued in 2001 (USFWS
2011). In this Opinion, the USFWS found that the actions proposed were not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of Peirson’s milkvetch. The rationale for this conclusion was that relatively
limited potential habitat existed and USMC activities were expected to only minimally affect those
habitats (BMGR Task Force 2005). Although the species has not been found during any surveys to
date, in accordance with the 2001 Biological Opinion, a re-initiation or consultation with the USFWS
may be warranted if the species is found in the future.

The Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai) is not a federally listed species, but it is an Arizona
SGCN. The BMGR applies conservation strategies as outlined in the Conservation Agreement which
is discussed in more detail in Section 7.4.2 Desert Tortoise Update.

Federally threatened and endangered species that have not been documented but have the potential
to occur at BMGR are listed in Table 2.6. In addition, Arizona Status and Arizona’s State Wildlife
Action Plan (SWAP) score are listed.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-39

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Table 2.6: Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN).
Common Name (Scientific Name)

Arizona
Species of
Species or Habitat
Federal1 Status2/
Greatest
Not
Status
SWAP Conservation Present Potential
Expected
Score3
Need

Mammals4

Lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris
curasoae yerbabuena)

SC/1A

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum)

SC/1B

Southern yellow bat (Lasiurus ega)

SC/NR

California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus
californicus)

Greater western mastiff bat (Eumops
perotis californicus)
Sonoran pronghorn ( Antilocapra
americana sonoriensis)
Sonoran pronghorn ( Antilocapra
americana sonoriensis)

Canyon Mouse (Peromyscus crinitus)
Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis)

SC/1B

LE

XN

Little pocket mouse ( Perognathus
longimembris)

Southwestern willow f lycatcher
( Empidonax traillii extimus)

Yuma clapper rail ( Rallus longirostris
yumanensis)






Riparian areas, rocky cliffs (BMGR West).

In association with palm trees, may occur in vicinity (BMGR East and West).

Year-round resident that roosts in caves or mines and forages in desert scrub or xeroriparian
vegetation. (BMGR East and West).





32 FR 4001, 1 March 1967



76 FR 25593, 5 May 2011





LE

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

SC/1A
SC/1A

Southwestern Arizona: vegetation includes big galleta grass, six week three-awn, six weeks
grama, creosote bush, bursage, and saltbush; BMGR West and East, east of the Gila and Tinajas
Altas mountains (BMGR East and West).
New breeding pen at Kofa NWR, relocation of some species from existing breeding pen at
Cabeza Prieta NWR to BMGR East.
Rocky habitats or gravel sites adjacent to rocky areas (BMGR West).

In valleys and on sandy plains in the Southwestern deserts (BMGR East and West).

Not restricted to any particular vegetation type, so long as there is sufficient cover. They are
often found in packrat houses, or under dead agaves, old logs, or other debris (BMGR West).



Desert mountain ledges and grassy basins (BMGR East and West).




LE

Lower and upper Sonoran desert scrub near cliffs, preferring the rugged rocky canyons with
abundant crevices (BMGR East and West).

Found in various types of desert scrub habitats (greasewood, rabbitbrush, creosote bush,
cactus, mesquite, paloverde, etc.) (BMGR West).





Habitat or Potential Habitat at BMGR

53 FR 38456, 30 September 1988;
Petition to delist: 82FR 1665, 6 Summer resident that roosts in caves or mines and forages in desert scrub habitats (BMGR
January 2017; Delisted 83FR 17093, East and West).
18 April 2018



NR/1B

NR/NA






NR/1C

NR/NA

Desert bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis
mexicana)

Birds5

SC/1A



NR/1B

Crawford’s desert shrew
(Notiosorex crawfordi)

Arizona wood rat (Neotoma devia) (on
the list provided by MCAS Yuma, but not
on the AZ SGCN list)

NR/1B



Federal Register (FR) Reference









60 FR 10693, 27 February 1995;
Designation of critical habitat: 78 FR
343, 3 January 2013
32 FR 4001, 11 March 1967

Low desert or rocky slopes; sagebrush scrub or areas with scattered cactus, yucca, and other
low vegetation. When inactive, occupies elaborate den built of debris among cacti, rocks, etc.
Found only in extreme western Arizona (BMGR West).
Well-developed riparian areas with cottonwood, willow, or tamarisk are not present.
Marsh habitat not found at BMGR.

2-40

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Table 2.6: Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN).
Common Name (Scientific Name)

Bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos
canadensis)

Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii)

Arizona
Species of
Species or Habitat
Federal1 Status2/
Greatest
Not
Status
SWAP Conservation Present Potential
Expected
Score3
Need
BGEPA
BGEPA

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl
( Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum)
Peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus
anatum)
Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis)

SC/1A



SC/1A





SC/1A









NA/1A
SC/1A
SC/1B

Belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon)

SC/NA

Snowy egret (Egretta thula)

SC/NA

Crested caracara (Caracara cheriway)
Tropical kingbird ( Tyrannus
melancholicus)

Desert Purple Martin (Progne subis
Hesperia)
Gila woodpecker (Melanerpes
uropygialis)

Gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides)

Le Conte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei)
Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus)
Bendire’s thrasher
(Toxostoma bendirei)

Black-tailed gnatcatcher ( Polioptila
melanura)
Brown-crested flycatcher
(Myiarchus tyrannulus)

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

SC/NA
SC/NA

NR/1B
NR/1B
NR/1B
NR/1B
NR/1B
NR/1C
NR/1C
NR/1C


























Aquatic habitat not found at BMGR.

Cliffs or in large trees that afford an unobstructed view (BMGR East).

Winters in grassy fields along lower Colorado River from north of Yuma to Parker (may be
expected occasionally at BMGR West).
Xeroriparian areas (BMGR East and West).

Isolated cliffs; winter migrant (BMGR East and West).

Arid to semiarid regions, as well as grasslands and agricultural areas (BMGR East).
Found near water (fresh or salt); rare transient at BMGR.

Semi-desert, in both arid and moist habitats, but is more common in the former. Observed in
Sonoran Desert NM near BMGR East.
Marshes, lakes, ponds, lagoons, mangroves, and shallow coastal habitats; may appear during
seasonal migration (BMGR East and West).

Situations with scattered trees, savanna, open woodland, forest edge, plantations, residential
areas and agricultural lands.
Desert Southwest in saguaro cacti cavities (BMGR East).

All desert habitats, nesting in saguaro cacti (BMGR East and West).

Open desert scrub, alkali desert scrub, and desert succulent scrub (BMGR East and West).






Proposed for delisting: 64 FR 36453,
6 July 1999; Delisting: 72 FR 37346,
9 July 2007

Habitat or Potential Habitat at BMGR

All desert habitats, nesting in saguaro cacti (BMGR East and West).




Federal Register (FR) Reference



Xeric or disturbed uplands; short vegetation, bare ground, and a flat topography. Not on the
AGFD Heritage Data Management System for Maricopa, Pima, and Yuma counties. However,
known to occur on BMGR East, and surveys in 2011 and early 2012 identified the plover in
Maricopa County (Gila Bend AFAF), and Yuma County.
Relatively open desert grassland, shrubland or woodland with scattered shrubs or trees
(BMGR East and West).





Desert brush, dry washes, and mesquite bosques (BMGR East and West).

Found in association with saguaros; also frequents river groves and other areas where trees
are large enough to provide sites for cavity nesting (BMGR East).

2-41

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Table 2.6: Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN).
Common Name (Scientific Name)

Common poorwill (Phalaenoptilus
nuttallii)

Arizona
Species of
Species or Habitat
Federal1 Status2/
Greatest
Not
Status
SWAP Conservation Present Potential
Expected
Score3
Need

Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae)
Elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi)
Gray vireo (Vireo vicinior)

Hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus)
Lucy’s warbler (Vermivora luciae)
Phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens)
Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)

Scott’s Oriole (Icterus parisorum)

Varied bunting (Passerina versicolor)

Western screech-owl (Megascops
kennicottii)

White-throated swift (Aeronautes
saxatalis)
Pyrrhuloxia (Cardinalis sinuatus)
Reptiles

Colorado Desert fringe-toed lizard
(Uma notata)
Yuman Desert fringe-toed lizard
(Uma rufopunctata)
Flat-tailed horned lizard
(Phrynosoma mcallii)

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

NR/1C



NR/1C

Non-breeding winter resident found in desert and arid scrub, semi-open areas with scattered
scrub and semi-open arid brushland (BMGR West).
Favors groups of palms for nesting. (BMGR East).

Mesquite bosques and edges of riparian woods in desert zones (BMGR East and West).



NR/1C

Scrub habitats, with desert mistletoe present for foraging (BMGR East and West).



NR/1C

Canyons, open country, grasslands, and deserts (BMGR East and West).




NR/1C
NR/1C

Yucca gardens on desert grassland prairies, but they have been found wherever yucca is
growing, even on the hillsides of mountain canyons (BMGR East and West).



NR/1C

Streamside thickets, brush mostly in areas of dense thorny brush, often with an upper story of
scattered trees (BMGR East).



NR/1C

Southern populations inhabit lowland riparian forests, oak-filled arroyos, desert saguaro and
cardon cacti stands, Joshua tree and mesquite groves, and open pine and pinyon-juniper
forests (BMGR East and West).



NR/1C

Rocky cliffs and canyons, typically found nesting in arid regions, but near major rivers (BMGR
East and West).



NR/NA

Desert scrub and mesquite thickets (BMGR East).



NR/NA1

SC/1A

Deserts, dry shrublands, riparian woodlands, and open pine-oak forests (BMGR East and
West).



NR/1C

SC/NR

Desert and semi-desert, arid brushy foothills, chaparral; in migration and winter also in
adjacent mountains and in open meadows and gardens (BMGR East and West).



NR/1C










Habitat or Potential Habitat at BMGR
In all Sonoran Desert habitats, but most common on sparsely vegetated bajadas (BMGR East
and West).



NR/1C

Federal Register (FR) Reference

Listed as Candidate: 80 FR 56423, 18
September 2015

Withdrawal of proposal to list: 76
FR 14210, 15 March 2011

Restricted to sparsely vegetated windblown sand dunes and sandy flats; it requires fine, loose
sand for burrowing; vegetation is usually scant, consisting of creosote bush or other scrubby
growth (BMGR East and West).
Restricted to sparsely vegetated windblown sand dunes and sandy flats; it requires fine,
loose sand for burrowing; vegetation is usually scant, consisting of creosote bush or other
scrubby growth (BMGR East and West).

Creosote flats, sand dunes, and mud hills in southeastern California, southwestern Arizona,
and northwestern Mexico (BMGR West).
2-42

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Table 2.6: Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN).
Common Name (Scientific Name)

Desert rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata
gracia)

Mexican rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata
trivirgata)
Desert Tortoise (Sonoran population)
(Gopherus morafkai)

Arizona
Species of
Species or Habitat
Federal1 Status2/
Greatest
Not
Status
SWAP Conservation Present Potential
Expected
Score3
Need
SC
SC

Desert night lizard (Xantusia vigilis)
Long tailed brush lizard (Urosaurus
graciosus)



SC/1A









NR/NA

SC in
Mohave
County
only
/ NA

Western (or Great Plains) narrowmouthed toad ( Gastrophryne olivacea)

SC/1C

Plants

Acuña cactus ( Echinomastus
erectocentrus var. acunensis)

LE

Peirson’s milkvetch ( Astragalus
magdalenae var. peirsonii)

LT

HS

On or near rocky mountains or hillsides in desert ranges, where they inhabit the granite rock
outcroppings that absorb the sun’s rays providing heat and cover (BMGR West).

Sonoran desertscrub and semidesert grassland, prefers rocky slopes and bajadas (BMGR East).
Arid and semiarid, among fallen leaves and trunks of yuccas, agaves, cacti, and other large
plants, also in crevices of rock outcroppings and under logs and bark of foothill pines; it ranges
locally into pinyon-juniper, sagebrush-blackbrush, and chaparral-oak. (BMGR West).



The Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desert scrub community and can be a common sight in
creosote bush- lined desert flats with sandy soil and along tree lined drainages (BMGR West).




Moist crevices or burrows, near ephemeral water sources (BMGR East and West).


81 FR 14058, 16 March 2016;
Designation of critical habitat: 81 FR
55265, 18 August 2017




HS



Habitat or Potential Habitat at BMGR
Rocky areas in desert ranges, especially in canyons with permanent or intermittent streams
(BMGR West).



NR/NA

Amphibians

Sand food (Pholisma sonorae)

NR/NA

Federal Register (FR) Reference

63 FR 53596, 6 October 1998;
Designation of critical habitat: 64 FR
47329, 4 August 2004; Petition to
remove from listing—not
warranted: 73 FR 41007, 17 July
2008

The Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert scrub biotic community, tending to be
located at the western, warmer, drier perimeter of the Subdivision within the Paloverde
Saguaro Association; at least three distinct clusters of an acuña cactus exist in the BMGR East
(Urreiztieta 2013, Abbate 2017); the species has not been detected in the BMGR West, nor is
it expected to occur.
Slopes of mobile sand dunes in the Sonoran desert scrub plant community. No confirmed
occurrences but Yuma Dunes in the BMGR West are potential habitat.
Drifting sand below 500 ft. elevation in creosote bush scrub (Yuma Dunes in the extreme
southwestern portion of t h e BMGR West).

Status: BGEPA=Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, LE=Endangered (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), LT=Threatened (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), MBTA=Migratory Bird Treaty Act, NL=Not listed, SC=Species of Concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service),
XN=Experimental non-essential population.

1 Federal

2 Arizona

Status: HS=Highly Safeguarded, SC=Species of Concern, NA=Not Applicable, NR=Not Rated.

State Wildlife Action plan (SWAP) score (species’ vulnerability): 1A=Scored 1 for vulnerability in at least one of eight vulnerability categories and matches at least one of the following: federally listed as E, T, or Candidate species; specifically covered under a signed
conservation agreement or a signed conservation agreement with assurance; recently delisted federally and requires post-delisting monitoring;; closed-season species (i.e., no take permitted), as identified in Arizona Game and Fish; 1B=Scored 1 for vulnerability, but matches none
of the criteria listed under 1A; 1C=Unknown status species.

3 Arizona
4 The
5A

Yuma puma has been omitted from the table; it had been listed as a wildlife species of concern, but genetic research completed after the list of wildlife species of concern was created showed that the subspecies ranking was incorrect.

list of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act can be found at 50 CFR 10.13.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-43

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Broad floodplains are associated with the major washes, which generally flow down the axes of the
valleys between adjacent ranges (Klawon and Pearthree 2001). Wide floodplains are composed of
mainly sand, silt, and clay, with gravelly channel deposits. These floodplains are subject to short-term
flash flooding from storm events. Although flood hazards exist, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency has not delineated 100-year floodplains (56 FW 2010).

2.3.5

Wetlands and Floodplains

Due to low amounts of precipitation in the Southwest, xeroriparian communities exist there rather
than typical wetland communities. Xeroriparian areas are typically dry wash sites with denser
vegetation communities than those of the surrounding desert. Larger washes are generally lined with
mesquite, ironwood, paloverde, and a variety of other trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, whereas
smaller washes may have just an occasional tree or simply contain larger trees than the surrounding
plant community (BLM 2000). Xeroriparian areas are important habitats for wildlife species. Large
and small mammals depend on these areas for forage and cover. Birds depend on them for nesting,
forage, and predator avoidance, and they use them heavily during migration (BLM 2000).

Highly ephemeral washes include Sauceda Wash, Quilotosa Wash, Daniels Arroyo, Tenmile Wash, and
Midway Wash. All are tributaries to the Gila River. These systems have many large and small
tributaries that are dry except after rare heavy or prolonged rain events (BLM 2000).
BMGR East

Bender Springs is located at the northeast corner of the range. The spring is an undependable water
source and dries up during prolonged periods of drought (BLM 2000). Other natural water sources
include natural depressions, similar to tinajas that form in wash bottoms. These depressions,
rightfully named sand tanks, fill with sand and other rocky debris, but they also catch and hold water
in times of runoff (BLM 2000). Because these waters are protected from the sun and wind,
evaporation rates are low and water can be reliably found in them (BLM 2000).

The Mohawk Valley is a large arroyo that runs along the valley’s axis and eventually dissipates into
progressively smaller inland deltas. These deltas drain north but never reach the Gila River as
coherent channels do (Malusa and Sundt 2015).
BMGR West

In contrast, the Coyote Wash is a single arroyo, with islands of floodplains, which run along the entire
31 miles of the Lechuguilla Valley (Malusa and Sundt 2015). Historically, Coyote Wash joined the Gila
River at the town of Wellton, but it now ends at the berm that protects the Wellton Mohawk Canal.
The wash is an important feature that provides habitat for both xeroriparian plant species and
wildlife (Malusa and Sundt 2015).

Continued surveys and monitoring of the road system have prompted Luke AFB and MCAS Yuma to
propose changing the road classifications and adding recently created roads to support military

2.3.6

The BMGR Road System and Public Access

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-44

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

training, resource management, and law enforcement purposes. The current status of the BMGR road
system and public access opportunities are addressed in the following sections.

The 2018 road system includes maintained roads through active target complexes, but it does not
include all of the vehicle routes that are used within the complexes to construct and maintain
individual targets or those used for Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) clearance activities. The
surface areas within target complexes affected by construction, maintenance, and EOD clearance
vehicles are located in open areas that are already heavily disturbed by bombing and strafing. Vehicle
operations associated with these activities contribute to the ground disturbance. Occasionally, the
USAF may need to reuse a closed road when it is the only means of accessing a specific location for
certain activities, such as conducting a Native American group visit to a remote cultural resource site
or transporting equipment to an isolated location. The closed road would be used for such an
occasion but would not be otherwise mapped, marked, or signed for other government agency use,
as is done with roads classified for regular administrative use. The road would remain classified as
closed and would be treated as closed for all routine government uses. When the need to reuse a
closed road is identified, the USAF would evaluate the proposed use for compliance with
environmental laws (e.g., to verify that no species newly listed as either threatened or endangered,
or proposed for listing, under the ESA are likely to occur in the area). Closed roads that have been
reclassified as recovered former roads would require careful assessment of the potential effects of
the proposed reuse on their recovered status before new use of these former routes could be
approved.
BMGR East

As indicated in Table 2.7, the active road system, as recorded in 2018, includes a total of 744 miles of
roads, 170 miles of which are designated as available to provide public access. Because extensive
areas of the BMGR East continue to be used on a regular basis for hazardous military activities,
general public access is limited. Public access to Management Unit 6 (which includes what is known
as Area B) is subject to temporary closures as needed for military purposes. Areas currently open to
the public also may be closed to protect vulnerable natural or cultural resources from damage.
As outlined in Table 2.7, additional surveys and monitoring of roads have led to the changes in miles
of roads as follows (Figure 2.7).
•

•
•

Roads open for administrative use only in hazard/security areas has decreased by 15 miles.
This difference is from the road closure at Daniels arroyo, the San Cristobal cheater road,
the Cougar Canyon extension road, and the Granite Mountain access road; there was also
the addition of a road intersection at the 567 segment.
Miles of roads classified for public use inside military hazard/security areas has increased
by 1 mile, from 5 to 6. This increase is due to a more accurate measurement of the roads.

Miles of roads classified for administrative use only outside of hazard/security areas has
increased from 11 to 13 miles. The increase is due to the addition of a couple of new roads.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-45

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Table 2.7: BMGR East designated road system 2012 and 2018.
Road Category

Miles of roads classified for administrative use only inside military hazard/security areas
that exclude public access.
Miles of roads classified for administrative or public use inside military hazard/security
areas
Miles of roads classified for administrative use only outside of restricted military
hazard/security areas

Miles of roads classified for public use outside of restricted military hazard/security
areas but subject to temporary closure for military purposes

Total Miles of Road

2012

2018

5

6

570

11

170

756

555
13

170

744

The designated road system continues to function as documented in the 2012 INRMP, with a few
minor exceptions. The 2012 INRMP reported three road designations: miles of administrative use
only roads inside military hazard/security areas, miles of administrative use only roads outside of
military hazard/security areas, and miles of roads classified for administrative or public use outside
of restricted military hazard/security areas. For 2018, the road designation system was simplified to
include only two categories: miles of roads classified for administrative use only and miles of roads
classified for public and administrative use. The difference in miles of administrative use only roads
is due to more accurate surveys of the roads. No new roads have been added to the BMGR West during
the 2012–2018 timeframe.
BMGR West

The area available for general public access continues to include about 75 percent of the BMGR West.
All or portions of the public use area are subject to occasional temporary closures to support military
activities that present safety hazards and/or have security requirements.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-46

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

The active road system includes a total of 636 miles of active roads, including 427 miles of public
access roads (Table 2.8 and Figure 2.8).
Table 2.8: BMGR West Designated Road System 2012 and 2018.
Miles of roads classified for administrative use only
Road Category

Miles of roads classified for public and administrative use

Total Miles of Road

2012

195

2018

209

427

622

427

636

As outlined in Table 2.8, additional surveys and monitoring of roads have led to the changes in miles
of roads as follows.
•

Miles of road classified for administrative use only has changed from 195 miles to 209
miles. The change in road mileage is due to more accurate road surveys.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-48

Chapter 2

2.4

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Mission Impacts on Natural Resources

Natural resource constraints on the mission and mission planning include a combination of factors.
Federal and state environmental laws and regulations, as well as physical and ecological factors can
affect the use of the range and other facilities. Similarly, conservation measures included in biological
opinions and conservation agreements can constrain military operations.

2.4.1

Natural Resource Constraints to Mission and Mission Planning

Operations and development on much of BMGR are affected by the presence of Sonoran pronghorn.
Due to its endangered status, all actions at BMGR that may affect Sonoran pronghorn must undergo
section 7 (of the ESA) consultation. Approximately 70 percent of BMGR East and 36 percent of the
BMGR West are within Sonoran pronghorn habitat (Figures 7.4 and 7.5). At BMGR East, air and
ground operations on the NTAC, STAC, and Range 1 are affected by the presence of animals in the
vicinity of targets and along roads, and in any proposed development or expansion of facilities on
these ranges or below the air-to-air range (generally throughout the area west of SR-85). These
operations must take into account their potential impacts on pronghorn habitat and species recovery.
In order to enhance fawn recruitment, the 56 FW schedules range maintenance and explosive
ordnance clearances on NTAC and STAC outside the fawning season.

Concerted efforts of the USAF, USMC, AGFD, USFWS, and other members of the recovery team have
resulted in improved status of Sonoran pronghorn through the implementation of numerous
recovery actions (e.g., habitat protection and enhancements, establishment of an non-essential
experimental population, construction and maintenance of wildlife waters). These and other actions
are part of the recovery plan and, if successful, will lead to downlisting and, ultimately, delisting of
the species. In the interim, however, the increased numbers of animals on the range has the potential
to increase mission constraints. On the BMGR East, daily monitoring of target areas on NTAC, STAC,
and Range 1 typically results in closing several targets to ordnance delivery for the day because of
the presence of one or more animals in the immediate vicinity. It is anticipated that target closures
will increase with population increases, and this will further constrain mission execution unless
procedures currently in place evolve to mitigate this effect. That said, the USFWS has worked with
the military to reduce mission constraints. For example, in 2010, the USFWS issued a non-jeopardy
biological opinion with authorized incidental take of multiple pronghorn. The opinion allowed for
reduced target closure distances to reduce constraints on the military, while still minimizing risks to
pronghorn from military operations. Additionally, the USFWS has provided feed and water near the
range boundaries (east, west, and south) in an attempt to lure pronghorn away from actively used
targets. These activities are discussed in detail in Section 7.4.1 Sonoran Pronghorn.
Under the terms of a 2016 Candidate Conservation Agreement (USFWS et al. 2015), the 56 FW and
MCAS Yuma agreed to implement measures to protect the Sonoran Desert tortoise (see Section 7.4.2)
and its habitat. The current tortoise distribution includes all of BMGR. The provisions of the INRMP,
especially road and vehicle travel management, contribute to the protection of the species. Both USAF
and USMC travel management services are committed to keeping off-road vehicle use to the
minimum required for range maintenance and operations. Another agreed-upon measure identified
in the Candidate Conservation Agreement is to schedule explosive ordnance clearances and range

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-50

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

maintenance in sensitive areas at BMGR East (primarily the ETAC Range) during seasons when the
tortoise is less active. Combined with the scheduling constraints imposed by avoiding the pronghorn
fawning season, this restriction precludes significant flexibility in scheduling tactical range clearance
and maintenance closures.

Birds and wildlife represent significant threats to flight safety and can impact the timing of aircraft
operations and training. Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) concerns are greatest during
landings or takeoffs or when aircraft fly at low altitudes, rather than during in-flight operations that
are typical at the BMGR. A BASH Reduction Plan is in place at the BMGR East and West and is
discussed in detail in Section 7.12 Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard.

The invasion of Sahara mustard, primarily in the BMGR West, has the potential to limit ground or airto- ground based training in areas where it forms dense monocultures. These monocultures can be a
fuel source, increasing fire danger when there are ignition sources such as vehicles and air-to-ground
artillery. The spread of Sahara mustard is currently being controlled through mechanical and
chemical removal. A discussion on the impacts and control efforts for Sahara mustard, and other
invasive species, is provided in Section 7.11.1 Invasive Species.
Erosion resulting from road construction and improvement and the use of unauthorized off-road
vehicles has occurred in isolated areas. Fugitive dust from erosion has the potential to disrupt
training due to reduced visibility, fouling of mechanical and electrical systems, and effects on the
health of personnel training at the BMGR.

Although the BMGR is technically a withdrawn land area, from the perspective of supporting military
operations, the range is composed of both lands and overlying restricted airspace reserved for
military purposes (Figures 2.9–2.11). The restricted airspace dimensions of the BMGR remain
unchanged from those that were in effect following the implementation of the MLWA of 1999. The
four restricted airspace areas overlying the range—R-2301W, R-2301E, R-2304, and R-2305—are
designated by the Federal Aviation Administration to support the military training missions of the
range. The BMGR currently supports a wide diversity of tactical aviation training activities as well as
selected ground training and training support operations.

2.4.2

Land Use

Tactical surface and aviation training has not impacted or modified the environment. The ongoing
and foreseeable military use of the BMGR depends, in large part, on the conservation, protection, and
management of natural resources and the regulation of public use and safety.
Air and land space that directly support regular military training activities serves principally to
provide
•

•

the surface space needed to adequately disburse activities so that realistic training can
regularly occur either as independent but simultaneous events or as large-scale, combined
action events;
the flexibility to host irregularly scheduled training or testing activities, (e.g., air-to-air
missile shoots or long-range air-to-ground weapons deliveries) that require restricted air
and land space configurations that cannot be accommodated by standard weapons ranges

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-51

Chapter 2

•

or other activity areas; and

INSTALLATION PROFILE

buffers that permit multiple independent training events to safely occur simultaneously on
a non-interference basis and that also protect public safety.

Although substantial changes have occurred over the decades in aircraft, weapons, and warfighting
tactics, the corresponding development and improvements in weapons ranges and other training
sites has led to only a modest and usually incremental expansion in the footprint of surface use
needed to directly support training activities. The basic configurations of the weapons ranges
established from 1950 through the 1980s, coupled with necessary upgrades and routine
maintenance, have enabled many of these facilities to provide long-standing and sustainable training
support. As a result, the aggregate footprint of surface disturbance after several decades of range use
that affects ground surfaces, surface hydrology, and/or vegetative communities in more than a
negligible way has remained at the low level of approximately 12.8 percent. Therefore, the primary
focus of ecosystem and biodiversity management at BMGR has been landscape-level protection and
conservation rather than manipulation or restoration. Similarly, the primary focus of protected
species management has been the protection and conservation of existing natural habitats.

The current endangered or threatened status of protected species at the BMGR has resulted largely
from historical and ongoing losses of off-range habitat, disease, adverse climatic trends, and other
negative effects of non-military activities. Although military activities pose some risks to certain
species, these potential effects are comprehensively mitigated, and military use of the range has not
been found to jeopardize any protected species. In fact, effects of substantial habitat protection at
BMGR have contributed markedly to the continued existence and recovery potential of the
pronghorn and continued conservation of the FTHL. Additional information on the Sonoran
pronghorn, FTHL, and other protected or sensitive species, is provided in Section 7.4 Management
of Threatened and Endangered Species.
The BMGR East land area is currently divided into eight aviation subranges for safely supporting
multiple and simultaneous training or other operations. The BMGR East also includes Gila Bend AFAF,
Stoval Auxiliary AUX, and AUX-6 to support training in forward area airfield operations, observation
points, and other facilities.
BMGR East

In 2010, proposed range enhancements were analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
for Proposed BMGR East Range Enhancements (USAF 2010) and approved for implementation in a
Record of Decision (ROD). Since implementation of the 2012 BMGR INRMP, the following
enhancements either have been completed or may occur during the five-year planning period
covered by the INRMP (2018–2023).
•

•

Convert Range 3 into a helicopter gunnery range to better support the specialized training
needs of rotary-wing users. Construction of the range has been completed and use of the
area for gunnery training has begun. Improvements to the original design are to be made as
part of ongoing maintenance.
Construct a new taxiway and a new air traffic control tower at Gila Bend AFAF. These
improvements would enhance the safety of operations, eliminate the need for waivers of

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-52

Chapter 2

•

•

INSTALLATION PROFILE

certain airfield criteria, and enhance the capability of Gila Bend AFAF as a divert airfield for
aircraft experiencing in-flight emergencies while operating from the BMGR East. The new
control tower would meet the minimally acceptable visual surveillance or depth-perception
standards specified by the Unified Facilities Criteria for military airfields. This action was
selected for implementation in a ROD, but funding for the project is not yet available.
Pave approximately 7 miles of an existing graded road between the main tower and Range
Munitions Consolidation Points (also referred to as the Water Well) at Range 1 to eliminate
dust generated by the ongoing heavy use of the existing road; decrease road maintenance
requirements by providing a cost-effective, durable, and long-lasting maintenance solution;
and reduce the vehicle maintenance burden resulting from disproportionate wear and tear
on USAF vehicles that frequently travel on this road. Paving this road is subject to the
availability of funds; expected completion date is 2020 or sooner.
Develop a moving vehicle target in North Tactical Range (NTAC) to provide aircrews with
realistic training in attacking mobile ground targets. A moving target operating on an
existing road on the ETAC has been in use (for strafing only) since 2010; however, a more
robust moving target complex to support bomb and rocket employment is needed. A
location on NTAC was selected in a ROD. This action has not been implemented.

The remaining “enhancements” described in the 2010 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are
designed to improve operations but do not involve construction on the range.
•

•

•

Lower the operational floor of R-2301E restricted airspace over the Cabeza Prieta NWR to
enable fixed-wing aircraft aircrews to perform realistic low-level attacks on targets located
in the South Tactical Range (STAC) and realistic low-level air-to-air intercepts in the air-toair combat tactics Range. Currently, overflights of the refuge are restricted to altitudes of
1,500 feet AGL or higher, except within approved corridors, under the terms of a 1994 MOU
between the DoD and DOI. The 2010 EIS assessed proposals to lower the overflight floor to
500 feet AGL to support low-level attack and intercept training that would provide combat
conditions that aircrews may encounter in real-world scenarios. Implementation of this
approved action will not occur until the MOU is renegotiated.

Authorize additional ground-based training for combat search and rescue teams, special
operation teams, USMC units, and potentially other small squads of troops that involve
clandestine insertions and extractions from helicopters or vehicles, cross-country land
navigation, and other activities while traveling in stealth on foot. The 2010 EIS assessed
proposals to expand the opportunities for this type of training. Helicopter insertions and
extractions and vehicle movements associated with this training would be restricted to
existing helicopter landing zones and roads. This proposal has been implemented.
Establish streamlined procedures to facilitate environmental reviews and approvals for
reconfiguring or otherwise updating tactical range targets on a timely basis to provide
training that reflects the combat conditions that U.S. warfighters will encounter when
meeting real world threats. This proposal has been implemented.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-53

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

MCAS Yuma organizes its air and ground combat forces into Marine Air Ground Task Forces, which
form the fundamental cornerstones of modern USMC combat doctrine. These forces are scalable and
tailored for specific missions (e.g., humanitarian assistance, emergency response, peacekeeping,
specific regional threat, and major war abroad) that integrate air and ground assets to accomplish
the assigned mission. With the exceptions of the R-2301W restricted airspace being divided into four
aviation subranges, all of the listed training facilities and features are ground-based.
BMGR West

The USN approved development of the Auxiliary Landing Field (ALF) complex to support Marine
Corps F-35B training for the West Coast basing of the F-35B aircraft (USFWS 2010a). Construction
was completed in 2015. The F-35 will replace the AV-8B aircraft in USMC squadrons based at MCAS
Yuma. The current military features, facilities, and uses are shown in Figure 2.11 and detailed in Table
2.10 with notations as to whether they were constructed after 2012

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-54

Chapter 2

Table 2.9: BMGR East current military training facilities, features, and use.
Area/Activity

BMGR East
Land Base

Restricted
Airspace

Numbered
Ranges

Tactical
Ranges

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Description of Current Training Feature,
Facility, and Military Use

BMGR East, which represents 60 percent of the total BMGR acreage, is
divided into 8 subranges (numbered and tactical ranges, and the air-toair range—as described below) that may be scheduled separately to
support multiple missions or scheduled together for larger exercises and
events.

The areas defined by R-2301E, R-2304, R-2305 lateral boundaries, the
altitude floors and ceiling remain unchanged since before 1960. They are
not affected by the land withdrawal. R-2301E overlies most of the BMGR
East land area, including Stoval AUX, two tactical ranges (NTAC and
STAC), three of the four numbered ranges (1, 2, and 4), and the Air-to-Air
range. The area extends from the surface to 80,000 feet AMSL. R-2304
overlies ETAC, part of Area B, which is open to the public by permit, and
a small portion of the Tohono O’odham Nation. R-2305 overlies Range 3
and its facilities and extends south over a portion of Area B. The vertical
limits of both R-2304 and R-2305 are surface to 24,000 feet AMSL.

Four numbered ranges capable of supporting Class A (scored) operations
support primary instruction in air-to-ground delivery of bombs, rockets,
and gunnery (inert/training ordnance only). The airspace associated with
these ranges may be scheduled concurrently with adjacent tactical ranges
as needed. Facilities on and use of these subranges remain almost entirely
unchanged since well before the 2012 INRMP update. The single
exception was conversion of the left side of Range 3 to a helicopter
gunnery range. Construction of this facility began in 2012; it has since
been completed and is in use.

Three tactical ranges (NTAC, STAC, and ETAC) support aircrew training in
gunnery, bomb, rocket, and missile employment. Targets simulate tactical
features such as airfields, railroad yards, missile emplacements, truck
convoys, urban areas, and enemy compounds. Threat simulators may be
included in training scenarios to better reflect real-world conditions. Only
practice ordnance may be employed on most targets; high-explosive
ordnance may be used only on six targets specifically designated for this
purpose. The tactical ranges continue to be used on a daily basis for
ordnance delivery training. A remotely operated vehicle target operates
on an existing road in ETAC and is used for strafing only.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Status
Since
2012
INRMP
Unchanged

Unchanged

Changed

Unchanged

2-55

Chapter 2

Table 2.9: BMGR East current military training facilities, features, and use.
Area/Activity
Air-to-Air
Range

Range
Munitions
Consolidation
Points
(RMCPs)
EOD Training
Range
Small Arms
Range

Gila Bend
AFAF

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Description of Current Training Feature,
Facility, and Military Use

A portion of this range may be used for air-to-air gunnery and missile
firing; however, these operations are scheduled infrequently. This area is
used daily for aerial combat and maneuvering training with no ordnance
expenditure.

RMCPs 1, 2, 3, and 4 continue to serve as range EOD and
maintenance support areas. Expended munitions, munitions
scrap, and target debris that is safe for handling is cleared from
the three tactical and four manned ranges and transported to the
RMCPs for demilitarization and decontamination processing
before being released for off-range recycling or disposal. The
RMCPs are also used as staging locations for target construction,
maintenance, and replacement operations. The use and
configuration of these areas are unchanged since the 2012 update.

Status
Since
2012
INRMP
Unchanged

Unchanged

The EOD Training Range continues to be used for instructing EOD
technicians to perform safe detonations of expended but unexploded
ordnance. Detonation of high-explosive charges weighing up to 2,000
pounds net explosive weight is authorized in this area.

Unchanged

Gila Bend AFAF continues to serve as the operational support center for
the BMGR East. It includes an 8,500-foot runway, six helipads, and other
airfield facilities, as well as offices, workshops, storage, lodging, and
other spaces. No active duty personnel or aircraft are permanently based
at Gila Bend AFAF. Construction of a taxiway for the runway and a new
air traffic control tower were assessed in an EIS and selected in a ROD
for implementation; however, funds to complete these projects are not
yet available. Ongoing maintenance and improvement of facilities at Gila
Bend AFAF are routinely conducted.

Unchanged

Since 2012, minor improvements and repairs to the Small Arms Range
have been completed. The range continues to be used almost daily for
small arms training by the BP and, occasionally, by USAF Security Police.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Changed

2-56

Chapter 2

Table 2.9: BMGR East current military training facilities, features, and use.
Area/Activity

Assault
Landing Zones
(Auxiliary
Airfields)
Sand and
Gravel
Excavation
and Stockpile
Areas

EOD Clearance

Air Combat
Training
Systems

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Description of Current Training Feature,
Facility, and Military Use

Auxiliary Airfield (AUX) 6 and Stoval airfields are World War II era
triangular airfields used for certain limited training activities. AUX-6 is
regularly used for C-130 and helicopter operations by USAF, USMC, and
ARNG units. Since 2012, upgrades to runway surfaces have improved the
safety of these operations. Stoval airfield, on the far west side of the
BMGR East, is used by USMC units, primarily during the twice-yearly
weapons and tactics instructor courses. Landing zone and drop zone
operations are conducted at both these locations. AUX-11 is no longer
used as an airfield, but serves as a site for exercise-specific
communications operations.

Excavation of sand and gravel from ten wash locations in the BMGR East
and stockpiling of these materials at five sites for later on-range use is
approved but not yet implemented; a permit from Maricopa County is
required. The sand and gravel may be used in target construction or road
repairs as needed.

EOD clearances occur annually, every two years, and every 10 years.
Annual clearances entail removing expended ordnance and target debris
on the surface within 50 feet of roads and target access ways and in the
vicinity of targets to maintain safe work areas for maintenance,
reconstruction, or replacement of targets. Every two years, ordnance and
target debris on the surface is cleared inside a 300-foot radius around
each inert/practice ordnance target and inside a 500-foot radius around
each live ordnance target. Every ten years, ordnance and target debris on
the surface is cleared inside a 1,000-foot radius around each
inert/practice and live ordnance target. No EOD clearances are
conducted within the Air-to-Air subrange.
Air Combat Training Systems provide a variety of technologically
advanced equipment and support capabilities, including the Range
Operations Coordination Center (Snakeye), Air Combat Maneuvering
Instrumentation, scoring and feedback systems, and simulated groundto-air threats. Electronic equipment is continually upgraded; some
remote equipment locations, both on and off range, are no longer
needed.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Status
Since
2012
INRMP

Unchanged

Unchanged

Unchanged

Unchanged

2-57

Chapter 2

Table 2.10: BMGR West current military training facilities, features, and use.

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Description of Current Training Feature,

Range Feature
or Facility

Facility and Military Use

Status
Since
2012
INRMP

BMGR West
Surface Area

BMGR West represents approximately 40 percent of the total BMGR
acreage. Boundary and land withdrawal areas are as established by
the MLWA of 1999.

Unchanged

Airspace
Subranges

Four airspace subranges, including TACTS-Hi, TACTS-Low, Cactus
West, and AUX-II, are allocated to one or more subranges or are
aggregated into larger units as needed to support training.

Unchanged

Surface Area and Airspace

Restricted
Airspace

R-2301W lateral boundaries, altitude floor (ground surface), and
altitude ceiling (80,000 ft. AMSL) remain unchanged since 1960.

Unchanged

Aviation Training Ranges and Facilities

AUX-II

F-35B ALF

Cactus West
Target Complex

Urban Target
Complex (UTC)

AUX-II provides an assault landing zone airstrip for training
aircrews of C-130 aircraft to operate in and out of a primitive
landing zone in a forward area. AUX-II also continues to be used as a
staging area or forward arming and refueling point for helicopter
operations.

Unchanged

Cactus West Target Complex includes (1) a bull’s-eye target located
inside a 1,500-foot radius bladed circle, and (2) two-berm and panel
targets for strafing practice. Ordnance deliveries are restricted to
inert and practice munitions. As described later in this table, the
Cactus West Target receives impacts from the Convoy Security
Operations Course 2 Range and as a Live Ordnance and Drop Tank
Jettison Area.

Unchanged

Construction of the F-35B ALF (known as KNOZ) was completed in
2015. The ALF includes three simulated landing helicopter assault
decks, flight control towers, aircraft maintenance shelter, refueling
apron, and a fire and rescue shelter.

The UTC provides a simulated urban setting with streets, 240
buildings, multiple targets, and vehicles for training aircrews in
precision air-to-ground attack in densely developed and populated
areas. The UTC Range is located inside the fenced area. The complex
also has a moving land target, which consists of a remotely
controlled vehicle that pulls a target sled on an oval track.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Changed

Unchanged

2-61

Chapter 2

Table 2.10: BMGR West current military training facilities, features, and use.

Description of Current Training Feature,

Range Feature
or Facility

Instrumentation

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Facility and Military Use
A portion of the TACTS Range is instrumented to support air-to-air
and air-to-ground combat training. The electronic architecture is
composed of 27 fixed-position and 17 mobile-positions that can
track, record, and replay the simultaneous actions of 36 aircraft and
scoring weapon use. The air-to-ground weapons delivery
component is supported by 112 individual passive tactical target
sites situated in 11 complexes that simulate airfield installations,
power stations, fuel storage facilities, buildings, railway facilities,
anti-aircraft missile and gun positions, and military vehicles. No
munitions are fired or otherwise released on this electronically
scored range.

Status
Since
2012
INRMP

Unchanged

Air-Ground Training Facilities
Ground
Support Areas
Parachute Drop
Zones (DZ)

Thirty-three undeveloped ground support areas allow units to
participate in off-road training exercises. Most ground troop
deployments are coordinated with aviation training exercises to
enhance the realism of air-ground training evolution for both
elements.

Twenty-one parachute tactical DZs are currently designated. The
AUX-II DZ is located within a previously disturbed, inactive bull’seye bombing target. The DZ immediately to the East of AUX-II is the
only DZ approved for parachute cargo drops, which require retrieval by
an off-road combat fork lift. The other 10 DZs are located within
ground support areas to minimize off-road driving for retrievals.

Ground Combat Training Ranges

Rifle and Pistol
Ranges

Small Arms LiveFire Maneuver
Range (Range 2)

The Rifle and Pistol Ranges are used to train and qualify personnel
in the use of small arms.
The Small Arms Live-Fire Maneuver Range is located in an unused
sand and gravel borrow pit and serves as a close combat
maneuvering range for training small teams or individuals in the
tactical use of infantry small arms.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Unchanged

Unchanged

Unchanged
Unchanged

2-62

Chapter 2

Table 2.10: BMGR West current military training facilities, features, and use.
Range Feature
or Facility

Multi-Purpose
Machine Gun
Range (Panel
Stager)

Convoy Security
Operations
Courses 1 and 2
and Murrayville
(East and West)

Combat Village

Hazard Areas
Support Areas

Cannon Air
Defense Complex

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Description of Current Training Feature,
Facility and Military Use

The Multi-Purpose Machine Gun Range is located at the inactive airto-ground bombing target at Panel Stager Range 2. Ground-toground machine gun fire of .50 caliber and smaller is directed from
guns mounted on vehicles traveling on existing access roads at
target sets located in the retired bombing impact area.

Four Convoy Security Operations Courses are designed to train
troops assigned to protect vehicle convoys in combat theaters and
how to recognize, counter, and defeat threats from hostile forces.
Static and pop-up targets that simulate threats are located in
ambush scenarios along the access roads and run-in line. These are
located along the existing access roads in the vicinities of the Cactus
West Target Complex, UTC and along the run-in line to the UTC.
Ground-to-ground machine gun fire of .50 caliber and smaller may
be directed from guns mounted on vehicles or run-in-line at target
sets designed to simulate ambush attacks by hostile forces. The
direction of fire from the access roads in the vicinity of the Cactus
West complex is generally to the south such that the Cactus West
target impact area is affected. The direction of fire from the run-inline is generally at target sets to the east or west such that the
existing target impact areas at the UTC also serve as an impact area.

Status
Since
2012
INRMP
Unchanged

Unchanged

Combat Village simulates a small building complex adjacent to a
railroad. This facility is used as an electronically scored target and
for training small units in infantry tactics involving reconnaissance,
assaults, or defense. Only blank small arms munitions and a special
effects small arms marking system are authorized for use at this
infantry tactics training site.

Unchanged

The Cannon Air Defense Complex provides administrative,
maintenance, and training areas for a Marine Air Control Squadron.
The complex is a permanent built-up facility of about 192 acres.

Unchanged

Five hazard areas, four to the west and one to the east of the Gila
and Tinajas Altas mountains, support use of small arms and/or
aircraft lasers in training operations. Surface entry to hazard areas
is closed to nonparticipating personnel when hazardous activities
are scheduled.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Unchanged

2-63

Chapter 2

Table 2.10: BMGR West current military training facilities, features, and use.

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Description of Current Training Feature,

Range Feature
or Facility

Facility and Military Use

Status
Since
2012
INRMP

AUX-II Field
Ammunition Supply
Point

The Field Ammunition Supply Point, located about 1,500 feet northwest
of AUX-II, provides temporary secure storage for munitions used by
ground units during field exercises, primarily during semi-annual
weapons and tactics instructor courses.

Unchanged

Live Ordnance
and Drop Tank
Jettison Area

The Cactus West Target bull’s-eye is used as a Live Ordnance and
Drop Tank Jettison Area for aircraft experiencing difficulties that
warrant a precautionary jettisoning of external stores prior to
recovery at MCAS Yuma. Panel Stager Range 2 is presently used as
the impact area for the Multi-Purpose Machine Gun Range.

Unchanged

Munitions
T reatment Range

2.4.3

The Munitions Treatment Range is used to train personnel in the use
of demolition explosives and unexploded ordnance.

Unchanged

Current Major Impacts

The spread of invasive plant species impacts the range by altering native vegetation communities
and modifying the resiliency of the landscape and its ability to adapt to future stressors. These
impacts may also affect future military training missions and degrade critical wildlife habitat.
Invasive plants displace native vegetation through direct competition and by altering the natural
Sonoran Desert fire regime. The spread of invasive species, such as Sahara mustard and buffelgrass
(Pennisetum ciliare), leads to increasing fuel loads and altered fuel continuities that can endanger
fire-intolerant native species. Non-native grasses and forbs can form monocultures across the
landscape that not only altering vegetation composition, they can promote increased fire size,
frequency, and intensity (Geiger and McPherson 2005). Moreover, many invasive species tend to be
the first species to recover post-fire, thus increasing their density and coverage. Combined, all these
factors result in positive feedback loop, whereby increasing abundance and density of invasive
species leads to increased and more intense fire activity, which in turn favors increased abundance
of those species and, subsequently, increasingly frequent and larger fires.
2.4.3.1

Impacts from Invasive Species

Invasive animals, including trespass livestock, impact native vegetation directly through herbivory,
increased soil trampling and degradation, and indirectly by dispersing invasive plant seeds into new
areas. In addition to impacting native vegetation communities, trespass livestock also compete with
wildlife for available forage and water resources. Impacts to the military training mission caused by
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-64

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

invasive livestock include the delay, interruption, and cancellation of live-fire training activities; an
increased risk of livestock/vehicle collisions; and fire fueled by the expansion of invasive weeds.
A more detailed list of impacts as well as current and future management objectives for combating
invasive plant and animal species is included in Section 7.9, Wildland Fire Management and Section
7.11, Integrated Pest Management Program.

Since the 2012 INRMP update, there was an investigation of and remediation activities at several
former munitions treatment and disposal areas at AUX-6 at BMGR East. Ammunition disposal
p r o b a b l y c o n t i n u e d t h e r e until the early 1970s. There are three Solid Waste Management
Units (SWMU) that underwent remediation:

2.4.4

•

•

•

Remediation Activities

SWMU 2-1 is the site of a former underground munitions-burning furnace, associated fuel
tank, and pipeline. It is located within the infield portion of AUX-6 bounded by the three
runways. Munitions residue was removed from the furnace after it had been shut down
and allowed to cool.
SWMU 2-2, located in the southeast portion of AUX-6, was reportedly used for thermal
treatment of munitions, including pyrotechnics, cartridge- actuated devices, and 20 mm
ammunition.

SWMU 2-3, also known as the Northwest Open Burn/Open Detonation Area, is located in
the northwest portion of AUX-6 near the northernmost apex of the triangle formed by the
three runways. Combustible dunnage (largely wood items) and diesel accelerant were used
to ignite/burn munitions placed in a trench; resulting explosions scattered shrapnel around
the trenches. Open detonation of munitions entailed placing a high-explosive donor on each
item followed by detonation; the most commonly used donor charge was C-4 plastic
explosive composed of chlorotrimethylene-trinitramine and a plasticizer.

The SWMUs at AUX-6 are subject to the closure requirements of 40 CFR 264 (Standards for Owners
and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities) Subpart G (Closure and
Post-Closure). A Hazardous Waste Management Area Post-Closure Permit under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) has been obtained by Luke AFB from ADEQ
for Unit 8 of the Munitions Treatment Range in June 2006. A condition of the Post-Closure Permit
required completion of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation to
determine whether munitions constituent releases require additional corrective measures to
formally close SWMUs 2-1 and 2-3. All fieldwork has been completed and a final report is due early
2018. Details of what was uncovered by the investigations and subsequent remediation will be
provided in the BMGR INRMP Public Report on Military Use, Environmental Conditions, Resource
Management Activity, and Public Access Involvement 2018–2023.
To meet the needs of the future, the BMGR must become a fully relevant 5th generation range. The
basing of F-35A aircraft at Luke AFB and F-35B at MCAS Yuma will drive short-term and long-term
changes. To maximize effectiveness, F-35 operations and training require larger blocks of airspace

2.4.5

Potential Future Impacts

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-65

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

for longer periods and more plentiful, sophisticated, and realistic targets and threats. Options to
address these needs, which have the potential to affect natural resources, include the expansion of
available airspace (requiring either physical expansion of airspace, increased range operating hours,
or both), as well as acquisition and placement on the range of more realistic targets, perhaps in
previously undisturbed areas.
Natural resources required to support the military mission include vast air space and land area for
air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons testing and training. Four key attributes of the natural setting
and environment of the BMGR are essential to its overall suitability and capacity for supporting
tactical aviation and air defense training, aviation tactics development and testing, and other
assigned national defense missions. These attributes include

2.4.6

•

•

•
•

Natural Resources Needed to Support the Military Mission

a location away from most major population areas yet within the effective training flight
radius of aircraft at USAF, USMC, ANG, and ARNG installations in Arizona and California;

the uninhabited and undeveloped expanse of land and overlying airspace necessary to
provide either (1) aviation subranges (up to 13) to support multiple, independent training
activities simultaneously or (2) large-scale, range-wide exercises;

year-round flying weather that allows most training activities to be performed efficiently as
planned without weather delays or postponements; and
varied, wide-open terrain that allows development of diverse, tactical air-land combat
training scenarios with realistic air-to-ground target simulations generally with minimal
modifications aside from constructing or installing tactical simulations, electronic
instrumentation, and other range infrastructure.

Although the BMGR provides a particular advantage for preparing military personnel to operate in
arid, hot, and otherwise austere environments (e.g., southwest Asia, Middle East), the range has long
proven to be useful for training war fighters for air-land combat operations in nearly all global
theaters. The key to this capability is the fact that tactical features and emplacements, such as
airfields or air defense sites, can be simulated within the expansive BMGR in positions and
configurations that realistically replicate diverse air-land warfare environments. In a similar fashion,
the BMGR landscape has also readily accommodated the infrastructure requirements of the limited
ground-based training and support activities that are conducted at the range.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-66

Chapter 2

2.5

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Impacts from Recreation, Illegal Border Traffic and Deterrence Efforts

Ground disturbance is one of the key factors influencing soil stability and erosion. On a broad scale,
the exclusion of certain surface-disturbing activities (e.g., mining, grazing, development, etc.) and
limiting areas where military surface use occurs minimize ground disturbance and the associated
effects. Decisions implemented by the 2007 INRMP established a designated road system; closed the
range to off-road driving except for approved military, resource management, and law enforcement
purposes; and established vehicle operating rules. Roads have been posted or otherwise restricted
to clearly identify those that are (1) open for administrative (i.e., government) and public use, (2)
open only for administrative use, or (3) closed to all users. Public access to the range is granted by
permit only and all permitted users are provided with current maps that show the roads and areas
that are restricted for administrative use and roads that are open for public use.

Although the designation of the BMGR road system has provided an important tool for controlling
and managing roads and vehicle use, off-road driving and the proliferation of new unauthorized
vehicle routes have continued. This problem has been compounded by vehicle traffic associated with
UDAs and illegal drug smugglers crossing the international border from Mexico and traveling crosscountry through the Organ Pipe Cactus NM, Cabeza Prieta NWR, BMGR, and/or the Tohono O'odham
Nation.
Although completion of the border barrier fence has reduced illegal cross-border vehicle traffic, it
has led to an increase in illegal cross-border foot traffic. In response, BP has expanded its patrolling
into new areas where illegal vehicles historically did not travel. Attempts to apprehend and rescue
UDAs has resulted in a proliferation of new roads and off-road driving in these new areas.

Cross-border illegal foot traffic has also caused an upsurge in humanitarian aid drops (Figure 2.12).
Food, water, clothing, and medical supplies are dropped at areas along UDA foot trails by
humanitarian groups as well as nefarious groups
intending to directly support illegal drug
smuggling activities. Regardless of the intent, this
practice has led to increased amounts of litter and
trash along the UDA trails, which the military is
responsible for cleaning up.

Figure 2.12: Humanitarian aid drops result in
waste being left in the desert.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Due to increased illegal foot traffic, BP agents have
expanded the use of drag roads as they monitor for
UDA foot traffic. Dragging these roads repeatedly
over time has contributed to the formation of
berms along a majority of the drag roads. In certain
places, the road beds have receded below natural
grade and, in effect, the berms become small dams
that impact the surface flow of water from natural
cross road drainages found all across the range
(Figure 2.13). These small berm dams are causing
surface runoff from small to moderate storm
2-67

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

events to pond on the upstream sides of the roads. As a result, thick stands of vegetation, often
composed of invasive species, develop in response to the increased soil moisture. Additionally, since
water flow is effectively cut off from surrounding areas, the natural vegetation community declines
for some distance along the drier downstream sides of the roads.

The altered surface flows also can increase erosion and create abrupt vertical drops in the surface
(head cuts) and generally lead to an increased need for more regular road maintenance. Additionally,
repeatedly dragging roads tends to widen the road surface, increasing the area of disturbance
associated with roads across the landscape. Evidence of this has been observed at BMGR West. The
AUX-II road has been widened considerably from dragging, diverting runoff, and creating new,
potentially problematic drainage channels.

Due to the increase in UDA foot traffic, BP has also expanded its network of rescue beacons since
2007. Rescue beacons are solar powered radio call boxes that allow UDAs or other individuals to
signal for help when they are lost or endangered by exposure or other environmental hazards. The
BP periodically smooths out the area around the rescue beacons by dragging them as they monitor
for recent foot traffic. These drag areas were originally intended to be minimal in size, but have been
steadily enlarged over time.
To reduce changes in surface
drainage and soil erosion from
road dragging activities the USAF,
USMC, and BP have developed the
following SOPs.
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Drag only within the
roadbed

No loading of drag devices
with materials to increase
drag weight

Figure 2.13: Example of berms found adjacent to drag roads.

Turn-around in designated areas only
No increase in turn-around area size

Drags will not be relocated until they are thoroughly cleaned to remove potential invasive
species and/or seeds
Coordination of desired drag before initiating a new one

BP Wellton and Ajo Stations have adopted supplemental protocols intended to reduce
negative impacts of dragging operations on cultural and natural resources

Additional efforts between the USAF, USMC, and BP to reduce the negative impacts from other
sources are listed below.
•

Barry M. Goldwater Range Executive Council (BEC) meetings between affected agencies are
held six times a year to identify substantive issues, conflicts, or other matters for
consideration regarding potential impact upon lands or resources in the BMGR region.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-68

Chapter 2

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Regional Road Network Books and Global Positioning System (GPS)/Adobe PDF maps have
been created to delineate roads allowed for use in support of the CBP mission.
All law enforcement agencies are required to complete the Range Access and Safety
Training Program.
CBP Air, Sector and Station Chiefs are required to attend the BMGR orientations.
BMGR East Small Arms Range can be accessed by CBP for training.

CBP has access to and use of Gila Bend AFAF facilities, airfield, and all-terrain vehicle
storage facilities.

Airspace access agreements for CBP rotor, fixed wing and Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
Special operation support is provided to facilitate the BMGR East access.

CBP radios are routed through the Gila Bend Emergency Coordinate Center to enable direct
contact between the military and BP.
BMGR East has standardized protocols for BP range access and road-dragging activities.

Additional factors contributing to soil erosion and ground disturbance stem from the use of OHVs,
sand rails, other recreational vehicles, and unauthorized travel off the public road system. Excessive
speeds and caravanning continually over the same routes have contributed to road degradation.
•

Soil compaction, erosion, and damage to native vegetation resulting from off-road driving can modify
the distribution and pattern of overland flow during rain events, reducing available soil moisture for
vegetation and causing further erosion by reducing soil cohesion (Brooks and Lair 2009). In addition,
soil erosion may directly impact military training activities; instances of high wind speeds in areas
where heavy soil erosion has occurred can reduce visibility during training activities as well decrease
air quality.
Soil erosion and poor air quality may also negatively affect the health of threatened and endangered
species, particularly the desert tortoise, which has experienced population decline due to an airborne
virus responsible for an upper respiratory tract disease. While qualitative observations of
anthropogenic impacts to soil resources have been noted by range management, there has been no
quantitative, data-driven study documenting human and natural impacts to range soil resources,
hydrology, overland flow, and air quality.
In the past decade, roads and increasing motor traffic have disturbed the naturally formed desert
pavement, resulting in substantial watershed erosion. Currently, many roads are intercepting the
natural ephemeral washes (Figure 2.8) and serve as man-made drainage channels for the watershed.

Frequent use of motorized vehicles, particularly on steep slopes, has led to many road surfaces
becoming severely incised. Incised roads disrupt the natural moisture regimes required to support
woody riparian vegetation downstream of the roads that bisect them. As a result, vegetation types in
upper and lower watersheds have become distinctly different as woody riparian vegetation
disappears from the lower watersheds. The incised roads also have caused head cuts that extend to
the upper watersheds.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-69

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

In an effort to determine the full
scope of damage that illegal
border crossing and deterrence is
having on the landscape, the
USAF began a project to monitor
drag roads. The purpose of the
project is to inform management
techniques to prevent increases
in erosion and changes to surface
hydrology. Road elevations and
photo documentation of road
Figure 2.14: Measurements being taken using California rod and
conditions are recorded annually
auto-level.
and will be compared to
document changes in elevation and other characteristics of monitored drag roads. Future analysis
could consist of vegetation surveys to compare the vegetation composition adjacent to drag roads
and non-drag roads and hydrological studies to determine how drag roads affect surface hydrology.
BMGR East

In 2014, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released its final report to quantify disturbances to soils,
vegetation, and cultural resources caused by migrant and smuggling traffic, border security, and
general recreational vehicle use. The USGS developed an erosion vulnerability model to identify areas
prone to soil erosion from these activities by (1) mapping vehicle disturbances, (2) measuring soil
compaction, and (3) using GIS and remote sensing to model soil erosion based on factors from the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (Villarreal 2014).
BMGR West

The study identified highly disturbed areas vulnerable to soil compaction and detected
approximately 6,077 miles of unauthorized off-road tracks. Major disturbance hotspots occur along
the U.S.-Mexico border road (Villarreal 2014). Considerable disturbance was also detected along the
southern end of El Camino del Diablo Este and areas around Tractor Road and Military Drag
(Villarreal 2014). The highest number of repeated disturbances occurred in the southern part of the
hazard area, which is off-limits to OHV uses year-round (Villarreal 2014).
The disturbance mapping data and erosion potential models will help the BMGR West managers to
quickly identify where off-road vehicle traffic will have the greatest negative impact on soil resources
and allow for the designation of critically disturbed areas and restoration sites where off-road driving
should be limited or avoided (Villarreal 2014).

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-70

CHAPTER 3

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Both the USAF and USMC utilize a formal, comprehensive Environmental Management System (EMS)
framework and its “Plan, Do, Check, Act” cycle to ensure mission success, in accordance with
Executive Order (EO) 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade (EO 2015);
Department of Defense Instruction 4715.17, Environmental Management Systems (DoD 2017b); and
International Standard Office (ISO) 14001:2015, Environmental Management Systems (ISO 2015).
The EMS guides the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of all environmental programs.

The Natural Resources Programs employ EMS-based processes to achieve compliance with all legal
obligations and current policy drivers, effectively managing associated risks, and instilling a culture
of continuous improvement. The INRMP serves as an administrative operational control that defines
compliance-related activities and processes.
The 56 FW is assigned to Luke AFB and as such has purview over Luke, the BMGR East, and the Gila
Bend AFAF as separate but related installations. The scope of Luke AFB’s EMS includes all the
activities, services, and products associated with the operations of the 56 FW and tenants.
BMGR East

The 56 RMO, Environmental Science Management (56 RMO/ESM), along with the 56 FW Civil
Engineer Environmental Element effective program management, technical oversite and compliance
of all environmental aspects of Gila Bend AFAF and the BMGR East. The 56 RMO manages the natural
and cultural resources of Gila Bend AFAF and the BMGR East.
The USMC Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron enterprise includes MCAS Yuma and the BMGR
West. Within the boundaries of MCAS Yuma, there are a number of tenant units. The scope of MCAS
Yuma’s EMS includes all the activities, services, and products associated with the operations of the
MCAS Yuma and tenants.
BMGR West

The MCAS Yuma Environmental Department provides MCAS Yuma, the BMGR West, and tenants with
effective program management, technical oversight, and compliance of all environmental aspects.
The RMD manages the natural and cultural resource aspects of the BMGR West.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

3-71

CHAPTER 4

GENERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

General roles and responsibilities necessary to implement and support the Natural Resources
Program are listed in Table 4.1. Specific natural resources management-related roles and
responsibilities are described in appropriate sections of this plan.
Table 4.1: The BMGR roles and responsibilities.
Office/Organization/Job Title
(not in order of
Hierarchical Responsibility)

RMO Director/Commanding
Officer

Installation Role/Responsibility Description
The 56 FW Commander has delegated Range Operating Authority for
oversight of all the BMGR East functions to the 56 RMO Director. The 56
RMO Director is the Range Operating Authority for the BMGR East and
oversees the management and operational functions, including ESM
operations. The MCAS Yuma Commanding Officer oversees the BMGR
West Natural Resources Program.
•
•
•
•

Air Force Civil Engineer Center
Natural Resources Media
Manager/Subject Matter
Expert/Specialist
Installation Natural Resources
Manager/Point of Contact

Installation Unit Environmental
Coordinators (UECs); see AFI
32-7001 (USAF 2017a) for role
description
Installation Wildland Fire
Program Manager

Approves the INRMP by signature and certifies all INRMP
updates.
Ensures that the INRMP is consistent with the use of the range to
ensure the preparedness of the Armed Forces.
Controls access to and use of the BMGR’s natural resources.
Commits to seeking funding and executing all “must fund”
projects and activities within identified timeframe.
Provides appropriate staffing to execute INRMP implementation.

Roles and Responsibilities

•

Advocates for resources and funding to implement approved INRMPs
(BMGR East only).
•
•

Supports military training by managing the natural resources of
the range in accordance with applicable laws, EO, and directives.
Coordinates INRMP updates, revisions, and implementation
requirements with applicable federal, state, and tribal
government agencies, as well as nongovernmental organizations
and parties.

Conducts UEC duties as required (BMGR East only).

BMGR East and West are both in the process of creating Wildland Fire
Management Plans (WFMP) that will assign roles/responsibilities in
accordance with this INRMP.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

4-72

Chapter 4

Table 4.1: The BMGR roles and responsibilities.
Office/Organization/Job Title
(not in order of
Hierarchical Responsibility)

Installation Role/Responsibility Description

Pest Manager

•
•

Range Operating Agency

•

Conservation Law Enforcement
Officer (CLEO)

•
•
•
•

NEPA/Environmental Impact
Analysis Process Manager
U.S. Forest Service

•

Primary point of contact for all range pesticide use.
Assists natural resources staff with the safe, effective,
economical, and environmentally acceptable management of
pests.

The 56 RMO is the Range Operating Agency for the BMGR East
and oversees the ESM section.
The MCAS Yuma RMD advises the Commanding Officer in order
to meet INRMP goals and objectives.

Enforces natural and cultural resource laws.
Addresses trespass issues.
Assists natural resource personnel with INRMP implementation.
Collects GIS coordinates of invasive species using the GIS Cloud
app.

Conducts NEPA/Environmental Impact Analysis Process for all
installation projects in coordination with the Natural Resources and
Environmental Managers.
Assists the BMGR East with preparation of the Wildland Fire
Management Plan.
•
•

Arizona Game and Fish
Department

GENERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

•

•
•
•
•

Primary jurisdiction over wildlife management, except where
pre-empted by federal law.
Provides assistance for INRMP development and implementation
through the 2015 Cooperative Agreement (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and AGFD 2015).
Develops and maintains habitat assessment/evaluation,
protection, management, and enhancement projects (e.g.,
wildlife water catchments, Sonoran pronghorn forage plots).
Conduct a wildlife monitoring across the range.
Manages wildlife predators and recovery of protected species in
accordance with the ESA, shared responsibility with the USFWS.
Enforces hunting regulations, issue hunting permits, and
establish game limits.
Participating agency on the BEC and IEC.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

4-73

Chapter 4

Table 4.1: The BMGR roles and responsibilities.
Office/Organization/Job Title
(not in order of
Hierarchical Responsibility)

Installation Role/Responsibility Description

•
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GENERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

•

•
•

Provides assistance for INRMP development and
implementation.
Manages recovery of protected species in accordance with the
ESA—shared responsibility with the AGFD; leads the Sonoran
Pronghorn Recovery Team.
Manages the MBTA and BGEPA.
Participating agency on the BEC and IEC.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

4-74

CHAPTER 5

TRAINING

USAF and USMC installation Natural Resource Managers/Points of Contacts and other natural
resources support personnel require specific education, training and work experience to adequately
perform their jobs. Section 107 of the Sikes Act requires that professionally trained personnel
perform the tasks necessary to revise and carry out certain actions required within this INRMP.
Specific training and certification may be necessary to maintain a level of competence in relevant
areas as installation needs change, or to fulfill a permitting requirement.
Trainings for BMGR natural resource support personnel are listed below.
•
•

•

•

•
•
•

All Natural Resource Managers (NRMs) are required to complete DoD Natural Resources
Compliance.

All personnel tasked with handling or managing threatened and endangered species should
complete Interagency Consultation for Endangered Species and/or other ESA related
courses.
Natural resource management personnel shall be encouraged to attain professional
registration, certification, or licensing for their related fields and may be allowed to attend
appropriate national, regional, and state conferences and training courses.

CLEOs must receive specialized, professional training on the enforcement of fish, wildlife,
and natural resources laws in compliance with the Sikes Act. This training may be obtained
by successfully completing the Land Management Police Training course at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (http://www.fletc.gov/).
Individuals participating in the capture and handling of sick, injured, or nuisance wildlife
should receive appropriate training.

Personnel supporting the BASH program should receive training in submitting remains to
the Smithsonian for identification and flight-line driver training.
The DoD-supported publications and webinars provide guidance, case studies and other
information.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

5-75

CHAPTER 6
6.1

RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING

Recordkeeping

Records must be maintained to support implementation of the Natural Resources Programs. Specific
records are identified in applicable sections of this plan and in referenced documents.

The BMGR East maintains required records in accordance with USAF Manual 33-363, Management
of Records (USAF 2017b) Records are disposed in accordance with USAF Records Information
Management System records disposition schedule.
BMGR East

All natural resources-related documentation for the BMGR East is stored and maintained at the 56
RMO office, Building 500 on Luke AFB. Administrative files are stored at the USAF repository at the
Gila Bend AFAF. The 56 RMO maintains a GIS server for the BMGR East data, which resides in the
56th Comm Network Communication Center and is on the Non-classified Internet Protocol Router
Network (NIPRNet).

The BMGR West maintains required records and disposes of records in accordance with Navy Marine
Corps Directive 5210.11E, Marine Corps Records Management Program (USMC 2006).
BMGR West

All natural resources-related documentation and GIS shapefiles for the BMGR West are stored and
maintained at the Range Management Building 151 on MCAS Yuma.

6.2

Reporting

The BMGR East NRMs are responsible for responding to natural resources-related data calls and
reporting requirements. The Natural Resources Manager and supporting Air Force Civil Engineer
Center Media Manager and Subject Matter Specialists should refer to the Environmental Reporting
Playbook for guidance on execution of data gathering, quality control/quality assurance, and report
development.
BMGR East

The BMGR West NRMs are required to respond to natural resources-related data calls and reporting
requirements per MCO 5090.2A with changes 1-3 (USMC 2013b).
BMGR West

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

6-76

Chapter 7

CHAPTER 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

There have been no changes in the 17 management elements outlined in the 2012 INRMP. In planning
for the next five years, MCAS Yuma and Luke AFB have each developed a preliminary list of proposed
action steps for FY 2019–2023. These action steps were identified by considering data acquired
through inventory and monitoring activities in the past five years, changes that have occurred in the
past five years (as reported in earlier chapters of this INRMP revision), emerging management issues,
and input from other agencies with land management or regulatory authority in the BMGR region.
The resource management elements, listed below, are detailed in Chapter 10, Annual Work Plans.
1. Resource inventory and monitoring
2. Special natural/interest areas

3. Motorized access and non-roaded area management
4. Camping and visitor stay limits

5. Recreation services and use supervision
6. Rock hounding

7. Wood cutting, gathering, and firewood use; and collection of native plants

8. Hunting

9. Recreational (target) shooting

10. Utility/transportation corridors

11. General vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and wildlife water
12. Special status species

13. Soil and water resources

14. Air resources

15. Visual resources

16. Wildfire management

17. Perimeter land use, encroachment, and regional planning

7.1

Fish and Wildlife Management

Existing inventories show that over 200 bird species, more than 60 species of mammals, 10
amphibian species, and over 50 reptile species potentially occur within the combined area of BMGR
and the adjacent Cabeza Prieta NWR. Available evidence indicates that the diversity of wildlife
species and habitats present in 1941 when the BMGR was established continue to be found within
the range today. Moreover, species populations appear to be relatively stable and typical for this
portion of the Sonoran Desert. This may be attributed to a number of factors.
•

The land is withdrawn for military use, which has excluded or limited other land uses—
such as livestock grazing, farming, mining, and intensive off-road vehicle recreation—that
could have altered physical and biological systems to a greater extent than that associated

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-77

Chapter 7

•
•
•
•
•

with military training.

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Ecological interconnections between BMGR, two national monuments, and one national
wildlife refuge have remained unfragmented and undiminished.

The primary land use—aviation training—has limited on-the-ground disturbances of soils
and vegetation to relatively small and dispersed portions of the range.

Restrictions and limits on public access and use have left many portions of the range free of
disturbances from intensive and concentrated recreation activities.
The BMGR is far from major metropolitan areas, which minimizes d public- visitation
pressure and the effects of prolonged, intensive use.

As a result of surface drainage patterns on and around the range, its hydrological features
are relatively isolated, which protects them from upstream sources of water-borne
pollutants, sedimentation, and watershed modifications.

AGFD has management authority for the state’s wildlife, which is held in trust for the citizens of the
State of Arizona. This authority applies to the BMGR unless otherwise pre-empted by federal law.
AGFD began its management activities at BMGR in the 1950s, when it established water sources for
wildlife (see Section 7.5), which the agency still maintains today. AGFD also organizes and conducts
bighorn sheep and deer surveys at BMGR every three years, annual call-counts of mourning (Zenaida
macroura) and white-winged doves (Z. asiatica) at Range 3 and ETAC, and Le Conte’s thrasher
(Toxostoma lecontei) surveys within both the BMGR East and West (frequency described in Tables
10.1, 10.2 for Bird Surveys and General Bird Surveys, respectively). At BMGR West, AGFD also
performs annual surveys for the FTHL, speckled rattlesnake (Crotalus mitchellii), and bats.
In August 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Omaha District and AGFD entered into a
five-year cooperative agreement to “collect, analyze, and apply environmental and cultural resource
data and implement land rehabilitation and maintenance for optimal management of lands under
control of the DoD. . . .” (USACE and AGFD 2015). The agreement facilitates AGFD management
activities at BMGR East, which typically include conducting wildlife surveys to track population
trends, providing recommendations based on survey data for restoring or maintaining populations
of resident species, managing wildlife populations at levels appropriate for protecting other BMGR
resource values, and enforcing state game laws.
BMGR East

Collaborative efforts with AGFD and other partners include implementing actions to comply with the
Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan and conducting a number of other wildlife activities during the FY
2019–2023 timeframe. Recurring surveys are planned for desert tortoise (every 5 years), birds
(years 1 and 2), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) (years 1 and 4), and cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl
(Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum) (bi-annually). Surveys for raptors and bats will occur annually.

In-house staff and partners will continue the ongoing effort to control invasive species to improve
wildlife habitat and identify and maintain important wildlife connectivity corridors. Additional
habitat enhancements and restoration activities will be undertaken as needed.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-78

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

A complete list of wildlife surveys and habitat improvement projects planned for the next five years
can be found in Table 10.1 BMGR East 5-Year Work Plan: FY 2019–2023. Sensitive species monitoring
and conservation projects are discussed in detail in Section 7.4 Management of Threatened and
Endangered Species.
In 2016, the first comprehensive inventory of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals was initiated
at BMGR West. This his project will last for three years, concluding in 2018, to accomplish three
objectives: (1) create maps indicating species distribution, (2) identify an efficient, repeatable
monitoring methodology, and (3) develop recommendations for monitoring and managing wildlife
species.
BMGR West

Additional wildlife surveys and habitat improvement projects planned for the next five years can be
found in the BMGR West Five-Year Work Plan (Chapter 10 Annual Work Plans, Table 10.2).
Management actions for threatened and endangered species are discussed in more detail in relevant
subsections of Section 7.4 Management of Threatened and Endangered Species.

Beginning in 2008, camera trapping has been used extensively on both BMGR East and West. Camera
traps are set up to quantify wildlife use of various water development types in specific surroundings.
Camera traps are deployed at both artificial catchments and modified tinajas within 20 feet of sites
where animals would come to drink. Trapping sites are typically visited once a month to inspect
equipment for operability, replace batteries, and download data. These data aid in understanding the
variety of species usage, wildlife behaviors, and population sizes. The data also may be used to assess
wildlife occupancy by vegetation type, elevation, and structure type (e.g., artificial structure or
modified tinaja), and whether or not wildlife usage differs near military targets.

7.1.1

Camera Trapping

Camera traps also record the use of wildlife watering sites by trespass livestock and UDAs; just one
catchment camera recorded over 60 UDA visits in 2012 alone. The cameras have captured UDAs
drinking from the waters and tampering with tank float valves, dismantling and stealing cameras,
disturbing wildlife, and leaving garbage around catchments. UDA and trespass livestock use of
wildlife watering sites also increases the amount and frequency of water that must be hauled in by
AGFD.

7.2

Outdoor Recreation and Public Access to Natural Resources

BMGR offers a variety of public recreation activities as well as access to natural areas. Approximately
38 percent of the range is open to the public (Figure 7.1). Permitted activities include camping, hiking,
hunting, and target shooting. Range permits allow entry to both the BMGR East and West public areas,
Cabeza Prieta NWR, and the Sonoran Desert NM. Range access permits are available online or can be
obtained from the 56 RMO/Public Affairs office, MCAS Yuma Pass and Identification Office, Cabeza
Prieta NWR, and the BLM Phoenix Field office. All visitors are required to sign a hold-harmless form
and watch a range safety video. Two permits are required: one to be kept in personal possession at
all times and the other to be displayed on the vehicle’s dash. Prior to entering the range, recreational
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-79

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

users must call the phone number listed on the back of the permit to hear warning information for
specific travel areas. Individuals under the age of 18 must be accompanied by an adult at all times.
Any person entering the range without a valid permit may be fined and/or barred from the BMGR.

BMGR East is also planning to provide permits online via the iSportsman program
(https://isportsman.net). The program allows visitors to register and print a permit, sign a digital
hold-harmless form, watch the range safety video, and check in and out of an area via smartphone
app or a phone call. Additionally, the 56 RMO can develop a custom report that all users must fill out
to detail which area of the range they will be visiting, the duration of the visit, type of activities to be
conducted, and any other information that will assist the 56 RMO with carrying out its natural and
cultural resources management mission. Depending on the success of this program, the MCAS Yuma
RMD is interested in using the iSportsman program for BMGR West.

Individuals interested in conducting scientific research at BMGR are required to obtain permission
from the 56 RMO or the MCAS Yuma RMD. For collecting wildlife specimens, a Scientific Collection
Permit application is also required and must be approved by AGFD.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-80

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The following activities are prohibited or the applicant must pass a background check to obtain a
Special Use Permit for the activity.
•

•
•
•
•
•

Use of drones/unmanned aerial vehicles (prohibited)
Parties with 10 or more vehicles

Discharge of firearms before sunrise or after sunset

Discharge of fully automatic firearms

Extended camping

Scientific studies of any type

Collecting wildlife specimens (requires additional approval by AGFD)

All public recreational users of the range are expected to comply with range rules. Cross-country and
off-road travel is strictly prohibited—all vehicles are required to remain on designated roads. At
Cabeza Prieta NWR, vehicles are restricted to the Camino del Diablo and Christmas Pass Roads. In
general, roads are to be considered closed unless designated open by an official carsonite marker
post (at BMGR East) or a 4-foot wide by 4-foot high, lettered/numbered, wooden intersection marker
(at BMGR West). Disturbance or removal of cultural resources/artifacts (e.g., pottery, chipped stone,
ground stone, shell, beads, glass bottles, ceramics, cans, metal, lumber, pictographs, and arrowheads)
is strictly prohibited.
•

In the past, visitor gates at BMGR East have been augmented with counters and cameras, and this
may be re-implemented in the future. Cameras can capture images of who is using the range and for
what purpose. The practice of leaving food, water, clothes, and medical supplies along UDA foot trails
has led to increased litter and trash, which the military is responsible for cleaning up. If identified,
such groups will be escorted off the range, have their permits revoked, and may face investigation
and prosecution from BMGR East and West CLEOs and BP.
Approximately 13 percent of BMGR East is open for public recreation (Figure 7.1). Visitors to the
BMGR East must abide by these range-specific rules.
BMGR East

•

•

•

Rock hounding/Prospecting—Removal or disturbance of sand, gravel, rocks, minerals, and
fossils is strictly prohibited.

Hazard Areas—For safety reasons, the 56 RMO has established “Hazard Areas” that are offlimits to permit holders when the range is open. This restriction affects access to the
northernmost portions of Area B.

Hunting—Hunting is restricted to public access areas. Public access areas east of SR 85 fall
under the AGFD hunting Unit 40A (AGFD 2017b). Species that may be hunted within this
area include bighorn sheep, javelina, deer, dove, and quail. The number of bighorn sheep
permits made available have varied over the last 10 years due to population fluctuations.
Between 2008 and 2013, no bighorn sheep permits were available due to population
decline, and in 2014 only one permit was available. Another slight increase in population
size since 2015 resulted in two permits being available each year for 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-82

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The number of bighorn sheep permits is determined by results of population surveys
conducted by AGFD. Public access areas west of SR 85 on BMGR East (i.e., area near Ajo) and
the hunting unit in BMGR West are all part of the same AGFD hunting unit: 40B (as
described below under BMGR West).

Approximately 75 percent of the BMGR West is open for public recreation (Figure 7.1). Visitors to the
BMGR West must abide by these range-specific rules.
BMGR West

•

•

7.3

Rock hounding—Surface-rock collection is allowed in most of the BMGR West public
recreation areas. Collection is limited to 25 pounds of surface rock per day and 250 pounds
per year. The use of metal detectors is strictly prohibited.

Hunting—Hunting within the publicly accessible portions of the BMGR West falls under the
AGFD hunting Unit 40B (AGFD 2017b). Species that may be hunted within this unit include
bighorn sheep, javelina, deer, dove, quail, waterfowl, and pheasant, although the presence of
waterfowl and pheasants is extremely unlikely. As with BMGR East, the number of bighorn
sheep permits made available has varied over the last 10 years due to population
fluctuations. Currently, 8 bighorn sheep permits are available annually with four tags being
issued for the Gila Mountains, two tags for the Tinajas Mountains, and two tags issued for
the Copper and Mohawk Mountains. The number of bighorn sheep permits to be made
available is assessed annually and is based on results of population surveys conducted by
AGFD.

Conservation Law Enforcement

Law enforcement on the range is defined within the Sikes Act; Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13;
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 807(b); and other applicable laws and regulations. The
Sikes Act mandates each military department to ensure that sufficient numbers of professionally
trained CLEOs are available and assigned responsibility to perform tasks to implement INRMPs.
Enforcement of natural resource laws is a fundamental part of a Natural Resources Program and shall
be coordinated under the direction of the Natural Resources Manager (Code of Federal Regulations
Title 32, National Defense, as revised in 2018). Because the ICRMP is incorporated (i.e., referenced as
appropriate) into the INRMP, the USAF and USMC also must enforce laws and regulations that protect
cultural resources.

In addition to conducting enforcement activities, CLEOs serve as the eyes and ears of the range.
CLEOs assist with conservation activities such as wildlife surveys, habitat restoration, water projects,
formulating hunting objectives, monitoring protected species, and resolving nuisance and
human/wildlife conflicts. CLEOs patrol and/or conduct surveillance where there is a potential for
poaching or cultural resource vandalism. CLEOs also play a role in slowing the spread of invasive
species, as they spend a majority of their time patrolling the range and may be the first to identify
such species. They assist NRMs by using the GIS Cloud app to record the GPS coordinates and capture
images of invasive species to facilitate prompt management actions.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-83

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Integral to resource protection is public education and outreach. Education is a key element in
preventative law enforcement. Successful conservation law enforcement is enhanced by the
knowledge gained in contributing to natural and cultural resources program support.

The 56 RMO has entered into a contractual agreement with AGFD to employ two Department Wildlife
Managers as CLEOs for the BMGR East. These activities are authorized under Arizona Revised
Statures, Title 17-201A, 211E, 231B.7, and 310 (Arizona State Legislature 2018) and are consistent
with provisions of the Sikes Act and the MLWA. One CLEO began service in Oct 2017 and the other
will begin service in the fall of 2018. The CLEOs are tasked with enforcing federal and state laws and
AGFD Commission rules governing natural resources, cultural resources, off-highway and all-terrain
vehicle use, trespass, and property damage as necessary. The CLEOs have authority to conduct
investigations and issue citations, serve warrants, make arrests, coordinate case prosecution with
County Attorneys and the 56 FW Staff Judge Advocate, and provide testimony in court. The CLEOs
will support the military and conservation goals through implementation of the INRMP and ICRMP,
as requested/directed by the 56 RMO.
BMGR East

MCAS Yuma employs four full-time Range Wardens (CLEOs) to investigate, apprehend, and/or detain
individuals suspected of breaking the laws and regulations that pertain to MCAS Yuma, BMGR West,
and the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, with an emphasis on protecting natural
resources. CLEOs are uniformed law enforcement officers with fully delegated law enforcement
authority, including authority as USFWS Deputy Game Wardens, allowing them to enforce federal
wildlife statutes (MCAS Yuma 2013c).
BMGR West

7.4

Management of Threatened and Endangered Species

This section applies to USAF installations that provide suitable habitat and where sensitive species
are known to occur. This section IS applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill.
Applicability Statement

The Sonoran pronghorn has been listed as a federally endangered species since 1967. Whereas
methods and geographic study areas used to estimate the Sonoran pronghorn population have varied
over time, estimates from 1925 through 1991 indicate that relatively low numbers of pronghorn
(approximately 50–150 animals) were present in southwestern Arizona during that time. Sonoran
pronghorn, however, were more abundant prior to European settlement (USFWS 2016). The area of
pronghorn distribution has become smaller over the years as a result of habitat loss and
fragmentation (USFWS 2016). However, the methods and geographic study areas used to estimate
the pronghorn population have also varied over time. In 1992, AGFD initiated regular biennial aerial
surveys of the Sonoran pronghorn population. Based on these surveys, the U.S. population peaked at
an estimated 282 animals in 1994, and the population low was estimated at 21 to 33 animals in 2002
after a severe drought.

7.4.1

Sonoran Pronghorn

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-84

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The pronghorn’s current range includes portions of BMGR East (Figure 7.3) and BMGR West (Figure
7.4). The USAF and USMC actively participate in and financially support the Sonoran Pronghorn
Recovery Plan and the actions of the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team. Led by the USFWS, the
recovery team generally consists of representatives from the Luke AFB, MCAS Yuma, AGFD, NPS
(from Organ Pipe Cactus NM), BLM (from the Lower Sonoran Field Office), ASU, UA, Commission for
Ecology and Sustainable Development of the State of Sonora (Mexico), National Commission for
Protected Natural Areas (Mexico), Phoenix and Los Angeles Zoos, Customs and Border Protection,
and the Tohono O'odham Nation (membership changes occasionally when staff turnover occurs).
Concerted efforts of the USAF, USMC, AGFD, USFWS, and other members of the recovery team have
resulted in improved status of Sonoran pronghorn through the implementation of numerous
recovery actions. Key actions have included the
initiation of the semi-captive breeding programs
at the Cabeza Prieta NWR (2003) and later at Kofa
NWR (2011), and the establishment of two
nonessential experimental populations, as allowed by
Section 10(j) of the ESA, one centered at Kofa NWR
and the other centered on Area B of BMGR East. A
nonessential experimental population is a special
designation that the USFWS can apply to a
population of a threatened or endangered species
Figure 7.2: Sonoran pronghorn fawns are being
raised in the captive-breeding pen that was
prior to reestablishing it in an unoccupied portion
built at Cabeza Prieta NWR in 2003.
of its former range.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-85

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

These and other actions of the recovery plan, if successful, will ultimately lead to downlisting and
delisting of the species. However, the increased numbers of animals on the range has the potential to
constrain BMGR’s mission. The USFWS continues to work with the military to reduce mission
constraints and minimize risks to pronghorn from military operations. For example, in 2010, the
USFWS issued a non-jeopardy biological opinion that allowed for reduced target-closure distances,
as described below. Additionally, the USFWS has provided the pronghorn with food and water near
the range boundaries (east, west, and south) to lure the animals away from actively used targets.
To reduce potential impacts to pronghorn due to military exercises (e.g., ordnance delivery) at BMGR
East, daily monitoring of target areas occurs on NTAC, STAC and Range 1 when EOD operations or
weapons employment is expected. Monitoring is conducted by qualified biologists and includes
visual observations from vantage points with the aid of binoculars and spotting scopes, as well as
telemetry surveillance to locate pronghorn.
Per the proposed action in the 2010 biological opinion, if a pronghorn is sighted within a 3.1-mile
radius of high explosive ordnance targets, on either NTAC or STAC, then the training mission will be
canceled or diverted to a different tactical range (USFWS 2010b). Additionally, no ordnance
deliveries of any kind (e.g., inert ordnance) would be authorized within a 1.9-mile radius of the
pronghorn location on the tactical ranges for the remainder of the day. On Range 1, strafe activities
will be suspended for the day if a pronghorn is located within a 1.9-mile radius of a target and no
ordnance of any type will be released if a pronghorn is within a 0.6-mile radius of a target. If a vehicle
is within a 1.5-mile radius from a pronghorn, a reduced speed is required (15 mph).

Additionally, several pronghorn watering sites, irrigated forage plots, and supplemental feed stations
have been established to help pronghorn populations survive the dry Southwest summers. The goal
is to conserve and protect the Sonoran pronghorn and its habitat so that its long-term survival is
secured and it can be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species. Specific recovery
goal objectives are listed below.
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Ensure multiple viable populations of Sonoran pronghorn range-wide.

Ensure that there are adequate quantity, quality, and connectivity of Sonoran pronghorn
habitat to support their populations.
Minimize and mitigate the effects of human disturbance on Sonoran pronghorn.
Identify and address priority monitoring needs.

Identify and conduct priority research.

Maintain existing partnerships and develop new partnerships to support Sonoran
pronghorn recovery.
Secure adequate funding to implement recovery actions for Sonoran pronghorn.

Practice adaptive management in which recovery is monitored and recovery tasks are
revised by the USFWS in coordination with the Recovery Team as new information becomes
available.

The Sonoran pronghorn recovery efforts are a great success story for endangered species
management. Although breeding pen populations fluctuate every year due to fawn recruitment and

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-88

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

pronghorn relocation, biennial population surveys of the wild populations last conducted by AGFD
in December of 2016 estimated 228 individuals in the endangered population, referred to as the
Cabeza population. As of Fall 2017, informal surveys resulted in estimates of about 70 individuals in
the Kofa population (Christa Weise, USFWS, personal communication, December 2017) and 40
individuals in Area B (or Sauceda) populations.
AGFD distributes a monthly Sonoran pronghorn update, which summarizes the captive breeding
program, wild pronghorn numbers, water projects, forage enhancements, and related projects. The
updates cover the entire U.S. pronghorn distribution, with certain aspects pertaining to the BMGR.
In 2015, a Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Sonoran desert tortoise was developed as a
collaborative and cooperative effort between land and resource management agencies, including the
BMGR managing agencies (USAF and USMC). The key effort of the conservation strategy is to focus
on conservation, habitat improvement, and ongoing management of the tortoise status and habitat.
Some of the key actions implemented by the BMGR East to protect the tortoise are listed below.

7.4.2

•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Desert Tortoise

Public access is only allowed by permit in certain areas and visitors (recreational users) are
required to watch a safety video that includes natural resource conservation practices.
All recreational vehicular travel is restricted to designated roads.

Off-road travel by official vehicles is highly restricted, with extreme exceptions for activities
such as clearance of unexploded ordnance.
Designated speed limits are established for all roads.

A Fire Management Plan was developed to reduce the potential for wildland fires, which are
detrimental to Sonoran desert tortoise habitat.

An invasive weed monitoring and eradication program is followed, with the aim of
protecting native desert habitat.

Livestock and livestock grazing leases are not permitted and trespass livestock are being
prioritized for removal.
Mining leases and any associated activities are not permitted at BMGR.

In 2012, a landscape-level habitat model was developed to identify locations where desert tortoise
occupancy is most likely (Grandmaison et al. 2012). This knowledge, coupled with training maps, will
allow range managers to identify specific locations where training and habitat overlap, and to take
appropriate measures to reduce conflict to ensure their continued coexistence and compatibility with
the military mission (Grandmaison et al. 2012). The model also serves as a valuable tool for
prioritizing new areas to survey, including the Growler and Crater mountains, where there is a
relatively high probability of tortoise occupancy (Grandmaison et al. 2012). The BMGR East 5-Year
Work Plan includes surveying new areas and/or re-surveying known occupied and suitable habitat
every five years, focused by model results.
•

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-89

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

To detect roost site locations and avoid potential conflicts between bats and the BMGR mission,
several large-scale bat monitoring studies have occurred or are being implemented. A combination
of survey methods are being used, including but not limited to acoustic monitoring, capture (i.e., mist
netting), roost assessments, and guano sampling (Figure 7.6).

7.4.3

Bats

To better understand bat fauna at BMGR East, a large-scale monitoring study was implemented using
a combination of roost, capture, and acoustic surveys (Mixan et al. 2016). By assessing bat diversity
and habitat-use patterns, land managers will be able to better identify and address any potential
population and range declines in bat species and act to mitigate or reverse those declines. A total of
17 species were identified in the survey (Table 7.1), including four species of concern: the cave
myotis (Myotis velifer), California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus), greater mastiff bat (Eumops
perotis), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii).

From 2012–2014, a study was implemented to
identify and avoid potential conflicts between
bats and the military mission at BMGR East and
West and at the nearby Yuma Proving Ground
(Piorkowski et al. 2014). New data were collected
and combined with data from previous studies, to
identify potential bat roosts sites. It was
determined that there is relatively little area
across the BMGR where bats can rest, hibernate,
and rear young. The loss of traditional roosts, such
as caves, has led to abandoned mines becoming
increasingly crucial habitat features for roosting
Figure 7.5: Survey techniques use acoustic
monitoring, mist netting, and roost
bats. This could create potential conflicts, as many
assessments to monitor bats at BMGR.
of these abandoned mines exist in areas open for
public recreation, where they represent a
potential safety hazard. There are a number of
methods (such as installing bat gates at mine entrances) that could prevent people from entering
these areas while still allowing free passage for roosting bats.

The BMGR is committed to continually monitoring bat populations and evaluating and protecting
important bat roost sites. Monitoring techniques that will be employed over the next 5 years—as
time and funding allow—include continuing acoustic monitoring at known roost sites as well as reanalyzing old logs of bat calls by using new call detection software. The purpose of re-analyzing old
call logs through improved call detection software is to determine whether the original call detection
results were correct and whether any additional species may be present at certain roost locations
(i.e., lesser long-nosed bats). Other planned monitoring objectives include continued mist netting and
guano sampling and analysis. All data and results from these monitoring activities will be shared with
partners at the USFWS and AGFD.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-90

Chapter 7

Table 7.1: Bat species detected at BMGR.

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Big brown bat
Brazilian free-tailed bat
California leaf-nosed bat
California myotis

Eptesicus fuscus
Tadarida brasiliensis
Macrotus californicus
Myotis californicus

Silver-haired bat
Long-eared myotis
Pallid bat
Townsend’s big-eared bat
Western red bat
Western small-footed myotis

Lasionycteris noctivgans
Myotis evotis
Antrozous pallidus
Corynorhinus townsendii
Lasiurus blossevillii
Myotis ciliolabrum

Common Name

Canyon bat
Cave myotis
Greater mastiff bat
Hoary bat
Lesser long-nosed bat
Little brown myotis

Yuma myotis

Scientific Name

Parastrellus hesperus
Myotis velifer
Eumops perotis
Lasiurus cinereus
Leptonycteris yerbabuenae
Myotis lucifugus occultus

Myotis yumanensis

One lesser long-nosed bat has been detected at BMGR East. The post-delisting monitoring plan for
the lesser long-nosed bat includes monitoring for potential roost occupancy and threats, and an
assessment of forage availability through phenology and distribution of lesser long-nosed bat forage
resources.
7.4.3.1

Lesser Long-Nosed Bat

To provide data that will complement the lesser long-nosed bat post-delisting monitoring plan, the
following activities may be implemented, as appropriate, on lands within the BMGR, as time and
funding allow.

1. The USFWS and AGFD will be notified of any roost sites found to be occupied by lesser longnosed bats through either the ongoing large-scale bat monitoring study (Mixan et al. 2016)
or other monitoring actions.
2. The currently occupied lesser long-nosed bat roost will be monitored regularly and the data
will be provided to the USFWS and AGFD. Research is encouraged to determine the occupancy
and use patterns of this roost by lesser long-nosed bats.

3. In an effort to better understand occupancy and use patterns by the lesser long-nosed bat, a
forage phenology monitoring site(s) may be established to track forage resources over time.
This effort will follow protocols consistent with the U.S. National Phenology Network's
ongoing program to monitor plant phenology across the U.S. The results will be added to the

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-91

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

National Phenology Network system. Conducting forage phenology monitoring at the BMGR
depends on time and funding availability.

BMGR West conducted extensive fieldwork on the FTHL from 2011 to 2014 (Goode and Parker
2015). The purpose of the study was to address two main issues identified by the USFWS and raised
in the Biological Opinion: (1) potential
impacts of jet noise on hearing and behavior
of the FTHL, and (2) potential effects of
increased vehicle traffic on roads in the
vicinity of the KNOZ (USFWS 2010b). In
2012, a total of 499 FTHLs were removed
from the KNOZ footprint. Twenty FTHLs
were sent to the San Diego Zoo for a captive
breeding program, and the remaining
individuals were either translocated to
mark-recapture plots or immediately
moved to the other side of the exclusion
fencing. During the course of the field work,
353 FTHLs were radio-tracked 7,561 times.
Figure 7.6: Baseline surveys for the FTHL provide
It was determined that home range
valuable information for management of this species.
characteristics and movement patterns of
non-translocated versus translocated lizards differed only in that translocated FTHLs had
significantly larger home ranges in the season immediately following translocation. Although the
survival rate of translocated FTHLs was lower than that of those that were not translocated, the
difference was not statistically significant, and reproductive behavior was witnessed in both
translocated and non-translocated individuals.

7.4.4

Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard

Over 22,000 miles were driven on paved roads at BMGR West while surveying for FTHLs. During that
period, 412 live and 150 dead FTHLs were observed on the roadways. It was noted that avian
predators were significantly more abundant along roads with power poles. Traffic from the KNOZ
construction did not appear to have an effect on road mortality of FTHLs.

With funding provided by USMC and the Bureau of Reclamation, AGFD conducts annual occupancy
and demographic surveys within the Yuma Desert Management Area to determine the population
size, survival rate, recruitment, and population growth of FTHLs (Grimsley and Leavitt 2015).
Approximately 88 percent of the management area is located within the BMGR West and the
remainder is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation (Grimsley and Leavitt 2015). In 2008, AGFD
established two 22-acre, long-term demography study plots, one within the BMGR West and the
other on the Bureau of Reclamation parcel. In 2011, AGFD randomly selected 75 smaller (~328- x
656-foot) occupancy plots, a subsample of which is surveyed annually.

From 2008 to 2014, AGFD has captured 624 individual FTHLs within the two long-term, demography
study plots (Grimsley and Leavitt 2015). Of the 624 captures, 316 were juveniles and 308 were adults

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-92

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

(Grimsley and Leavitt 2015). There was a high variability in the number of juveniles captured over
the 7-year study period.

From 2011 to 2014, FTHLs were detected during 43 of 82 (52.4 percent) occupancy surveys and in
21 of 29 plots (72 percent) (Grimsley and Leavitt 2015). Of the individuals captured, 21 were male
and 22 female (Grimsley and Leavitt 2015).

In 2013, the acuña cactus was designated as a federally endangered species. It is also protected by
the Arizona Native Plant Law and is designated as a highly safeguarded native plant. On 19 September
2016, the USFWS designated critical habitat for the acuña cactus. The critical habitat includes six
geographically separate units totaling approximately 18,535 acres. One unit is adjacent to the
northeastern portion of the BMGR East; however, lands within the BMGR are exempt from critical
habitat designation. At least three distinct clusters of an acuña cactus exist in the BMGR East
(Urreiztieta 2013, Abbate 2017). The plant has not been detected in the BMGR West, nor is it expected
to occur.

7.4.5

Acuña Cactus

The BMGR East has developed an Inventory and Monitoring Plan, utilizing the same protocols
implemented at Organ Pipe Cactus NM, for monitoring the acuña cactus (56 RMO 2007). This protocol
is designed to assess population dynamics of the acuña cactus by monitoring growth, mortality,
recruitment, and reproductive status of any populations that occur at BMGR East. Currently, the
protocol for monitoring the cactus calls for surveying once every five years, beginning in mid-March
and continuing once per week for the remainder of the flowering period. Since the recent change in
federal status of the acuña cactus, it is likely that the 56 RMO will consult with USFWS to verify that
monitoring and conservation actions are appropriate for the species.

Data on locations of individual plants will be used to further define the habitat conditions most
suitable to the species, including drained knolls and gravel ridges between major washes and on
hilltops in granite substrates. Models of areas with suitable habitat will be used to identify areas to
survey and monitor. Data from the monitoring will be compiled into reports on an annual basis, and
analyzed to determine trends for the species, which may lead to implementation of adaptive
management actions, such as road closures or fire-suppression activities (56 RMO 2007). The annual
reports will be shared with the AGFD’s Heritage Data Management System, and it is anticipated that
there will be annual meetings of all natural resource management agencies to discuss species trends.
Additionally, wildlife biologists at the 56 RMO have been communicating with the AGFD to identify
possible additional survey locations within the BMGR East.

In addition to conducting surveys of habitat area, other conservation measures will be taken to
minimize the potential for disturbance of acuña cactus and its habitat. These actions include
monitoring and controlling invasive species; developing and implementing a fire management plan
(to include assessing fire risk and maintaining a firefighting agreement with BLM); developing and
implementing procedures to control trespass livestock; monitoring illegal immigration, contraband
trafficking, and border-related law enforcement; and continuing informal coordination with law
enforcement authorities. Controlling invasive species helps to maintain quality habitat and prevent
unnatural fire.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-93

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Mining and agriculture are prohibited within the BMGR, thus eliminating these threats to acuña
cactus. It is believed that the acuña cactus and its habitat are protected from disturbance by the
rugged terrain and hilltop locations where it occurs at BMGR.

The USAF agrees to continue its protection of acuña cactus habitat. It will prevent new impacts, such
as establishing new military targets and off-road vehicle use, in the proposed critical habitat area;
avoid disturbing vegetation and pollinators within 2,952 feet (900 meters) of known or newly
discovered acuña cactus plants; and continue to monitor and control invasive plant species. Detailed
vegetation mapping will be completed by FY 2019 for BMGR East, and these data might contribute to
more precise acuña cactus habitat modeling efforts. Furthermore, when resources are available, the
USAF may aid in or enable with ex situ conservation efforts to establish new populations of acuña
cactus on BMGR and other areas as appropriate.

Although a recent study has shown that the acuña cactus population at BMGR East has increased by
roughly three percent, there are still a number of recommendations that should be followed to ensure
its numbers continue to rise (Abbate 2017).
•

•
•

•
•
•

7.4.6

Continue to monitor acuña cactus populations and morphological measurements for
individuals within new populations.

Monitoring efforts will focus on ridges, hillsides, and gentle slopes where the cacti are most
likely to be located.
Fencing off areas where cactus populations are most vulnerable to being crushed or
uprooted due to animal movement and grazing should be considered. Wildlife-friendly
fencing should be used and placed to minimize disruption to the movement of native
wildlife.
Initiate seed collection and captive propagation trials.

Use wildlife game cameras to document predation, potential unknown threats, and seed
dispersal mechanisms.
Future research teams should be limited to two individuals to restrict damage to small
acuña cacti, which are vulnerable to crushing and uprooting.

Migratory Birds and Eagles

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) is a federal statute that implements four treaties with
the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia on the conservation and protection of migratory birds.
More than 800 species of birds are protected by the MBTA (50 CFR 10.13). The MTBA prohibits the
taking, killing, or possessing of migratory birds unless permitted by regulation. In 2003, the National
Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to exercise their authority under the
MBTA to prescribe regulations exempting the Armed Forces from incidental take during military
readiness activities authorized by the Secretary of Defense. Effective 30 March 2007, the USFWS
issued a Final Rule authorizing the take of migratory birds as a result of military readiness activities,
provided such activities do not have a significant adverse effect on the population (USFWS 2007).
7.4.6.1

Migratory Bird and Treaty Act

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-94

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Executive Order 13186 (EO 13186) directs agencies to take certain actions to further strengthen
migratory bird conservation under the conventions under the MBTA, the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA), and other pertinent statutes. It requires the establishment of MOUs between
the USFWS and other federal agencies. Accordingly, DoD and USFWS signed an MOU in 2006 to
promote the conservation of migratory birds (DoD and USFWS 2006). This MOU, which was updated
and re-signed in 2014 (DoD and USFWS 2014), describes specific actions that should be taken by DoD
to advance migratory bird conservation; avoid or minimize the take of migratory birds; and ensure
that DoD operations, other than military readiness activities, are consistent with the MBTA.
Mitigation for species protected under the MBTA in in airspace outside of the range airspace is
discussed in section 2.3.4.1 in Volume 2 (Luke AFB INRMP) and Volume 3 (MCAS Yuma Installation
Overview) of this document.
From 2012 to 2014, AGFD completed a breeding bird survey. Most species of birds found at the BMGR
fall under MBTA protection. MCAS Yuma and Luke AFB have prepared a bird check list that is
provided to visitors if requested. The list identifies species that may be sighted; the species list is
extensive and is not repeated in this document.
Since the 1990s when the bald eagle was listed under the ESA, pilots of military aircraft flown or
managed by the 56 FW observe a 1-nautical-mile lateral separation around bald eagle breeding areas
during the breeding season (December 1–July 15), in accordance with measures described in a 1994
biological opinion. Luke AFB also has been a committee member of the Southwestern Bald Eagle
Management Committee since at least the 1990s and, in 2007, the 56 FW became an MOU signatory
to the Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the Bald Eagle in Arizona.
7.4.6.2

Bald and Golden Eagles

After the bald eagle was delisted on 28 June 2007 and the 1994 biological opinion was no longer in
effect, eagles nonetheless remained protected by the MBTA and the BGEPA. In 2013, the 56 RMO,
with technical assistance from USFWS and AGFD, implemented two changes to the avoidance buffers
around bald eagle breeding areas. First, the avoidance buffer during the breeding season was
changed from 1–nautical-mile of lateral separation to 2,000 feet of lateral and vertical separation.
Second, the breeding season is now observed from December 1 to June 30, in accordance with a 2006
Conservation Assessment, which was renewed in 2014. Because the bald eagle breeding window has
been found recently at specific locations to extend past June 30 (especially at higher elevations where
nesting is initiated later in the spring), further evaluation and information may warrant
consideration in altering this window for specific nesting sites.
Less is known about the avoidance measures needed for golden eagles that may be affected by
military training activities. This lack of knowledge and updates to the BGEPA have increased the need
for golden eagle nest monitoring in the southwestern desert region. In 2011, the Southwestern
Golden Eagle Management Committee was formed and the 56 FW became a participant on that
committee.
Beginning in 2006, AGFD began to investigate breeding golden eagle statewide distribution and
status, which led to an improved understanding and the current ongoing monitoring effort (McCarty
et al. 2017). In 2006, AGFD surveyed 85 previously known breeding areas (BAs), finding 14 were

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-95

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

occupied by golden eagles (McCarty et al. 2017). From 2011 to 2014, the Department conducted
statewide aerial occupancy and nest survey efforts for cliff-nesting golden eagles (McCarty et al.
2017). Building upon these survey results, the AGFD began assessing productivity at a subsample of
known BAs in 2015 and 2016 (McCarty et al. 2017). After the 2017 season, there were 275 known
golden eagle BAs, 46 historic BAs, and 474 potential BAs outside of Native American lands in Arizona.

The DOD also contracted with AGFD to design and implement a three-year study (2013–2015)
evaluating possible impacts to golden eagles from airborne military training activities and
compliance with BGEPA. The study has three primary objectives: (1) identify and survey the potential
distribution of golden eagle breeding areas across military lands, (2) create a landscape-scale model
to predict the likelihood of potential golden eagle nesting habitat, and (3) collect golden eagle
demographic information and provide management recommendations that will permit BMGR and
other southwestern military installations to maintain their training regimes while also complying
with the BGEPA (Piorkowski et al. 2015).

The following actions were recommended for implementation.
•

•
•
•

•

Continue monitoring known, potential, and historic golden eagle nests on military
installations.
Coordinate with local, state, and regional authorities on current golden eagle distribution and
status to inform current and future military activities for compliance with BGEPA.
Develop avoidance buffers around known golden eagle nests during the breeding season,
specifically those that were occupied within the last five years.
Avoid disturbance around potential and historic golden eagle nests during the early (preincubation, incubation, and nests with nestlings <4 weeks of age) breeding season. Potential
nest sites are described as those that provide suitable nest-site structure but where no golden
eagles have been previously observed. Historic nests are sites that were used by golden
eagles in the past, but have had no occupancy for the most recent decade. Normal military
training activities can resume in the area once all potential or historic nests have been
deemed unoccupied for a given breeding season.
Avoid heavy ground and aerial disturbance during the early breeding season within habitat
predicted by the habitat model as having a high likelihood of being potential golden eagle
nesting habitat. By using precise modeling, reducing heavy disturbance activities in areas of
high likelihood may reduce or eliminate incidental take even if surveys to document nesting
golden eagles have not been completed in those areas. Future model validation should allow
quantification of thresholds associated with high likelihood habitat in the modeled estimates.

There is a current effort underway (via contract between USAF and the Colorado State University’s
Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands) to compile and standardize all historical
locations of eagle nests and associated data for a subset of Air Force installations in the western U.S.,
including Luke AFB and BMGR. All nest locations recorded on installations after project completion
should be shared with the AGFD. Likewise, periodically BMGR and Luke AFB will request all eagle
nest data recorded by AGFD within the military operating area. The project products will include
recommendations for compliance with BGEPA, including monitoring eagle populations, behaviors,
and productivity; mitigating disturbance; and assessing the risks associated with overhead utility

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-96

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

infrastructure. Meanwhile, the 56 FW observes the same buffer parameters for golden eagle nests as
it does for bald eagle nests (territories occupied within the most recent decade): 2,000 feet of lateral
and vertical separation from December 1 to June 30. As new information about sensitive areas is
acquired, it will be provided to the 56 RMO Airspace Manager, who updates the GIS layers with the
new data, displays all the sensitive species areas on maps, and shares the maps with trainees so that
these sensitive areas may be avoided during crucial times and/or seasons.

Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) larvae are obligate consumers of native milkweeds (Asclepias
spp.); thus, the adults need milkweed plants on which to lay their eggs (Morris at al. 2015). Because
no milkweeds grow at BMGR, monarch breeding at the installation is unlikely; however, the lowelevation desert ecosystems at BMGR are part of an important monarch butterfly migration route. A
small number of butterflies also overwinter in these habitats during mild winters (Morris et al. 2015).
Important habitat-management practices for monarch butterflies at BMGR include any that protect
natural migration and overwintering habitats from anthropogenic disturbances. Specific
management actions already in place at BMGR are listed below.

7.4.7

•

•
•
•
•
•

7.5

Monarch Butterfly

Regulating off-road recreation

Restricting ground-disturbing activities in focused ground-support areas
Adhering to NEPA processes for ongoing and new activities
Limiting development

Interagency collaboration through the BEC and the IEC

The presence of four full-time CLEOs who enforce regulations

Water Resources Protection

Surface water availability is so limited at BMGR during certain times of the year that the AGFD began
developing wildlife watering sites in the late 1950s. Playas, tinajas, and other natural water
resources, which are important to migratory birds and other wildlife, were often modified to extend
the availability of water in them to benefit wildlife. AGFD has constructed catchments at locations
across BMGR to collect and store rainfall. Currently, over 40 wildlife watering sites are maintained
across the range through a partnership between the 56 RMO, MCAS Yuma RMD, and the AGFD. During
periods of extreme drought, AGFD will routinely refill these water sources by hauling in tens of
thousands of gallons annually, by both truck and helicopter, to support wildlife species. These sites
are also being used and affected by illegal immigrants and drug traffickers (Figure 7.8) across the
range.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-97

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Researchers from Texas Tech University who are conducting amphibian research at BMGR detected
elevated levels of ammonium (NH3) at several wildlife watering sites. This prompted the USGS to
evaluate the water quality at a variety of different wildlife watering sites across the BMGR, including
natural and modified tinajas and artificial water catchments. Sampling began in 2013 and has
continued each year since (USGS 2013–2016). The water is tested for a variety of chemical
parameters, blue-green algae (cyanobacteria), and chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis).
BMGR East

Figure 7.7: Camera traps capture wildlife watering sites being used by UDAs.

Results of the water quality analysis have varied over the 4 years of sampling. Ammonia
concentrations at a number of sites have occasionally exceeded the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality’s acute and/or chronic standards for aquatic life and wildlife (Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality 2009; USGS 2013–2016). In 2015, the iron (Fe) concentrations
at wildlife watering site 1148 exceeded the EPA-recommended freshwater criterion for aquatic life
(USGS 2013–2016). Blue-green algae concentrations were below the detection limits for microcystin,
cylindrospermopsin, and saxitoxin. Several wildlife watering sites tested positive for chytrid fungus
in 2013, 2014, and 2016 (USGS 2013–2016), although the majority of positive samples were below
the detection limit (USGS 2013–2016).
A concern among tribal cultural experts and archaeologists is the modification of natural water
sources—tinajas—to create more reliable water sources for wildlife (56 RMO 2009). Water has
always been a critical resource to desert dwellers and travelers; thus, archaeological evidence is often
concentrated around natural water resources. Modifications and ongoing maintenance could result
in damage or destruction to these traditionally significant resources.
The tribes would like to have the enhancements and modifications removed and, to the extent
possible, have the tinajas restored to a natural state. The USAF is working with the tribes and AGFD
to remove the structures and has prohibited any alterations of existing structures at tinajas. Only
construction and remodeling of existing artificial wildlife watering sites is permitted.

Over the next five-year planning period, the BMGR East will continue a holistic review based on
previous studies and relevant literature to evaluate the benefits and adverse effects of wildlife

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-98

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

watering sites, continue water quality monitoring, develop recommendations for management and
support AGFD annual maintenance and redevelopment of all existing water development as required.

The BMGR West will continue to work with AGFD to monitor and maintain the existing wildlife
watering site network over the next five-year period covered by this INRMP.
BMGR West

7.6

Wetlands Protection

7.7

Grounds Maintenance

7.8

Forest Management

7.9

Wildland Fire Management

There are no jurisdictional wetlands regulated under the USACE, 404 Clean Water Act Program.

The BMGR does not support or require ground maintenance activities. Minimal ground maintenance
activities do occur at the Gila Bend AFAF, where there are several small turf areas and several rows
of planted trees. Gila Bend AFAF is operated and maintained by a USAF Contractor and all ground
maintenance activities are completed by the contractor or sub-contractor as part of the service
contract agreement. The total area of Gila Bend AFAF is approximately 385 acres with less than 7
acres requiring ground maintenance.
The entirety of the BMGR lies within the Sonoran Basin and Range Level III Ecoregion. Very few trees
are able to survive in this ecosystem given the harsh, hyper-arid (less than 4 inches of precipitation
annually) desert climate. No commercial forests occur within the range boundary.

Until the early 2000s, wildfires larger than a few acres in size were almost unknown in the Sonoran
Desert. The natural fire-rotation interval for portions of the Sonoran Desert, including the BMGR, was
estimated to be 274 years (Schmid and Rogers 1988). The low densities of native vegetation typically
did not provide sufficient fuel to carry fires over large areas. Sonoran Desert vegetation is typically
not fire-tolerant, and large fires within these vegetation communities have the potential to
significantly alter vegetation composition at the ecosystem or landscape level. Desert vegetation,
such as saguaro cactus, organ pipe cactus (Stenocereus thurberi), blue paloverde, ocotillo, and
creosote bush are very susceptible to fire and may take decades to re-establish.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-99

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The spread of non-native, invasive plants has
altered the natural fire regime in some areas.
Historically, bare space between shrubs and
trees limited the extent that fires could spread
in the Sonoran Desert, but changes in climate,
human activities, and the resulting spread of
invasive species are leading to increased fuel
loads, changing fuel characteristics, and putting
some fire-intolerant native species at risk.
Introduced grasses and forbs increase fuel
continuity across the landscape, altering
vegetation composition and promoting larger
fires and greater fire frequency and intensity
Figure 7.8: Wildfire at BMGR East.
(Geiger and McPherson 2005). This, coupled
with the tendency of many invasive species to be the first species to recover post-fire (often at greater
than pre-fire densities and coverage), leads to a positive feedback loop. Under this scenario,
increasing density and cover of invasive species lead to increased fire activity, which in turn favors
increased density and cover of those species, which then leads to even greater fire frequency and
size. The end result of this potential scenario is a truly altered fire regime and vegetation community
across the landscape.

In 2008 or 2009, a wildfire at BMGR West that was evidently fueled by Sahara mustard burned
approximately 500 acres of native creosote-bursage community. Post-fire field inventory showed
that the mustard was the only species recovering in that area (Malusa 2010), indicating that the
vegetation community may be changing over time (which may be driving a change in fire regime).
This trend places a priority on continuous invasive species
management to protect the quality of the range for native
plants and wildlife and to ensure that there will be no
impact to the military training activities and mission
readiness.

The 2012 INRMP revision reported a total of 87 wildfires
recorded from 2006–2011. All fires were small and typically
located within target complexes. Three grass fires along SR
85, likely started by passing vehicles, were each about 1/10
acre in size. It was reported that, in general, invasive plants
did not play a critical role in the spread of many of these
fires. Wildfires in 2005, however, did burn approximately
132,000 acres of the BMGR East, requiring emergency
intervention from the National Interagency Fire Center. The
2005 fire season was considered an anomaly due to the
heavy winter rains that lead to increased fuel loading of
BMGR East

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Figure 7.9: Fire scar on saguaro cactus
at BMGR East.
7-100

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

native vegetation. It is also likely that the spread of invasive species may have contributed to the fuel
load available to carry these fires.

Since 2011, there have been 126 fires ranging in size from a few square yards to several hundred
acres. These fires are reported to and investigated by the 56 RMO Wildland Fire Program Manager.
An account of each incident is reported and stored in the 56 RMO BMGR East Fire History
Spreadsheet.

The 56 RMO is working to finalize the WFMP. The plan will define roles and responsibilities and
provide guidance for the offices, departments, and agencies involved and will describe pre-fire
suppression and suppression actions to be taken on a strategic as well as a tactical basis (56 RMO
2014). The document will serve as the guiding plan for wildfire response protocols. As part of this
WFMP development process, the 56 RMO also signed an MOU with the BLM for fire suppression
assistance on BMGR East (DOI and USAF 2017).
There have been very few wildfires at BMGR West. Overall, wildfire risk is much lower at BMGR West
than it is at BMGR East, largely due to the difference in precipitation patterns that support only
minimal vegetation growth at BMGR West. Even with this lower risk, however, MCAS Yuma is
required to develop and implement a WFMP, per MCO 5090.2A with changes 1-3 (USMC 2013b). The
WFMP will define roles and responsibilities for offices, departments, and agencies involved in prewildfire suppression and suppression activities, and it will provide guidance for firefighters, public
safety officials, and the RMD to maximize military training operations prior to and during a wildland
fire event. Once the WFMP is complete, the MCAS Yuma RMD intends to develop a MOU with the BLM
for fire suppression assistance at BMGR West.
BMGR West

7.10 Agricultural Outleasing

No agricultural outleasing programs at BMGR.

7.11 Integrated Pest Management Program

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996 (FIFRA) provides for federal
regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use (7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.). All pesticides distributed or
sold in the U.S. must be registered (licensed) by the EPA. Before the EPA may register a pesticide
under FIFRA, the applicant must show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to
specifications "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.''

FIFRA defines the term ''unreasonable adverse effects on the environment'' to mean ''(1) any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and
environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide; or (2) a human dietary risk from
residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with the standard under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.''

Rules, EOs, and regulations applicable to integrated pest management are listed below.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-101

Chapter 7

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

EO 13751, December 2016, Safeguarding the Nation From the Impacts of Invasive Species
(EO 13751 2016)
EO 11987, May 1977, Exotic Organisms (EO 11987 1977)

DoD Directive 4715.1, February 1996, Environmental Security (DoD 1996b)
DoD Instruction 4715.03, May 1996, Environmental Conservation Program

DoD Regulation 4150.7-P, September 1996, DoD Plan for the Certification of Pesticide
Applicators (DoD 1996a)
AFI 32-1053, of Nov 2014, Integrated Pest Management Program (USAF 2014)

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1B, with changes 1-4,
Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual (USN 2003)

MCO 5090.2A with changes 1–3, August 2013, Environmental Compliance and Protection
Manual (USMC 2013b)

DoD Directive 4715.1 provides policies and procedures to establish and maintain safe, effective, and
environmentally sound integrated pest management programs to prevent or control pests and
disease vectors that may adversely impact readiness or military operations by affecting the health of
personnel or damaging structures, material, or property. It also ensures that pest management
programs achieve, maintain, and monitor compliance with all applicable EOs and Federal, State, and
local statutory and regulatory requirements. The pest management programs incorporate
sustainable philosophy, strategies, and techniques in all aspects of DoD and contractor vector control
and pest management planning, training, and operations, including installation pest management
plans and other written guidance to reduce negative effects of pesticides.

In accordance with the management goals provided by the 2012 BMGR INRMP, vegetation inventory
and monitoring plans have been developed and implemented for both the BMGR East (56 RMO 2007)
and BMGR West (Villarreal et al. 2011). These plans adopted several protocols from existing regional
vegetation monitoring programs, allowing for the integration, collaboration, and sharing of both
BMGR East and West monitoring efforts with surrounding land management agencies. As part of
these vegetation monitoring efforts, a majority of the range has now been inventoried and mapped
according to a standardized approach that has been used across the various adjacent federal lands
(USFWS, BLM, and NPS). While the vegetation community mapping is largely complete, inventory
and monitoring efforts will continue over the next several years to establish quantifiable trends in
vegetation communities over time.

7.11.1 Invasive Plants

One of the issues that will be identified in the ongoing vegetation inventory and monitoring efforts is
how the spread of exotic, invasive, or noxious plants impact native Sonoran Desert vegetation
communities. Exotic species, as defined in DoD Instruction 4715. 03, are “species that occur in a given
place, area, or region as the result of direct or indirect, deliberate or accidental introduction of the
species by human activity.” EO 13751 (EO 13751 2016) requires federal agencies to identify actions
that may affect invasive species; use relevant programs to prevent introduction of invasive species;
detect, respond, and control such species; monitor invasive species populations; provide for

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-102

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

restoration of native species; conduct research on invasive species; and promote public education.
An invasive species, as defined in EO 13751, is a “non-native organism whose introduction causes or
is likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human, animal, or plant health (EO
13751 2016)”

Exotic, invasive, or noxious plants are characterized by (1) their ability to easily colonize disturbed
areas and (2) specialized dispersal mechanisms that allow them to quickly become the dominant
vegetation in an area. These abilities differ between species, but invasive plants generally have the
potential to impact native vegetation communities. Roads, livestock, and people, serve as the primary
vectors for invasive species at BMGR. The 2007 INRMP reported that the density and distribution of
non-native species was not accurately known, although BMGR East was estimated to have a
comparatively greater distribution of invasive species than BMGR West due to its greater annual
rainfall amounts and closer proximity to vector sources for invasive species. Several studies and
mapping efforts have been undertaken since the 2012 INRMP revision to better understand the
distribution, density, and life history of invasive species at BMGR (e.g., Li and Malusa 2014; DameryWeston 2016; also, the BMGR West GIS Cloud Mapping Effort).
Sahara mustard (Figure 7.10) is a coolseason, winter annual herb that flowers
early in the year (December–February)
with small, dull-yellow flowers that make
them inconspicuous compared to most
other true mustards (Bossard et al. 2000).
A single large plant can produce up to
16,000 seeds. Dried plants tend to break
off near the soil surface and then tumble
across the landscape like Russian thistle,
spreading seeds along the way. According
to Bossard et al. (2000), Sahara mustard
was first recorded in the late 1920s in the
Figure 7.10: Sahara mustard at BMGR.
Coachella Valley of California. In 1957, the
species was found near Yuma, AZ, and had become widespread by the 1970s. Due to its early
growth/flowering phenology, Sahara mustard is able to capitalize on winter soil moisture early in
the growing season, allowing the species to largely complete its lifecycle prior to when many native
species begin to flower (Bossard et al. 2000).

Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii)

Given the species’ affinity for sandy soils and its life history, Sahara mustard continues as the most
prevalent invasive species at BMGR. The spread of this species is a greater concern at BMGR West
because the soils there are generally sandier. Habitat type, species competition, and other biotic and
abiotic factors are likely to have a substantial influence on the spread of this species. Sahara mustard
tends to produce a dense, highly flammable, monoculture ground cover. As such, it can reduce native
plant diversity and increase fire risks. Also, given that Sonoran Desert plant communities are not fireadapted, greater frequencies of wildfire have potentially devastating results.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-103

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Listed as a State of Arizona Prohibited and
Regulated
Noxious
Weed
(Arizona
Administrative Code 3-4-244), buffelgrass
(Figure 7.11) is native to the arid and semiarid regions of East Africa, the Arabian
Peninsula, Madagascar, Pakistan, and
northern India (Cox et al. 1988). It arrived in
Australia in 1880 and in Texas in 1917. The
species was first introduced into the U.S.,
South America, and Mexico as a means to
improve productivity of grazing pastures and
to provide for erosion control (California
Figure 7.11: Buffelgrass outbreak within Area B.
Invasive Plant Council 2006). Across the
region, buffelgrass is spreading rapidly, and, where it becomes established, it often displaces native
vegetation and forms a dense monoculture. Buffelgrass has the potential to alter the natural Sonoran
Desert fire regime, further impacting and displacing fire-intolerant communities of native vegetation
(McDonald and McPherson 2011; U.S. Forest Service 2014). Buffelgrass is found across the BMGR,
and recent research by Whittle and Black (2014) and Damery-Weston (2016) has provided insight
into the rate of buffelgrass expansion for areas at BMGR East along SR 85.
Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare, Syn. Cenchrus ciliaris)

Fountain grass (Figure 7.12) is a coarse perennial
grass with a densely clumped growth form that can
reach five feet in height (Bossard et al. 2000).
Originally native to Africa and the Middle East
(Williams et al. 1995), fountain grass has been
introduced to many areas in the U.S. and other parts
of the world due, in part, to its popularity as an
ornamental plant (Neal and Senesac 1991; Williams et
al. 1995). Its seeds are easily dispersed by vehicles,
humans, livestock, wildlife, wind, and water (Cuddihy
et al. 1988; Tunison 1992; Bossard et al. 2000).
Fountain grass is found in areas on BMGR East and
West and, similar to buffelgrass and Sahara mustard,
its fire-tolerant nature could lead to altered fire
regimes if these species are left unmanaged
(California Invasive Plant Council 2006).
Fountain Grass (Pennisetum setaceum)

Figure 7.12: Fountain grass infestation.
Photo courtesy of NPS.

Mediterranean grass is native to Eurasia (Jackson 1985). The species was introduced into North
America, South America, Australia, and the west coast of Europe where Mediterranean climate
regimes occur (Bor 1968). In North America, it likely spread westward from Arizona into California
Mediterranean grass (Schismus arabicus and S. barbatus)

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-104

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

during the early 1900s (Burgess et al. 1991). It was first recorded in California in 1935 (Robbins
1940) and is now well established in the southwestern U.S.

Colocynth (Figure 7.13), or desert gourd, is an invasive desert melon that thrives in sandy, arid soils.
Its deep tap root provides access to moisture, allowing it to outcompete native vegetation (Burrows
and Shaik 2015). Native to the Mediterranean, Middle East, and Asia, colocynth has become widely
invasive across portions of Australia (Shaik et al. 2015) and has recently been found in the U.S. within
Death Valley National Park (Swearingen 2008). A small population was recently found adjacent to
the Range 1 access road at BMGR East in close proximity to an active archeological excavation (Fox
2017). It is believed that colocynth seeds were potentially brought in on excavation equipment being
used for the archeological operation. All identified plants and fruits were pulled and disposed of,
although there was evidence of broken and partially eaten fruit, indicating seed dispersal may have
occurred (Sheri Fox, pers. comm., 2017). The surrounding area is now being monitored by the 56
RMO staff to attempt to limit the spread of this new invasive species.

Colocynth (Citrullus colocynthis)

Figure 7.13: Colocynth plants (left), flower (middle), and fruits (right). Photos courtesy of Qatar Natural
History Group.

Other non-native species that have been identified at BMGR include Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis
lehmanniana), salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla), Russian thistle
(Salsola tragus) and red brome (Bromus rubens). If left undetected, unmonitored, and unmanaged,
nonnative invasive species could fundamentally alter the BMGR’s ecosystem structure through
competition with native species, reduction of species diversity, and enhancing the spread of wildfires
(Villarreal et al. 2011).
7.11.1.1

Other Invasive Plants

7.11.1.2

Spread of Invasive Plants

Roads have been identified as a major contributor to the spread of invasive plants at BMGR (Figure
7.14), and the proliferation of new roads and subsequent increases in soil disturbance is of particular
concern to range managers. Seeds from invasive species can be caught in wheel wells,
Roads

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-105

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

undercarriages, and tire treads as
vehicles drive through infested
areas. As vehicles travel into
uninfested areas, seeds may fall out,
thereby
effectively
dispersing
invasive species seeds into a new
area. Additionally, roads often
create favorable germination and
growing conditions for invasive
species by altering drainage
Figure 7.14: Buffelgrass infestation along SR 85.
patterns, catching additional water,
disturbing the soil, and burying the invasive species seeds (particularly when drag road surfaces are
smoothed). In recent years, increased activities related to geocaching, BP use, and illegal
humanitarian aid drops have led to increased off-road vehicle use in some areas. This increased use
has heightened the risk for resource damage and increased the chances for invasive species to spread
into new areas. Off-road vehicle use, road closure signage, fencing, informational brochures, and
increased CLEO patrolling have been implemented in recent years in hopes of curbing these activities
before harsher enforcement actions become necessary.

Another factor influencing the spread of invasive
plants over the past ten years is the ground
disturbance associated with drag roads and the
drag areas around rescue beacons along the
southern border fence. A network of rescue
beacons has been installed throughout the BMGR
in an effort to mitigate UDA injuries and/or
fatalities arising from the region’s extreme
environment. The BP will periodically smooth
out the areas around the rescue beacons and
along the main roads system to enhance
Figure 7.15: Sahara mustard along the STAC Range
detection of recent UDA foot traffic. These drag
Road.
areas and roads were originally intended to be
minimal in size, but have enlarged over time as dragging has continued (Figure 7.15). Disturbance
associated with drag roads and drag areas is of particular concern for the spread of invasive species
that thrive in disturbed soils. Range managers at both BMGR East and West continue to monitor these
roads and maintain a dialogue with the BP regarding impacts and maintenance of these roads.

Wildfires larger than a few acres were almost unknown until the last 15 years because the low
densities of native Sonoran Desert vegetation typically do not provide sufficient fuel for carrying a
fire over large areas. The spread of invasive plants, however, has substantially raised the threat that
wildfire poses to native vegetation and wildlife because the invasive species grow in high densities,
will readily carry a wildfire, serve as a ladder fuel into taller stands of native vegetation, and tend to
recover from fire more readily than native vegetation. A wildfire that was evidently fueled by Sahara
Wildfire

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-106

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

mustard burned approximately 500 acres of native creosote-bursage community at the BMGR West
in 2008 or 2009. Field inventory showed that the mustard was the only species recovering in the area
after the fire (Malusa 2010). In addition to degrading the range quality for native plant species and
wildlife, wildfires also can interfere with the military training and mission readiness.
7.11.1.3

Invasive Plant Management Actions

There has been an observable expansion
of buffelgrass along the SR 85 corridor
(Figure 7.16), with the vast majority of
this expansion occurring outside of the
BMGR fence line along the highway rightof-way. Buffelgrass has also been
reported in the STAC, areas within the San
Cristobal Valley, and within portions of
Area B, south of the Crater Mountains,
where it appears to be extending away
from the highway along several small
drainages. Staff from the 56 RMO have
conducted a multiyear study examining
Figure 7.16: Spread of invasive buffelgrass along SR 85
and mapping the rate of buffelgrass
is a growing concern for range managers. Here, 56 RMO
spread along SR 85. Results from the
staff are monitoring buffelgrass expansion as part of a
research suggest that buffelgrass
monitoring and mapping project.
expansion onto the BMGR East is limited
to draws and washes, making control efforts feasible (Whittle and Black 2014).
BMGR East

Two other widespread invasive species at BMGR East are Mediterranean grass (Schismus spp.) and
Sahara mustard. Mediterranean grass is widespread throughout the range and is most common on
fine-grained soils. Sahara mustard is most common west of SR 85 and has become well established
along many of the NTAC and STAC roadways and within several of the target areas. Both
Mediterranean grass and Sahara mustard are annual weeds that appear to be largely dependent on
moisture, as they are much more abundant following wet winters.

Luke AFB has developed and implemented an IPMP that includes guidance and protocols for invasive
species removal and management for Luke AFB, Gila Bend AFAF, and BMGR East (Luke AFB 2015).
This plan outlines the budgeting mechanisms; applicator certification requirements; reporting and
recordkeeping requirements; health and safety guidelines; regulatory compliance; herbicide storage
mixing, safety, and disposal guidance; and guidance for invasive species removal and control.
Methods for control include a combination of physical and mechanical removal as well as the
application of herbicide through both foliar spot spraying and aerial application (Figure 7.17).
Restricted-use herbicides are not currently approved for use at either Gila Bend AFAF or BMGR East,
and only EPA-registered pesticides containing glyphosate as the primary active ingredient are
currently being applied at BMGR East. In general, regardless of the manner in which the herbicides
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-107

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

are applied at BMGR East, herbicides will be used in a “judicious and prudent manner using products
that quickly degrade and have little risk of contaminating water or affecting wildlife” (Luke AFB
2015).

Physical removal and disposal of
invasive plants by hand is prioritized
in
small
(<100
acres),
environmentally sensitive areas.
Application of herbicide with ground
equipment is being conducted in areas
with low-density stands of invasive
weeds that are accessible by vehicle
and foot. Ground-based equipment is
also being used for targeted
applications in accessible infested
areas with high densities of
environmentally sensitive species.
Figure 7.17: A USAF C-130 applying herbicide along a
Aerial application of herbicide is
roadway at BMGR East.
restricted to high-density areas of
invasive species. It is typically applied by larger aircraft, which may include a USAF C-130 outfitted
for pesticide dispersal. The USAF had an Environmental Assessment in place for a Sahara mustard
control program using aerial herbicide application for two years at BMGR East (Finding of No
Significant Impact was signed on 19 July 2012; 56 RMO 2012). The purpose of this program was to
reduce wildfire risk and improve range quality for wildlife and native vegetation communities on
approximately 7,800 acres that had high densities of Sahara mustard and few other environmentally
sensitive plant species. This program resulted in improved control of Sahara mustard along
approximately 15 linear miles of roadways. In the event that aerial herbicide treatments are required
in the future, NEPA documents will be prepared. Additionally, the USAF will be required to re-enter
consultation with the USFWS prior to conducting any future aerial treatments within Sonoran
pronghorn habitat.
The 56 RMO is initiating a similar invasive species mapping and treatment project at BMGR West
(detailed below) using the GIS Cloud app. Currently, funding is in place to begin a partnership with
the UA to maintain and manage the GIS Cloud app data and to purchase one smartphone with an
annual data plan. This device will be used by MGR East CLEOs to map and monitor invasive species
on the east side of the range.
The Gila Bend AFAF serves as an emergency runway and provides the facilities required to support
maintenance and operations for both the air field and BMGR East. The air field is operated and
maintained by a USAF contractor and all pest management functions are completed by the contractor
or sub-contractor, as required under the service contract agreement. Gila Bend AFAF utilizes a
comprehensive, integrated pest management approach to weed and pest control that takes into
account the various chemical-, physical-, and biological-suppression techniques available and
Gila Bend AFAF

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-108

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

analyzes the weed’s or pest’s habitat and its interrelationship within the ecosystem. Pest
management activities at Gila Bend AFAF are guided by the Luke AFB IPMP (Luke AFB 2015) and are
specifically addressed in Attachment 7 of that document. The IPMP defines the roles, protocols,
contracting requirements, reporting protocols, and treatment procedures for weed and pest
management activities at Gila Bend AFAF. The plan also discusses regulatory compliance; safety and
health protocols; herbicide/pesticide storage, mixing, and disposal procedures; and provides a list of
approved herbicide/pesticides for use on the AFAF. Under this plan, restricted-use pesticides are not
permitted to be used oat the AFAF or BMGR East.

Pest issues at Gila Bend AFAF are primarily related to BASH threat species, including round-tailed
ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus), coyote (Canis latrans), rock pigeon (Columba livia), and
a variety of dove species including the mourning dove, white-winged dove, and Eurasian collareddove (Streptopelia decaocto). Weed issues are similar to those found at BMGR East and include Sahara
mustard and buffelgrass. All pest management actions at Gila Bend AFAF are recorded and retained
within the Integrated Pest Management Information System program.
The MCAS Yuma RMD, in cooperation with the 56 RMO, partnered with researchers from the UA to
characterize and model Sahara mustard invasion throughout BMGR. This study combined field
measurements, controlled experiments, and mathematical modeling to determine environmental
factors that affect Sahara mustard success and long-term impact on other native winter-annual
plants. More specifically, this study examined how spatial variation in both biotic and abiotic
environments affected the population growth of Sahara mustard as well as its impact on native
plants. It also attempted to quantify the natural dispersal range of the invasive species to better
estimate the rate of spread across the range.
BMGR West

Results from this research (Li and Malusa 2014, Li 2016) are encouraging, as it seems that Sahara
mustard can be effectively controlled because the seedlings are vulnerable to adverse postgermination conditions; on a range-wide scale, after extended periods of winter drought, Sahara
mustard source populations are reduced to isolated areas where soils retain moisture. These
populations will expand again across the landscape as favorable conditions return. Successful
elimination of persistent local populations after droughts can effectively reduce the species’ presence
over the range. The knowledge gained from this study has provided strong scientific insight for
managing Sahara mustard, and led to the development of a management program adopted by the
BMGR West RMD to reduce the presence of this species over time.

This management program involves a continuing partnership with the MCAS Yuma RMD, UA, and
NPS Lake Mead Exotic Plant Management Team. This project employs cloud-based mapping to
document invasive species presence across BMGR West, allowing for targeted follow-up control
efforts to be implemented as efficiently as possible. The project is designed to give managers a timely
method for mapping and tracking the spread of invasive weeds across the range, with particular focus
on Sahara mustard and buffelgrass. This effort is based on cloud-based mapping using the GIS Cloud
app and smartphones to quickly and easily gather data on invasive species distribution and
abundance. The app records the sighting location and provides dropdown menus for recording the
species and estimating its abundance. In addition, there are options to record photos, audio, and take

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-109

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

specific notes for each point. Once completed, these points are automatically uploaded to an online
map that makes the data immediately available to UA staff and the Lake Mead Exotic Plant
Management Team. The mapping effort is coordinated primarily through Station’s four CLEOs using
smartphones with the GIS Cloud app. CLEOs from MCAS Yuma are typically the first to discover new
invasive species populations and provide key survey data for the project.

As their part of this partnership, UA staff are tasked with data-quality control, interpretation, expert
surveys to assess current invasion conditions, maintaining the GIS Cloud app, and prioritizing
treatment areas based on real-time distribution of invasive plant emergence and habitat favorability
of the invasive species. UA staff also perform before/after surveys of treatment areas and generate
reports detailing the success or failure of each treatment effort and analyzing the results of the
generated distribution models. Due, in part, to the simplicity and effectiveness of the GIS Cloud app,
MCAS Yuma RMD staff, BMGR West CLEOs, and UA staff together collected 1750 data points during
the winter of 2016–2017 and over 2,800 data points since the program’s inception in 2015.
Upon receipt of data from the GIS Cloud app (Figure 7.18) and treatment recommendations from UA
staff, the NPS Lake Mead Exotic Plant Management Team determines and implements the
appropriate weed control treatment for each area provided. Treatment options include foliar spot
spraying, cut-stump treatments, and manual removal. All herbicide mixture and application practices
follow explicit NPS protocols and regulations. In addition, the NPS team purchases, stores, and
delivers herbicides to project sites and observes all herbicide label requirements and guidance for
each of the planned treatment options. The NPS team also completes and maintains the required
MCAS Yuma Pesticide Application records and submits them after each herbicide application project
is completed.

Other contributions from the NPS Team include gathering, updating, and providing GIS information
on potential areas identified for treatment during the following year; maintaining accurate records
of project activities (using GPS/GIS technology), including tracking the amount of herbicide and other
chemicals used (i.e., surfactants), areas surveyed, and acres and species treated; and then compiling
their work into a final annual report that is electronically submitted to MCAS Yuma RMD within 30
days of project completion. One major benefit of this project is that MCAS Yuma personnel never have
to handle or apply any herbicides. Since the GIS Cloud app monitoring and treatment program began
in 2015, the NPS team has actively treated five invasive species, including Sahara mustard,
buffelgrass, salt cedar, Athel tamarisk, and fountain grass. Accumulatively, 6,739 acres have been
surveyed, resulting in the treatment of 11 acres (Table 7.2).

One important outcome of this program is extensive knowledge of the occurrence and abundance of
invasive plants, especially Sahara mustard at BMGR West. According to this known distribution of
Sahara mustard, BMGR West is subjected to substantial invasion pressure from the species’ source
populations outside of the range’s jurisdiction. Successful control of Sahara mustard requires
sufficient interagency collaborations to contain invasive populations at BMGR East, Cabeza Prieta
NWR, and other agency land (BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, etc.). The success of the management
program has prompted staff at the Cabeza Prieta NWR to adopt the GIS Cloud app to monitor and
treat Sahara mustard and buffelgrass on the Refuge. Staff from the 56 RMO at BMGR East will initiate
use of the app in spring 2018. In addition, staff from the El Pinacate Preserve in Mexico have

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-110

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

expressed interest in initiating a similar monitoring program. It is desirable to establish an
interagency program that can sufficiently standardize the use of the GIS Cloud app across agencies
and coordinate treatment efforts among agencies to target source populations that infest areas
across jurisdictional boundaries.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-111

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Table 7.2: Invasive plant treatment efforts for BMGR West, 2015–2017.
Species

Sahara mustard
(Brassica tournefortii)

Buffelgrass (Pennisetum
ciliare)
Salt cedar (Tamarix
ramosissima)
Athel tamarisk (Tamarix
aphylla)
Fountain grass
(Pennisetum setaceum)
Sahara mustard
(Brassica tournefortii)

Buffelgrass (Pennisetum
ciliare)
Salt cedar (Tamarix
ramosissima)
Sahara mustard
(Brassica tournefortii)

Buffelgrass (Pennisetum
ciliare)
1 Acreage

Year

2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2016
2016
2016
2017
2017

Total

Surveyed
Acres1
1192.00
1192.00
1192.00
1192.00
1192.00
3777.29
3777.29
3777.29
1769.30
1769.30

6739 acres

Infested
Acres1
1.06
1.25
0.02

0.00004
0.0005
4.37
0.08

0.002
4.00
0.03

11 acres

Gross Infested
Acres Treated1

Treated
Acres1

62.09

1.06

0.00005

0.00004

13.15
0.15

0.003

538.19
6.66
0.02

598.11
5.23

1224 acres

1.25
0.02

0.0005
4.37
0.08

0.002
4.00
0.03

11 acres

Definitions*

Surveyed Area: Any area covered during the course of weed management / control activities. An
area may be considered “surveyed” regardless of the presence / absence of target weed species.
Surveyed area is obtained by walking the perimeter or taking perimeter points with a GPS unit, or
by digitizing area on a screen using landform references.

Gross Infested Area: The gross infested area is defined as the general perimeter of the infestation.
Gross infested areas contain the target species and the spaces between populations or individuals.
A gross infested area is calculated by adding up the total acreage of all mapped weed infestations,
without taking into account percent cover.

Net Infested Area: Actual area occupied by weed species within the gross infested area, which
does not contain the spaces between individuals and populations. The total infested area (with the
gross infested area) may be comprised of multiple infested areas, described by polygons, buffered
points, buffered lines, or it may be calculated as the result of a stem count in which each individual
is assigned a coverage multiplier.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-112

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Net Treated Area: Treated area is either the infested area or a subset of an infested area that has
received treatment. Treatment area is calculated using the same standards as those for infested
area.

* All of these terms apply to single-species measurements. When there is more than one weed
species in an area, the above measurements need to be applied to each species (population)
individually.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-113

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Since the early 1970s, feral horses and
burros (Equus spp.) have received
protection by the federal government under
provisions of the Wild Free-Roaming
Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (WFRHBA)
(16 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1340) as amended by the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (FLPMA) and the Public Rangeland
Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA).
Technically, these animals are not wildlife;
rather, they are descendants of escaped
livestock. The term “wild free-roaming”
Figure 7.20: Trespass burros impacting areas of
BMGR East.
provides special protections to these
animals under the WFRHBA. On a national
scale, the management of feral horses and burros has fallen to the BLM or U.S. Forest Service when
these animals are found within a designated Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Area (HMA).
HMAs were designated in the PRIA and represent areas where wild horses and burros were
documented at the time of the passage of the WFRHBA. Each HMA has an associated management
plan that provides specific herd management goals and
objectives and determines what each HMA’s carrying
capacity or “Appropriate Management Level (AML)”
should be. The HMA management plan also determines
what the minimum and maximum population levels are
for wild horses and burros to allow for population growth
over a four- to five-year period. Each HMA’s AML is
determined through a rigorous, multi-year analysis and
evaluation of rangeland habitat conditions, including data
on each area’s vegetation and soil resources. The AML,
along with any revision to the AML, is set for each HMA in
an open, public process during field planning efforts.

7.11.2 BMGR East Trespass Livestock

While stringent management guidelines are required
under federal law for animals found within an HMA,
animals found outside of an HMA are not provided the
same protections and are often considered to be “estrays”
or unauthorized horses and burros in trespass. Herd
Figure 7.19: Impact to native vegetation
population evaluations and management constraints are
by trespass livestock. This ocotillo has
not required, and the management of these trespass
been partially girdled by trespass burros.
animals often defaults to the local land management
agency as well as the state. The BMGR does not contain a designated Wild Horse and Burro HMA. The
closest HMA to the BMGR is the Cibola-Trigo HMA, located 8 miles north of the BMGR West or 40
miles west of the BMGR East along the Colorado River (Figure 7.23). Management of trespass horses
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-115

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

and burros at BMGR has fallen to the 56 RMO and MCAS Yuma RMD staff at BMGR East and West,
respectively. The 2007 and 2012 INRMPs, as well as the annual INRMP reviews (2013–2017), have
repeatedly expressed that trespass livestock, specifically cattle, horses, and burros (hereafter
“trespass livestock”), are an increasingly greater problem. Impacts of these animals to natural
resources are typically greater at BMGR East given its proximity to adjacent grazing allotments and
other land uses. Issues and impacts related to trespass livestock that either have been observed
occurring or have the potential to occur at BMGR include, but are not limited to
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

extensive destruction and degradation of sensitive plant species and Sonoran Desert native
plant communities;
increased competition with native protected/endangered wildlife species for available
forage and water resources (i.e., Sonoran pronghorn);
potential for disease transmission to native wildlife species;
increased soil degradation and erosion potential;

surface water depletion and destruction of environmentally sensitive/culturally significant
water resources;
potential water-quality impacts associated with fecal contamination and increased erosion
and sedimentation;
destruction and trampling of cultural resource sites;
invasive plant species seed dispersal; and

increased public safety risk from livestock/vehicle collisions with potential to impact all
range users including
o

o
o

BP;

56 RMO and MCAS Yuma RMD staff and support personal, other range managers,
and contractors; and
military personnel.

Potential direct negative impacts to the military training mission include but are not limited
to
o

•

public recreationists;

o

o
o

delays, interruptions, and cessation of live-fire training missions if animals are on
range;
increased risk of vehicle collisions during ground-based training efforts; and

increased wildfire risk if trespass animals aid in the dispersal of fire-adapted weed
species.

Given that BMGR does not contain a designated Wild Horse and Burro HMA and that protections
provided under applicable federal law (i.e., WFRHBA, FLPMA, PRIA) do not extend to trespass horses
and burros on the range, the 56 RMO and MCAS Yuma RMD staff wish to develop policies, programs
and methods to aid in the management of these animals. Consequently, 56 RMO and MCAS Yuma
RMD staff and staff at partner agencies, AGFD and USFWS, were prompted during the 2016 INRMP
Annual Review process to revise the Resource-Specific Goal RS4.5 from "Remove privately owned

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-116

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

animals from the BMGR" to "Monitor and control trespass animals and livestock at the BMGR, and
assess and mitigate their impacts."

Based on this revised Resource-Specific Goal, the 56 RMO staff at BMGR East are planning to develop
a Trespass Livestock, Horse, and Burro Management Plan that addresses all aspects of management
and monitoring of these animals and defines the roles and responsibilities for all parties
henceforward. This plan will ensure humane treatment of all animals while reducing impacts to
natural and cultural resources and the military training and mission readiness. This plan will provide
clear policies, programs, and methods to ensure that the INRMP goal of monitoring and controlling
trespass animals and livestock is met.
While the development of this management plan will be a priority over the next five years, there are
management actions that the 56 RMO staff can initiate now, under this INRMP, in recognition of the
need to reduce negative impacts from trespass livestock. These include the strategies as follows.

Working with Surrounding Land Management Agencies

The 56 RMO and MCAS Yuma RMD staff will work cooperatively with surrounding land management
agencies and individuals (BLM, USFWS, BLM grazing permittees, Tohono O'odham Nation), as well
as the Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA) and the AGFD, to ensure coordinated management
of trespass livestock. In addition, staff from the BMGR will continue to participate in the Interagency
Feral Livestock Committee.
Fencing

The BMGR staff recognize that Arizona is a
fence-out state, meaning it is the property
owner’s responsibility to keep animals out, and
that the BMGR does not reside in an Arizona nofence district. While it is unfeasible to fence the
entire boundary of the BMGR, certain corridors
can be effectively fenced off to exclude trespass
livestock. The BMGR staff will prioritize efforts
to work with adjacent BLM staff and BLM
grazing permittees to install new wildlifeFigure 7.21: Example of strategic fencing being
friendly fencing, as appropriate, in strategic
used at BMGR East to exclude trespass livestock.
areas and monitor existing fencing. In addition
to installing new fencing, the existing fence
infrastructure will be maintained and improved
as needed. The presence of trespass livestock will be continually monitored to identify additional
access corridors onto the range that need fencing infrastructure installed.
Trespass Livestock Removal and Management

Trespass livestock will be prioritized for removal from the BMGR lands following all applicable state
and federal laws. The BMGR staff will work with ranchers and stakeholders to push back into BLMmanaged areas any privately owned, BLM permittee livestock found on the range. All other privately

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-117

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

owned livestock will be rounded up and held for property recovery procedures to occur, as
determined by ARS 3-1402 and 43 CFR Subpart 4150. The AZDA will complete brand inspections on
all trespass livestock, and the 56 RMO will post notifications to allow owners an opportunity to
recover trespass livestock.

For non-branded stray livestock that are not
claimed during the established recovery
notification period, as outlined in ARS 3-1402, the
56 RMO shall provide a letter to the AZDA stating
that all applicable state, federal and DoD rules
were followed, allowing the AZDA to produce a
Form 1 letter (after the livestock inspection) that
will authorize USAF ownership of the animals. On
becoming USAF property as determined by the
State of Arizona, these animals will be sold at
public auction. To initiate this new trespass
livestock removal policy, staff at the 56 RMO are
Figure 7.22: Trespass livestock at BMGR East.
currently pursuing viable procurement methods
and opportunities that may be used by a
contractor selected to perform duties under an awarded contract. Such duties could include but
would not be limited to actively riding the range, monitoring the presence of trespass livestock,
inspecting and repairing fencing, and removing trespass livestock as necessary by using established
protocols and or procedures, as set forth under law and or an issued Statement of Work. The 56 RMO
would also explore the possibility of having the contractor monitor for invasive weeds as well as
observe and report on any other known or potential impact to natural and cultural resources.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-118

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

7.12 Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH)

The BMGR lies within the Pacific Flyway, which, at this location, is a
minor flyway for waterfowl and a major flyway for raptors and small
songbirds. The BMGR serves as an important training area for
aircraft from the 56 FW out of Luke AFB and Marine Corp Air
Squadrons out of MCAS Yuma. BASH reduction plans are developed
for DoD military installations where elevated hazards exist and can
be controlled and mitigated, as is the case at the BMGR East and
West.

Figure 7.24: Turkey vultures
represent a major BASH
threat. Photo curtesy of NPS.

BASH concerns are greatest when aircraft fly at low altitudes (at both takeoff and landing) rather
than during typical in-flight operations at BMGR. A BASH Reduction Plan is in place for Gila Bend
AFAF. In accordance with this plan, the USAF uses the AHAS, which is a data-driven, remote-sensing
system to alert aviators about the presence of birds in the airspace. The AHAS system evaluates
weather and radar data and provides real-time alerts to aviators when concentrations of large birds
are in the airspace. The AHAS is available online and coverage includes the entire continental U.S.
Additionally, as part of the prevention program, AHAS provides pilots and flight schedulers with a
near real-time tool when selecting flight routes. The BMGR East plan is based on Luke AFB’s BASH
Reduction Plan and 56 FW OPLAN 91-2 (56 FW 2013), and it focuses on reducing the BASH threat at
the Gila Bend AFAF and at the Range 1 and 2
lead-in-lines.
BMGR East

Environmental management guidelines, as
identified in the BASH Reduction Plan for Gila
Bend AFAF, include controlling vegetation
(e.g., maintaining vegetation height between
7” and 14 inches, removing dead vegetation,
removing perches), controlling water (e.g.,
modifying ditches, eliminating standing
water), controlling waste (e.g., collecting and
disposing waste rapidly), and controlling
birds through chemical and physical
alterations (e.g., bird-proof structures, insect
Figure 7.25: F-16 preparing for take-off at Gila Bend
and rodent control). Priority BASH
AFAF. Photo courtesy of Luke AFB.
management actions under this plan include
vigilant threat monitoring and reporting, management of the environment both at and surrounding
the Gila Bend AFAF, carrion removal along SR 85 to reduce the abundance of large avian scavengers
(e.g., turkey vultures), and bird/wildlife harassment and depredation, as required. A private
contractor is currently conducting daily threat monitoring at Gila Bend AFAF and for areas of BMGR
East near Range 1 and 2. Status reports are issued on a monthly basis. These reports summarize, in
part, the number of BASH strikes/month, number of BASH threat days/month, number of surveys
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-120

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

conducted/month, average number of birds by size, max and mean animal counts/month by species,
total carrion removed/month and location of disposal, and other environmental information (e.g.,
wastewater pond depth). In addition to monthly reporting, the contractor is also providing annual
BASH reports that summarize and analyze all monthly data and provides useful trend data to the 56
RMO (Tunista Services, LLC, and Chiulista Services 2012–2016). A summary of the annual BASH
management data results for 2012–2016 is provided in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3: Summary of BASH management actions taken annually over the last five years (2012–2016) at the
Gila Bend AFAF and other areas at BMGR East.1
BASH Threat Days

2012

Low
247

Moderate

2016

249

0

Severe

BASH
Strike

250

1
3

1
0

2

Year

2013
2014
2015
Total

269
269
1,284

6
4
14

0
0
0

1

1
1
2
1

7

Carrion
Removed
149
192
273
396
200

1,210

Number of Times

Wildlife
Harassed

Wildlife
Depredated

6

0

5
8
1

16

36

0
0
0
0

0

1 Source: The Annual BASH Summary Reports for the BMGR East (Tunista Services, LLC, and Chiulista Services 2012–2016).

Bird harassment and depredation at Gila Bend AFAF is authorized by the USFWS through a permit
issued annually to the 56 FW, which applies to both Luke AFB and Gila Bend AFAF (USFWS 2017). A
log of BASH harassment and depredation events at Gila Bend AFAF is being retained and updated by
the 56 RMO and includes all incidents dating back to 2006. Mammal depredation (e.g., rabbits and
coyotes) at Gila Bend AFAF is authorized by a permit issued annually by AGFD to the 56 RMO/ESM
and applies only to Gila Bend AFAF.

Primary avian species surveyed under this project include, but are not limited to, turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura), common raven[s (Corvus corax), raptors species (e.g., red-tailed hawk [Buteo
jamaicensis]), prairie falcon, golden eagle, American kestrel (Falco sparverius), etc.), doves (mourning
doves, white-winged doves, Eurasian collared-doves), and horned larks (Eremophila alpestris).
Round-tailed ground squirrels are also surveyed at Gila Bend AFAF, as they represent one of the main
food sources for raptors species. Data are provided in the Annual BASH Summary Report for the
BMGR East (Tunista Services, LLC, and Chiulista Services 2012–2016). Species included in the “other”
species category include lark bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys), greater roadrunner (Geococcyx
californianus), green-winged teal (Anas crecca), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), blacktailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), coyote, and kit fox.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-121

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Table 7.4: Summary of annual survey results for four locations at Gila Bend AFAF and BMGR East.
Gila Bend AFAF

Species

Year

Avian sp.

2012

Avian spp.

Ground squirrel
Other

Total

Ground squirrel
Other

Avian spp.

Total

Ground squirrel
Other

Avian spp.

Total

Ground squirrel
Other

Avian spp.

Total

Ground squirrel
Other

Total

2012
2012
2013

Gila Bend AFAF Perimeter

Times Observed

No. Surveys

Total Individuals

Times Observed

No. Surveys

Total Individuals

Times Observed

No. Surveys

Total Individuals

Times Observed

No. Surveys

384

127

247

0

0

72

0

0

113

0

0

74

9,440

658

247

247

1,213

2013

10,482

247

2013

58

251

2014

251

2014
2014

200

251

251

0

15,057

178

251

3,865

124

251

247

79

2015

19,210

248

251

2015
2015

164

93

2016

16,655

2016

300

All Years Total

Gila Bend AFAF Oxidation Pond

Total Individuals

136

2016

SR 85 (Range 1 and 2)

13,408

1,525

17,251

1,759

15,598

893

8,640
1,011

9,951
71,355

2,652

71

72

968

72

540

72

108

0

2,678

108

251

5,914

108

0

113

108

0

251

34

250

7,503

113

113

250

251

3,668

108

108

1,508

250

0

254

250

0

250

122

254

5,855

254
254

0

254

6,423

1,253

29,560

150

3,236

3,835
2,295
3,560
3,152
3,271

Source: The Annual BASH summary reports for BMGR East (Tunista Services and Chiulista Services 2012–2016.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

72

113

113

98

113

0

138

6,559

138

0

1,409

138

113

113

1,792

138

0

148

138

0

113

88

2,716

134

148

88

113

1,891

117

88

0

147

88

0

88

147

2,745

147
147

0

147

2,356

528

11,117

0

88

0

147

383

825

2,381

364

1,949

407

4,581
1,978

74
74

74
74

5,888

107

148

9,018
0

87

107

0

148

173

0

81

107

173

0

81

87

95

173

10,906

87

87

173

148

7,097

106

107

173

0

107

7,074

107
107

0

131

131

107

8,963

679

42,520

102

3,130

3,809
4,270
2,804
5,540
3,423

0

81

0

81

74

107
107

87
87
81
81

81

131
131

131
480

7-122

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

A BASH Reduction Plan has been developed and implemented for the BMGR West (USMC 2014). The
BASH program is governed by the MCAS Yuma BASH Working Group, which meets quarterly to assess
the status of the BASH Reduction Program and provides recommendations and guidance for
improving program delivery. These meetings are held in conjunction with the Commanding Officer’s
Safety Council meetings and are coordinated by the MCAS Yuma Installation Aviation Safety Officer.
Personnel on the BASH Working Group are listed below.
BMGR West

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Commanding Officer (Chairperson)
Airfield Operations Officer

Air Traffic Control Facility Officer
Conservation Manager
Aviation Safety Officer

Natural Resources Specialist
Pest Management Officer

Tenant Unit Representatives

Marine Aircraft Group 13

Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 1
Marine Fighter Training Squadron 401

The MCAS Yuma BASH Reduction Plan outlines the management requirements and coordination
procedures for all BASH Working Group personnel. The MCAS Yuma Conservation Manager
maintains all required dispersal/depredation permits and harassment/depredation equipment. The
MCAS Yuma Conservation Manager also retains all BASH records and ensures that properly trained
personnel are available for required management actions. The Conservation Office monitors
migratory, seasonal, and resident bird activities and serves as liaison between MCAS Yuma and the
USFWS, AGFC, U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the
Audubon Society. All remains from BASH strike incidents are sent to the Smithsonian Institute for
official review, identification, and cataloging.
•

7.13 Coastal Zone and Marine Resources Management

The BMGR does not encompass any coastal or marine areas. The coastal area nearest to the
installation is the Gulf of California, Mexico, approximately 40 miles south of the installation.

7.14 Cultural Resources Protection

The USAF and USMC are responsible for protecting and managing the cultural resources at BMGR in
accordance with a suite of federal laws and regulations. Federal law protects cultural resources that
satisfy government criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The USAF and
USMC, in consultation with tribes and other interested parties, work with the Arizona State Historic
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-123

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Preservation Office in Phoenix, Arizona, to determine which resources are eligible for listing.
Activities that provide protection for cultural resources at BMGR indirectly support the military
mission by preventing or minimizing conflicts between military operations and resource protection
goals.
The most recent ICRMP for BMGR East was implemented in 2009. An update to the ICRMP is currently
in progress and expected to be finalized in 2018. A key component of the MLWA is the integration of
natural and cultural resource concerns through the successful implementation of the ICRMP and
cultural resource concerns through the successful implementation of the ICRMP and INRMP. These
efforts have been identified as a series of action items in the Management Action Plan, some of which
are high priorities for the five years covered by the ICRMP. These action items are listed below.
BMGR East

•

•
•

•

Complete surveys and Section 106 reviews as needed to support range improvements and
sustain the training mission.
Sustain the training mission by including actions proposed in the CRP (in prep.)

Carry out the actions required under the programmatic agreement for INRMP
implementation and complete cultural resource inventories and Section 106 review of
INRMP-related actions not covered by the programmatic agreements.

Synthesize cultural resource data, evaluate the historic significance of recorded resources,
and make determinations of eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places.

Archaeological surveys have been conducted in both military use zones and public access areas.
Public recreation, and the associated effects, are potential threats to cultural resources. To determine
the extent of the threat, the programmatic agreement for implementation of the 2007 INRMP
required the prioritization of surveys along roads and adjacent areas likely to be affected by public
access (56 RMO 2009). Surveys conducted along public access roads in Area B have identified at least
39 resources eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (Tagg and Blake 2012).
The USAF developed strategies to protect these resources from public use activities, such as vehicle
based camping, campfires, theft, and vandalism. Strategies include regular monitoring of known
resources, permit enforcement, and increased recreational supervision.
Most of the projects that require surveys of large, contiguous areas are related to military actions.
The 56 RMO is committed to systematic surveys of areas affected by ongoing training activities and,
as of 2015, surveys had been conducted on 199,391 acres of BMGR East. Surveys and projects that
have been completed since the 2012 INRMP are listed below.
•

•
•
•

Completed in 2012—Intensive archaeological survey of 1,003 acres on Manned Range 1
Completed in 2012—Petroglyph recording: Lookout Mountain, Area B

Completed in 2012–2013—Archaeological survey and condition assessment of the GPS site
(AZ Z:5:55 [Arizona State Museum])
Completed in 2012–2013—Stoval Supplemental Project: Resurvey 50 acres and

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-124

Chapter 7

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

archeological testing of six sites

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Completed in 2013—Pathways to Preservation: Archaeological Research Design and
Management Strategy for the Barry M. Goldwater Range East
Completed in 2013—Petroglyph recording, Black Tank, Range 2

Completed in 2014—Intensive archaeological survey of 155 acres for the Sierra del Diablo
pronghorn forage plot pipeline realignment in the Southern San Cristobal Valley
Completed in 2014—Emergency archaeological survey, rerecording, and remapping of AZ
Z:5:68 (Arizona State Museum)
Completed in 2014—Hand excavation testing to determine presence of subsurface
archaeological site

Completed in 2015—Mechanical excavation to determine content and extent of AZ Z:5:68
(ASM)
Completed in 2015—Draft and final Historic Properties Treatment Plan for data recovery
Completed in 2015—Archaeological data recovery at five sites within the runway clear
zone, Gila Bend Air force Auxiliary Field (AFAF)
Completed in 2015—Intensive archaeological survey of 500 acres in Rankin Valley

Completed in 2015—Intensive archaeological survey of 154 miles (6,209 acres) and 2,831
acres of interstitial space: recording of 106 sites
Completed in 2017—Intensive archaeological survey of 1,500 acres of Rankin Valley

Completed in 2017—Data recovery within the APE of AZ Z:5:68 (ASM), Range 1 Road
Emergency

Completed in 2017—Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act reburial on
the Tohono O’odham Nation
Completed in 2016—Vanderpot, Rein, et. al., Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field:
Archaeological Data Recovery at Five Sites and One Isolate within the Airfield Flight-Line
Clear Zone, Barry M. Goldwater Range East, Arizona. Cultural Resource Studies in the
Western Papagueria 30, Barry M. Goldwater Range East Cultural Resource Management
Program, Luke AFB, Arizona
In-house projects
o

Intensive archaeological surveys for remodeling artificial wildlife waters, placement
of weather stations, pronghorn forage plots and waters, removal of contaminated
soil, wildcat roads, and extensions to existing roads
Site condition assessments of sites on all three tactical ranges

The Arizona Site Stewards Program (ASSP) is a key component of site monitoring efforts at BMGR
East. The ASSP trains and uses volunteers to monitor sensitive or threatened sites on public lands
throughout the state. Currently over 800 trained volunteers monitor the condition of historic,
prehistoric, and paleontological sites. Their efforts constitute a crucial supplement to the limited staff
resources of most federal and state agencies. Site Steward training involves both classroom
o

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-125

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

instruction and fieldwork covering antiquity laws, crime-scene management, site and feature
identification, and map reading.

The ASSP is led and sponsored by Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, the Governor's
Archaeology Advisory Commission, and public land managers throughout Arizona, including the 56
RMO. The 56 RMO cultural resource manager serves as the Agency Coordinator for ASSP activities
and identifies and prioritizes sites to be monitored and prepares handbooks to be used for this
purpose by Site Stewards. A volunteer Regional Coordinator monitors the activities of Site Stewards
working at BMGR East.

The MCAS Yuma and 56 RMO cultural resources programs for BMGR West and East, respectively,
produced a three-volume ICRMP in 2009. The ICRMP provides guidance for managing cultural
resources on the entire BMGR in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act and other
applicable laws and regulations. Volume 1 addresses the background and management issues
germane to both BMGR West and East—the physical setting, resource laws, culture history, and other
landscape-scale elements. Volume 2 specifically addresses BMGR East and, as mentioned above, is
superseded by a 2017 ICRMP. Volume 3 specifically addresses BMGR West.
BMGR West

In 2011, the MCAS Yuma Cultural Resources Manager considered the writing of the BMGR West
portion of the most recent ICRMP to be complete. The final draft of the ICRMP, however, was never
presented to the Commander for signature; thus, it was never executed. MCAS Yuma awarded a
contract in August 2017 to have the 2011 ICRMP rewritten to correct deficiencies and update the
management strategy. Completion of the new BMGR West ICRMP is anticipated in September 2019
and, among other changes, it will include Standard Operating Procedures and an assessment of
current data gaps.

Approximately 137,000 acres (20 percent) of the roughly 694,000 acres of the western portion of
BMGR West has been systematically surveyed. These surveys have resulted in the recording of
approximately 350 sites. Survey reports completed since 2012 are listed below.
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Completed in 2013—Cultural resources survey for a renewable energy project for MCAS
Yuma

Completed in 2013—Archaeological Survey Report of Negative Findings for the Laser Spot
Video Recording System at Barry M. Goldwater Range West

Completed in 2014—Archaeological Survey Report of Negative Findings for the Range One
Expansion on the Barry M. Goldwater Range West

Completed in 2015—An archaeological survey of 21,941 acres at Barry M. Goldwater Range
West, Marine Corps Air Station, Arizona

Completed in 2015—Archaeological Survey Report of Negative Findings for a Proposed
Earthquake Early Warning Sensor on the Barry M. Goldwater Range West

Completed in 2016—Archaeological survey of 6,289 acres on the Barry M. Goldwater Range
West, Yuma County, Arizona
Completed in 2016—Archaeological Survey of 26,172 Acres on the Barry M. Goldwater

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-126

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Range West, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona

The MCAS Yuma cultural resources program, in accordance with Section 110 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, requests funding each year to complete the survey of BMGR West. As with BMGR
East, this goal will not be realized for several years simply due to the magnitude and cost of the task.
The ICRMP update, now underway, will detail the Marine Corps’ short and long-term plans for
compliance with Section 110.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is the evolving knowledge held by indigenous and local
cultures about their immediate environment and the cultural practices that build on that knowledge
(USFWS 2011) TEK is location specific and includes detailed knowledge of the relationships between
plants, animals, natural phenomena, landscapes and timing of events that are used for lifeways,
including but not limited to hunting, fishing, trapping, agriculture, and forestry; and a holistic
knowledge or “world view” that parallels the scientific discipline of ecology (USFWS 2011). This body
of knowledge, practice, and belief, is continually evolving by adaptive processes and is handed down
through generations by cultural transmission about the relationships of living beings (human and
non-human) with one another and with the environment (see the USFWS’s Native American Policy
[USFWS 2016]).

7.14.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge

TEK and western science are each a separate body of knowledge that overlap and can be
complementary. TEK can be used to guide empirical or experimental studies to learn more about
plant-animal interactions. Testing indigenous hypotheses through western scientific processes to
identify the relative degree of exclusivity of relationships could result in additional insights of
significance to ecological and evolutional theory (Nabhan 2000). A number of these studies have
revealed that indigenous knowledge of biotic relationships involving rare plants or animals can help
guide the identification, management, protection or recovery of habitat for these species (Nabhan
2000). As such, TEK can help fill the gaps in western science and has a relevant and meaningful role
in a government agency’s decisions.

The USFWS, in coordination with representatives from tribes across the country, worked together to
update the USFWS policy (USFWS 2016), which provides guidance for inclusion of TEK into
management decisions. This means using the best available data and soliciting and considering other
sources of information, such as the traditional knowledge and experience of affected tribal
governments in policies, military actions, and determinations that have tribal implications. To
incorporate TEK into its land management decisions, the USFWS Native American Policy states that
resource managers should promote enhanced and ongoing communication, cooperation, and trust
with tribes and consider the traditional knowledge, experience, and perspectives of Native American
people to manage fish, wildlife, and cultural resources (USFWS 2016). Working collaboratively with
local tribal governments, government agencies can help to protect confidential or sensitive
information, including location, ownership, character, and use of cultural resources and sacred sites
where disclosure may cause a significant invasion of privacy; risk harm to the historic resource; or
impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners, to the extent allowed by law (USFWS
2016).

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-127

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Although the DoD does not currently have a policy that explicitly directs DoD agencies to incorporate
TEK into its management philosophy, there are directives, instructions, and other relevant
documents that spell out the need to address concerns and needs of federally recognized American
Indian Tribes and keep them in communication loops regarding decisions and actions that could
affect their lands, resources, and quality of life. Air Force Policy Directive 30-70 (USAF 1994a),
section 3.3, stipulates that, “The Air Force will conserve natural and cultural resources through
effective environmental planning.” Policy 1.3.1 of AFI 90-2002 (Air Force Interactions with FederallyRecognized Tribes [USAF 2015b]) directs the USAF to “Take into consideration the significance that
tribes place on protected tribal resources.” Policy 1.5.2 of AFI 90-2002 further specifies that, “…since
most tribes attribute cultural significance to natural resources, tribes should be briefed on the
content of the natural resources program, and provided the opportunity to consult on and participate
in, as appropriate, update or development of INRMPs, AFI 32-7064, Natural Resource Management
Program in accordance with the Installation Tribal Relations Plan.” Involving tribal representatives
in decisions regarding natural resource projects, particularly those involving eagles and other
protected species, will help to ensure that TEK is taken into consideration. Finally, the USMC
handbook (USMC 2004) for preparing, revising, and implementing INRMPs states that, “Marine Corps
installations must consult with federally recognized Indian tribes whose interest may be affected by
land management on the installation when preparing an INRMP…. In consultation for the INRMP,
American Indian tribes may identify areas and resources present on the installation that are
important to the tribe, provide advice on conservation needs and priorities, and share their
specialized knowledge of the resources on the installation.”

7.15 Public Outreach

As the primary users and managers of BMGR East and West, the USAF and the USMC, respectively,
have been delegated several responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is to manage the range in
a way that ensures long-term use of the facility as a premier military training location while also
ensuring management and protection of natural and cultural resources. In that capacity, the USAF
and USMC routinely provide forums for public outreach and opportunities for the public to learn
about and provide input on various actions proposed for the BMGR. This section provides an
overview of the various public involvement programs and opportunities. Focus areas for public
involvement programs are listed below.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Tours

Indian Nations briefs
Published articles
Speaking events

Media coordination

Special projects and events

Miscellaneous requests and participation in events

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-128

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The BEC includes representatives of federal and state agencies with statutory authority and
management responsibility for the range and adjacent federal lands, and the resources on those
lands: MCAS Yuma, BLM, USFWS, AGFD, CBP, and directors for the adjacent Sonoran Desert NM,
Organ Pipe Cactus NM, and Cabeza Prieta NWR. The BEC is chaired by the Director of the 56 RMO and
meets six times a year to share information and discuss and propose solutions to regional issues.

7.15.1 BMGR Executive Council

The MLWA of 1999 directed the Secretary of Interior, Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of
the Navy to establish an IEC to be comprised of selected representatives from federal, state, local, and
tribal governments. The IEC is established solely for the purpose of exchanging views, information,
and advice relating to the management of natural and cultural resources of the withdrawn lands. The
IEC is chaired by the MCAS Yuma Conservation Manager and is composed of representatives from
the USAF, USN, and Department of Interior as well as representatives of other federal, state, county
and municipal government agencies and Native American tribes that have interests in BMGR. The IEC
meets three times per year in January, May, and September. IEC meetings provide opportunities to
educate and seek input from the public and special interest groups on management of BMGR’s natural
resources. Meeting dates are announced at the conclusion of each meeting and reminders are emailed
to individuals on the IEC’s distribution list to provide several months’ notice. The IEC meeting
minutes are posted on a public website.

7.15.2 BMGR Intergovernmental Executive Committee

Public outreach efforts by the USAF provide input on the development of information and
infrastructure improvements to facilitate public recreational activities, as follows.
BMGR East

•

•

Updated public visitation maps and rules for public education and recreation use

An informational video for visitors that addresses safety and environmental awareness
Installation of signs, gates, and fences to support road infrastructure and public access

The USAF conducts public meetings on various issues that are announced via its website, newsletters,
mailings, newspaper advertisements or legal notices, and other means. The Luke AFB maintains a
web page containing information for BMGR East public outreach opportunities (http://www.luke.af.
mil/News/).
•

Public participation has increased from the previous years for all of the activities listed above.
Ongoing exercises and operations continue to generate media interest both at Gila Bend AFAF and
the BMGR. Requests for speakers, briefings, appearances, and tours continue to grow, along with
requests for participation in town, county, and state meetings, to coordinate efforts and share
information.
Public outreach efforts by the USMC have included improving information and infrastructure to
facilitate public recreational activities at the BMGR West, as follows.
BMGR West

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-129

Chapter 7

•
•

•
•
•
•

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

A bird checklist is available for birding enthusiasts.

A public brochure and map with details on road access retained for public access and range
rules (e.g., rules for camping, off-road vehicle travel, rock hounding, firewood collection,
hunting, native plant or wood collection, mine entry, recreational shooting, and trash
disposal) are made available to the public.
Signs, gates, and fences have been installed to support road infrastructure and public
access.

Tours of various BMGR West features or resources, such as the Fortuna Mine, are offered.
Meetings are held with local non-governmental groups, such as the Yuma Valley Rod and
Gun Club, to issue recreation access permits.

RMD staff visit local recreational vehicle parks to educate seasonal visitors about the BMGR
West recreational program.

The CLEOs are primarily responsible for MCAS Yuma’s public outreach efforts because they patrol
the range seven days a week. In addition, visitors are provided with a brochure that includes a
detailed map of road classification (i.e., public, closed, administrative access) and a list of approved
and prohibited recreational activities (e.g., camping, off-road vehicle travel, rockhounding, hunting).
Guided range tours (e.g., mine tours) can be scheduled through the RMD staff. Finally, the RMD
promotes public outreach by supporting research opportunities, publication of research results in
peer reviewed journals, and researcher participation in science conferences and symposiums.

7.16 Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

GIS is used in daily operations as the data support for the natural and cultural resource and
environmental stewardship programs. Over the next five years, geospatial data will be updated
periodically and several new types of GIS data will be acquired including, but not limited to, the
following actions.
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

Further refining and delineating important wildlife habitats and corridors

Monitoring and tracking sensitive and endangered wildlife and plant species
Monitoring and managing habitat disturbance and restoration efforts

Monitoring and tracking invasive species and reporting control effort results

Monitoring and tracking trespass livestock and monitoring impacts associated with their
presence
Analyzing projects for NEPA compliance and storing data for regulatory reporting

Updating the transportation road layer including delineating new unauthorized routes
Identifying and monitoring cultural resource sites

Completing the BMGR East range wide vegetation mapping effort and completing
integration and edge matching with other similar regional vegetation mapping products
(i.e., Malusa 2003)
Monitoring and delineating drag road impacts and prioritizing areas for restoration and

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-130

Chapter 7

•

maintenance.

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Updating infrastructure layers as the military training mission changes and as the BP’s
mission is modified.

USAF Instruction 32-10112, Installation Geospatial Information and Services (USAF 2007), provides
the policy and guidance for GIS management on all USAF installations including. Geospatial data are
maintained and managed by the 56 RMO Environmental Science and Management Office. The GIS
server resides in the 56th Communication Squadron Network Communication Center and on the
NIPRNet. Additionally, the geospatial data are maintained within the USAF GeoBase System and
services are provided through the GIS database that is centrally located on the server. The BMGR East
GIS program currently utilizes software from ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute) for
GIS data management and use. The 56 RMO and 56th Civil Engineer Squadron adhere to the Spatial
Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment, as required by the DoD, to provide
GIS standardization for table structure, metadata, and data storage among all DoD installations.
BMGR East

USMC MCO 11000.25a, Installation Geospatial Information and Services Program (USMC 2013a), also
referred to as USMC Installation Geospatial Information and Services (GEOFidelis), provides the
policy, guidance, and standards for acquiring, protecting, and utilizing geospatial data and GIS data
management in support of USMC installations. Geospatial data are maintained and managed by the
MCAS Yuma RMD within the USMC GEOFidelis System. The GEOFidelis program goal is to ensure that
USMC installation geospatial data are complete, accurate, current, and available as a USMC-wide
resource. The MCAS Yuma RMD and MCAS Yuma Civil Engineer/GIS Department adheres to the
Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment, as required by the DoD, to
ensure GIS standards are used for table structure, metadata, and data storage among all DoD
installations.
BMGR West

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-131

CHAPTER 8

MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Management policy (MP) goals reflect the values and desired future condition of natural resources;
thus, they serve as the focal points for implementing the INRMP. MP goals are not resource-specific,
but they are consistent with the military mission for protecting and conserving natural and cultural
resources and public access to BMGR. This section identifies management issues and establishes
management responsibilities, implementation schedules, and funding requirements for each of the
five established natural resource management goals. Both the MP and resource-specific (RS)
management goals have range-wide application. In no implied order of importance, the five
management policy (MP) goals are listed below.
MP1. Maintain and enhance natural resources to ensure that these resources are sustained in a
healthy condition for compatible uses (e.g., low-impact recreation) by future generations while
supporting the existing and future military purposes of the BMGR.
MP2. Manage cultural resources in accordance with the BMGR ICRMP.

MP3. Provide for public access to BMGR resources for sustainable, multi-purpose use, consistent with
military purposes of the range (including security and safety requirements) and ecosystem
sustainability.

MP4. Apply ecosystem management principles through a goal-and-objective-driven approach that
recognizes social and economic values; is adaptable to complex, changing requirements; and is
realized through effective partnerships among private, local, state, tribal, and federal interests.

MP5. Meet or exceed the statutory requirements of the MLWA of 1999, Sikes Act, and other
applicable resource management regulatory requirements.

The RS goals address earth, water, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources; transportation;
recreation; Native American access; non-military and perimeter land use; and special
natural/interest areas. RS goals aligned with MP2 are included in the ICRMP and do not appear in the
INRMP. The RS goals are presented in Table 8.1 (in no implied order of importance).

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

8-132

Chapter 8

Table 8.1: Resource-specific management goals.
ResourceSpecific
(RS) Goal
No.

RS1

RS2

RS3

Resource
Management
Category

Earth Resources
Water Resources

Vegetation
Resources

MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Management Goal(s)
Subject to budgetary constraints, implement best-management practices to
control and prevent soil erosion, implement soil conservation measures,
and restore or rehabilitate degraded landscapes wherever practicable,
subject to budgetary constraints.
Manage water resources to protect, maintain, and improve water quality;
conserve water to prevent lowering of the water table levels; and ensure
compliance with regulatory requirements while maintaining unrestricted
access for military purposes.

Protect and conserve plant communities and species diversity. Identify,
protect, conserve, manage, and comply with regulatory requirements for
threatened and endangered species or other important or sensitive species.

Continue to inventory the range for occurrence and distribution of exotic
species and implement management measures for their removal or control.
Restore or rehabilitate altered or degraded plant communities wherever
practicable, subject to budgetary constraints.

Continue to incorporate the principles of ecosystem management and
promote biodiversity.
Protect and conserve wildlife habitat, species diversity, and viable
populations.

RS4

RS5

Wildlife
Resources

Visual Resources

Identify, protect, conserve, manage, and comply with regulatory
requirements for federally threatened and endangered wildlife species or
otherwise significant or sensitive species.
Restore or rehabilitate human-altered or degraded wildlife habitats
wherever practicable, subject to budgetary constraints.

Continue to incorporate the principles of ecosystem management and
promote biodiversity.

Monitor and control trespass animals and livestock and assess and mitigate
their impacts.

Protect or enhance the integrity and diversity of visual resources (including
scenic qualities of the landscape).

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

8-133

Chapter 8

Table 8.1: Resource-specific management goals.
ResourceSpecific
(RS) Goal
No.

RS6

Resource
Management
Category

Transportation

RS7

Recreation

RS8

Native American
Access

RS9

RS10

RS11

Non-Military
Land Use

Perimeter Land
Use

Special Natural/
Interest Areas

MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Management Goal(s)
Continue to implement the transportation plan that addresses continued
land-based access for military training and testing; provides access for
wildlife research and wildlife habitat management, land management, and
law enforcement by federal and state agencies; and provides access for
wildlife-oriented recreation and sustainable multipurpose use by the public,
including access to sacred sites and traditional cultural places.
Implement established policies and procedures that ensure that vehicle will
be controlled and directed so as to protect resources, promote safety, and
minimize conflicts among the various uses of the range.
Provide for public access and use of land and natural resources for
sustainable multi-purposes when such activities are compatible with
mission activities and other considerations such as security, safety, and
resource sensitivity.
Manage all activities in accordance with the ICRMP.

Provide for Native American access to Traditional Cultural Places, Sacred
Sites, and protect resources which include plants, clay, minerals, etc. Tribes
may hunt with a valid AGFD permit.
Maintain a program for addressing rights-of-way.

Participate in local initiatives to advance eco-regional planning and
biodiversity goals.

Cooperate with land managers of adjoining property for conservation,
public relations, and compliance benefits.

Develop strategies, in coordination with ranchers when feasible, to reduce
trespass livestock occurrences.

Recognize existing special resources and/or areas in which special
resources are identified; consider the applicability of special management
provisions for the protection of these areas.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

8-134

CHAPTER 9

9.1

INRMP IMPLEMENTATION, UPDATE, AND REVISION
PROCESS

Natural Resources Management Staffing and Implementation

The Sikes Act encourages the DoD to provide adequate staffing with the appropriate expertise for
updating, writing, and implementing the INRMP within the scope of DoD component responsibilities,
mission and funding requirements.

The 56 RMO/ESM includes archaeologists, wildlife biologists, environmental planners, and a
munitions disposal expert (CRP, in prep.). The 56 RMO/ESM support military training by managing
the natural and cultural resources of the range in accordance with applicable laws, EOs, and
directives (CRP, in prep.). The 56 RMO/ESM also provides Contracting Officer’s Representative
oversight of the pronghorn monitoring function of the range operations contract, and ESM staff
serves as the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative on contracts for cultural resources and
other services.
BMGR East

The MCAS Yuma RMD staff are experts in the fields of natural and cultural resources management
and conservation law enforcement. The staff is devoted to providing the resources and expertise in
the planning and implementation of advanced training and exercises while fulfilling the goals and
objectives of this INRMP.
BMGR West

In August 2015, a cooperative agreement was signed between the USACE Omaha District and the
AGFD (USACE and AGFD 2015) to “collect, analyze, and apply environmental and cultural resource
data and implement land rehabilitation and maintenance for optimal management of lands under
control of the DoD…” (USACE 2015). The cooperative agreement provides the DoD assistance for
executing prescribed tasks to implement the goals and objectives of the INRMP.

9.2

Monitoring INRMP Implementation

The BMGR’s natural resource management has been mostly limited to actions taken for the benefit
of protected or special status species (e.g., Sonoran pronghorn, acuña cactus, and FTHL). This revised
INRMP continues to rely heavily on the most current biological data sets, general and species-specific
wildlife surveys, research projects, and regional data sets.

Over the next five-year period, factors upon which this INRMP is based on may change, including
military mission requirements, federal list of threatened and endangered species, information
available for listed species and their ecosystems, as well as the understanding of anthropogenic
impacts on resources. The implementation of this INRMP, will follow an adaptive management
approach that acknowledges uncertainty and monitors the various INRMP components and lessons
learned with the end goal of improving the BMGR’s future management actions and ecosystem health.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

9-135

Chapter 9

9.3

INRMP IMPLEMENTATION, UPDATE, AND REVISION PROCESS

Annual INRMP Review and Update Requirements

DoD guidance provides that the annual review shall verify that
•

•
•
•

the current information on all conservation metrics is available;

all “must fund” projects and activities have been budgeted for and implementation is on
schedule;

all required, trained natural resource positions are filled or are in the process of being filled;

projects and activities for the upcoming year have been identified and included in the
INRMP (an updated project list does not necessitate revising the INRMP); and
all required coordination has occurred.

All significant changes to the installation's mission requirements or its natural resources have been
identified. The USAF and USMC will review the progress made in implementing the INRMP annually
with AGFD and USFWS at the regularly scheduled BEC meetings and with other partners and the
public at the annual IEC meetings in the fall. The USAF and USMC will track their own progress using
appropriate metrics but common elements are to be reported by both. They will include
funded/unfunded projects; coordination and feedback from cooperating agencies, military trainers,
and range operators; timeframes for implementing projects; deliverables for complying with
Biological Opinions; and attainment of project-specific objectives. The effectiveness of management
guided by the INRMP also will be gauged annually by tracking the degree to which each
implementation project makes progress toward attaining the resource management goals
established in the INRMP. The INRMP resource management goals are presented in Chapter 8
Management Goals and Objectives. Current implementation projects and the resource management
goal(s) addressed by each project are identified in Chapter 10 Annual Work Plans.
•

This INRMP update identifies proposed amendments to the 2012 INRMP and changes to natural and
cultural resources management practices that would be implemented during the subsequent fiveyear period. This INRMP revision is available to the public, state and local governments, and Native
American tribes on the Luke AFB and MCAS Yuma websites.

9.3.1

INRMP Update and Revision Process

This is the second update of the original 2007 BMGR INRMP prepared in support of an ongoing
process to review and update the INRMP every five years. This 2018 update INRMP was prepared in
accordance with the MLWA of 1999, which provides that periodic reviews of the BMGR INRMP be
conducted jointly by the Secretaries of the Navy, Air Force, and Interior, and that affected states and
Native American tribes, as well as the public, are provided a meaningful opportunity to comment
upon any substantial changes to the INRMP (Public Law 106-65 § 3031(b)(3)(E)(ix)). As part of the
update process, a Public Report was distributed to describe the changes in military use,
environmental conditions, and public access opportunities that have occurred since the 2012 INRMP
update. The report also provides an account of the resource management and public involvement
activities that have transpired during the same period. This updated INRMP includes information
based on the comments received on the Public Report and responses to those comments. The next
review and update of the BMGR INRMP is currently scheduled for 2023. A Public Report chronicling
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

9-136

Chapter 9

INRMP IMPLEMENTATION, UPDATE, AND REVISION PROCESS

changes at BMGR during each five-year review cycle will be issued concurrent with each subsequent
revision.
If warranted, proposed management decisions regarding INRMP amendments and changes to
management practices will be reviewed under the auspices of NEPA before being implemented. For
this current INRMP update, no changes have been identified that warrant the preparation of a NEPA
document.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

9-137

CHAPTER 10 ANNUAL WORK PLANS

In this 2018 update of the INRMP, the USAF and USMC have developed lists of actions planned for
implementation during the next five years. The 17 management elements (see Chapter 7) are listed
below and referenced by number in the left column of Tables 10.1 and 10.2.
1. Resource inventory and monitoring
2. Special natural/interest areas

3. Motorized access and non-roaded area management
4. Camping and visitor stay limits

5. Recreation services and use supervision
6. Rock hounding

7. Wood cutting, gathering, and firewood use; and collection of native plants
8. Hunting

9. Recreational (target) shooting

10. Utility/transportation corridors

11. General vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and wildlife water
12. Special status species

13. Soil and water resources

14. Air resources

15. Visual resources

16. Wildfire management

17. Perimeter land use, encroachment, and regional planning

See Appendix A for the status of action items, listed by management element, proposed in the 2012–
2017 INRMP for BMGR East and West.
The 17 management elements have been categorized into five general types of actions.

1. Resource management—includes continuing the implementation of the natural resources
inventory and monitoring plans

2. Motorized access—includes some modifications of the existing road network to better
meet management needs that have been identified in the past five years, as described in
Chapter 4, and continuing programs to direct the public to use roads remaining open to
public access
3. Public use—includes several management elements for providing recreational
opportunities while protecting resources

4. Manage realty—includes addressing the public utility and transportation corridors that
pass through the range, and managing new right-of-way requests

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

10-138

Chapter 10

ANNUAL WORK PLANS

5. Perimeter land use—involves monitoring land uses beyond the range to prevent
encroachment, and working with other agencies in regional planning

In some cases, the USAF and USMC propose the same or similar processes and may work together for
range-wide applications. In other cases, the issues associated with the BMGR East and West, will
differ. Several projects will require an interagency effort in which the DoD will work with the partner
agencies involved in the INRMP or other agencies, as appropriate.

Tables 10.1 and 10.2 provide the USAF and USMC actions plans. Each table includes the 17
management elements being addressed (see Chapter 7), as well as the funding year, action frequency,
and the partners likely to be involved. Before proposed action steps, priorities, funding requirements,
or other factors for the next five years are finalized, range managers will consider the public input,
consultations with Native Americans, and any additional partner agency feedback. These lists will be
reviewed annually to evaluate progress completed and to adapt the lists, when appropriate, to
address emerging issues, changing priorities, availability of funds, or other issues.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

10-139

Chapter 10

ANNUAL WORK PLANS

10.1 Annual Implementation

Table 10.1: BMGR East 5-Year Action Plan FY 2019–2023.
Element1

Action Step2

Resource Management
1, 11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Monitor and control invasive species

Monitor vegetation plots in several plant
communities
Desert tortoise surveys

INRMP BMGR East 5-Year Work Plan: FY 2019–2023
Fiscal
Year3

Funding4

Frequency5

Partners6

Annual

$50,000

Annual

In-house,
Interagency,
University

1&5

$50,000

Every 5 years

AGFD

$35,000

Varies

Annual

Raptor management surveys and
monitoring

Annual

Support AGFD surveys for gamebirds

Annual

Bird surveys

Support AGFD surveys for game ungulates
Collaborate with AGFD to identify and
maintain important wildlife connectivity
corridors
Kit fox population monitoring

Bat surveys; evaluate, monitor and protect
important bat roosts

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl survey (low
priority)
Weather stations and rain gauges

Monitor use of wildlife watering sites

Medium and low priority actions as resources
allow
Vegetation mapping

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1&2

Varies

Annual
1&4

$60,000
$15,000

Varies by
species

$5,000

Every 3 years

$5,000

Every 2 years

$$-

$50,000

Annual

$19,000

Annual

$10,000

Annual

3&5

Annual

$-

Annual

1, 3, & 5

Annual

$15,000

$25,000

Annual
Annual

In-house,
Contractors,
Interagency

In-house, AGFD
In-house, AGFD
AGFD
AGFD
AGFD

In-house

Annual

In-house, AGFD

Annual

In-house

In-house

Annual

In-house, AGFD

Annual

In-house,
Interagency,
University

Varies

TBD

Comments

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

FY 2022

FY 2023

Ongoing monitoring occurs while driving range roads,
control measures performed when necessary and
appropriate.

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

Survey new areas and or re-survey known occupied and
suitable habitat identified during previous surveys.

$50.000

Each plot is assessed at 5-year intervals.

Support bald eagle nest watch, golden eagle surveys, raptor
surveys, assess potential for powerline electrocution, etc.

New protocol by Arizona Bird Conservation Initiative; survey
3 consecutive years, pause 5 to 10 years, repeat.

$10,000
$15,000

$10,000
$15,000

Support and participate in surveys performed by AGFD.
Support and participate in surveys performed by AGFD.

Collaborate with AGFD to identify and maintain important
wildlife connectivity corridors.

Continuation of population monitoring using scent stations.
Various survey techniques: acoustic monitoring, mist
netting, roost assessments, guano sampling, etc.

$5,000

$10,000
$15,000
$35,000

$10,000
$15,000
$35,000

$5,000

$10,000
$50,000
$15,000
$35,000

$25,000

$25,000

$25,000

$25,000

$25,000

Operate 12 existing remote-access stations, plus 15 rain
gauges at specific study locations.

$19,000

$19,000

$19,000

$19,000

$19,000

Some lower-priority actions may be completed based on
adaptive management concerns or availability of resources.

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

Low priority: none detected on BMGR East during repeated
surveys over past 20 years; marginal habitat.

Continuation of program using wildlife cameras to record
usage during summer months; evaluate resulting thousands
of photographs to build database of species, abundance,
location, etc.

Continuation of vegetation mapping project being performed
by UA; uses standardized method in use by regional land
managers.

$3,000

$15,000

$15,000

$3,000

$15,000

$25,000

$15,000

$3,000

$15,000

$25,000
10-140

Chapter 10

ANNUAL WORK PLANS

INRMP BMGR East 5-Year Work Plan: FY 2019–2023
Element1
1
1
1
2

11
11
11
11
12
13
13

13
14
16

Action Step2
Acuña cactus monitoring

Support special studies to address specific
management issues, such as invasive
species, species of concern, climate change,
etc.
Implement cultural resource survey and
monitoring requirements for INRMPrelated actions

Fiscal
Year3

Annual
Annual

Funding4

Frequency5

$50,000

Annual

Varies

2, 5

$150,000

Habitat restoration*

As
needed

$25,000

Develop and implement procedures to
control trespass livestock

Annual

Identify and evaluate other possible Special
Natural/Interest Areas
Evaluate benefits and adverse effects of
wildlife watering sites

3

Annual

Allow for the maintenance and repair of
existing water developments*

As
needed

Evaluate erosion conditions of range roads;
repair or temporarily restrict use*

Annual

Participate and implement actions per the
Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan

Evaluate erosion problems in specific areas,
develop recommendation plans for repair
Monitor water table levels

Control excessive fugitive dust at permitted
construction sites and recreation activity
areas
Complete and implement fire management
plan

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

$20,000
$35,000
$55,000

Annual
Annual

One time
Annual
Annual
Varies

TBD

Reoccurs as
needed

$-

Annual

$150,000

One time

As
required

$-

TBD

Annual

$-

In-house,
Contractors

Continue surveys along roadways and nearby potential
cultural sites in Area B, including recording of camp sites;
use resulting information to assess potential adverse effects
from INRMP-related activities including motorized access
and public use.

In-house,
Interagency,
University

In-house
In-house

In-house,
Interagency,
University
In-house
AGFD

Interagency,
University
Contractor

3

$-

Continuation of Acuña Cactus monitoring, distribution
surveys, habitat modeling, etc.

Interagency

$220,000

Annual

One time

Comments

In-house,
AGFD,
Contractor

Recurring
actions

Annual

Annual

Partners6

In-house,
Contractor
In-house
In-house
In-house

Supports research proposals developed by universities,
AGFD, USGS, or others that address various issues of
concern.

Bender Spring and Paradise Well are candidate areas; also
contemplating a nature trail in Crater Range.
Active and passive restoration of degraded areas

Perform a holistic review based on previous studies at BMGR
and relevant literature, continue water-quality monitoring
and develop recommendations for management.
Address burgeoning trespass livestock population.

Support AGFD annual maintenance of all waters and
redevelopment as required.

Pronghorn recovery actions as stipulated in the Biological
Opinion, recovery plan, or as determined by the interagency
Recovery Team.
Annual driving inspection of the most heavily used range
roads; secondary and tertiary roads driven at least every 3
years; continue drag road monitoring at 10 sites.
Road maintenance practices in many areas are nonsustainable.
Performed by range operations contractor.

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

FY 2022

FY 2023

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$19,000

$27,000
$150,000

$25,000

$25,000

$5,000

$5,000

$35,000

$220,000

$35,000

$220,000

$34,000

$20,000

$37,000

$19,000

$150,000

$25,000

$25,000

$25,000

$5,000

$5,000

$5,000

$35,000

$220,000

$35,000

$220,000

$35,000

$220,000

$150,000

Performed by range operations contractor as part of
recurring maintenance work.

Assess fire risk, implement campfire restrictions as
appropriate; maintain firefighting agreement with BLM.

10-141

Chapter 10

ANNUAL WORK PLANS

INRMP BMGR East 5-Year Work Plan: FY 2019–2023
Element1

Action Step2

Motorized Access
3

Close selected roads to public access where
an agency mission or resource protection
issues conflict with public use

4

Assess benefits and effects of establishing
designated camping areas and implement a
decision based on the findings

5

Public outreach

Public Use

5

Revise public visitation maps and rules for
public education and recreation use; would
inform the public about road restrictions
and resource sensitivities

Fiscal
Year3

Funding4

Frequency5

Partners6

Comments
Access restrictions may be imposed due to evolving
weapons-safety footprints, natural or cultural resource
protection, law enforcement concerns or other management
actions.

As
required

TBD

As required

In-house

Year 5

$-

One-time

In-house

$5,000

Annual

Annual
Annual

$3,000

Annual

In-house, USMC
In-house

5

Public Use Area Access Program

Annual

$7,000

Annual

Contractor

5

Law enforcement patrol

Annual

$-

Annual

AGFD

7

Monitor native wood supplies in high-use
areas; restrict wood collection if resource
conditions dictate

Year 1

5

Install signs, gates, and fences to support
road infrastructure and public access

Cooperate with Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT), BLM, BP, and utility
companies regarding proposed actions
within existing utility/transportation
corridors

Manage Realty Property
10
10

Coordinate with CE Real Property for
maintenance of utilities by responsible
agencies in the State Route 85 easement

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

$-

Reoccurs as
needed

Recurs every
5 years

In-house

Ongoing

$-

As required

ADOT, BLM, BP

Ongoing

$-

As required

In-house

Annual

$5,000

In-house

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

FY 2022

FY 2023

Annual revisions based on results of area monitoring, with
clarifications of rules printed on the reverse sides of the
maps.

$3,000

$3,000

$3,000

$3,000

$3,000

Continue using iSportsman for BMGR East public use area
access; compile recreation-use statistics, analyze patterns,
and identify heavily used areas, and monitor those areas to
identify any resource concerns; use vehicle traffic counters
to quantify intensity of use at general and specific areas.

$7,000

$7,000

$7,000

$7,000

$7,000

$5,000

$5,000

$5,000

$5,000

$5,000

Not enough information available to make an assessment;
existing camp sites are being recorded as part of cultural
resources surveys along road corridors.

Supports public awareness projects to educate base
personnel/public about BMGR cultural resources, natural
resources, historic preservation, and conservation activities.

First CLEO started October 2017; second officer scheduled to
arrive November of FY 2019; both CLEOs shall patrol BMGR
East and assist with resource protection.
Install and maintain signage at range entry points, along
perimeters, and at all road intersections.
Use completed cultural resources surveys in Area B to
identify high-use areas; assess in Year 1.

$5,000

$5,000

$5,000

$5,000

$5,000

Continue dialogue and partnership with proponent and
supporting action agencies.

Activities within the right-of-way include operation and
maintenance of overhead power lines, buried fiber optic
lines, and a Border Patrol checkpoint.

10-142

Chapter 10

ANNUAL WORK PLANS

INRMP BMGR East 5-Year Work Plan: FY 2019–2023
Element1

Action Step2

Perimeter Land Use
17
17

Participate in local and regional planning
and monitoring land use patterns

Monitor illegal immigration, trafficking, and
border-related law enforcement to
anticipate how BMGR resources may be
affected

Fiscal
Year3
As
required
Ongoing

INRMP Resource Management Element addressed.
Fulfill requirement of Resource Management Element.
3 Year of funding and completion of action.
4 Estimate of required funding amount to complete project.
5 How often action will occur.
6 Responsible parties for completing the action.
*May require further NEPA review and/or Section 106 consultation.
1
2

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Funding4

Frequency5

Partners6

$-

As required

$-

Annual

In-house,
Interagency
In-house,
Interagency

Comments

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

FY 2022

FY 2023

576,000

676,000

766,000

726,000

631,000

Participate in developing or reviewing environmental
assessments or impact statements, resource management
plans; serve as DoD clearinghouse for energy development
proposals in Arizona.

Continue informal coordination with law enforcement
authorities and gather anecdotal evidence of border-related
impacts.

BUDGET TOTALS BY YEAR ($)

10-143

Chapter 10

ANNUAL WORK PLANS

Table 10.2: BMGR West 5-Year Action Plan FY 2019–2023.
Element1

Action Step2

INRMP BMGR West 5-Year Work Plan: FY 2019–2023
Fiscal Year3

Funding4

Frequency5

Partners6

Resource Management
1, 12,

FTHL occupancy surveys

Annual

Varies

Annual

In-house,
Interagency

1, 11

Monitor and control invasive plant species

Annual

Varies

Annual

In-house,
Interagency

Every 5
years

In-house,
Interagency

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2

1, 12
13
11

Identify and monitor vegetation plots in
several plant communities
Reptile, small mammal, and amphibian
surveys and monitoring
General bird surveys

Surveys for game ungulates
Bat surveys

Maintain important wildlife connectivity
corridors at BMGR West

Install and maintain weather stations and
rain gauges

TBD

Varies

Every 5
years

TBD

Varies

Varies by
Species

Varies

Varies

TBD

In-kind

TBD

Varies

Annual

Identify and evaluate other possible Special
Natural, Interest Areas

Varies

Annual

Participate in and implement actions per the
Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan

Annual

Partner with the BP to identify and
implement habitat restoration

Varies

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Varies

Annual

Annual

Examine available engineering management
practice that can mitigate erosion

Annual

2018

Medium and low priority actions as resources
allow
Support special studies to address specific
management issues, such as invasive species,
species of concern, climate change, etc.

Varies

Varies

Varies
Varies

Annual
Varies
Varies

Annual

Varies

As needed

Varies

One-time

Varies
Varies

Annual

Annual

In-house

In-house,
Interagency
In-house,
Interagency
In-house,
Interagency
In-house,
Interagency
In-house
TBD

In-house,
Interagency
In-house

In-house,
Interagency
In-house,
Interagency
In-house,
Interagency

Comments
Support AGFD in conducting demographic and occupancy
surveys as outlined in the Rangewide Management Plan
developed by the FTHL Interagency Coordinating
Committee.
Each plot will be assessed at 5-year intervals.

Annual monitoring and control of invasive plant species is
on-going.

Establish a repeatable baseline monitoring methodology that
will capture the diversity of small mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians; develop potential distribution maps captured
wildlife; provide recommendations to monitoring efforts and
natural resource stewardship.
New protocol under development.

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

FY 2022

FY 2023

$76,500

$78,030

$79,591

$81,182

$82,806

$42,148

$43,458

$44,419

$45,307

$46,203

$94,817

$96,618

$98,453

$100,323

$200,000

Support and participate in surveys performed by AGFD.
Assist AGFD in conducting bat surveys at BMGR-West.

Collaborate with AGFD and partner agencies to identify and
maintain important wildlife connectivity corridors at BMGR
West.
Upgrade existing weather stations to wireless
communication with Luke AFB.

Some lower-priority actions may be completed based on
adaptive management concerns or availability of resources.
Supports research proposals developed by universities,
AGFD, USGS, or others that address various issues of
concern.

No special interest areas have been proposed since the 2007
INRMP.

Support Sonoran pronghorn recovery actions as stipulated
in the Biological Opinion, Recovery Plan, or as determined by
the interagency Recovery Team.
Evaluate possible engineering strategies and designs to
prioritize areas most erosion mitigation efforts.

Collaborate with local BP offices to implement maintenance
and repair best-management practices as outlined in CBP’s
2012 Environmental Assessment (Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S.
Border Patrol 2012).

$30,000

$93,050

10-144

Chapter 10

ANNUAL WORK PLANS

Table 10.2: BMGR West 5-Year Action Plan FY 2019–2023.
Element1
16
1
1
1
1

14
1

1, 11,
13,14 ,15
1, 11
1-17

Complete and subsequently implement fire
management plan
Action Step2

Range-wide soil map

Aerial imagery for range and base

Characterize anthropogenic impacts

Construct adaptive management strategies
for maintaining acceptable limits of change

INRMP BMGR West 5-Year Work Plan: FY 2019–2023
Fiscal Year3
One-time

Funding4

Years 1,2,3

Varies

Frequency5

Year 3

Varies
Varies

One-time

As needed

Year 3
TBD

Varies

One-time

As-needed

Varies

As Needed

In-house,
Interagency

Contract has been awarded and the fire plan is scheduled for
completion in 2018.

In-house,
Interagency

Use the best imagery, soil, precipitation, and vegetation data
available to map recent disturbances that will considerably
improve the series of erosion models.

Partners6

In-house,
Interagency
In-house,
Interagency
In-house,
Interagency

Control excessive fugitive dust at permitted
construction sites and recreation activity
areas

As-required

Support AGFD installation of up to six highpriority wildlife watering sites at BMGR

As Needed

In-kind

As Needed

As Needed

In-kind
TBD

As Needed

As Needed

In-house,
Interagency

Allow maintenance and development of
existing water sources supporting wildlife
Conduct habitat restoration efforts for
damaged areas

Maintain an adequately trained staff to
accomplish conservation goals and objectives

As Needed
As Needed

Varies
Varies

As
Required

As Needed

In-house

Interagency
In-house

In-house

1, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 11

Develop a plan for determining the limits-ofacceptable change for recreational, natural,
and cultural resources

TBD

Varies

As Needed

In-house,
Interagency

3

Evaluate site-specific proposals to assess the
need for and potential impacts of approving
additional roads for agency purposes

As Needed

TBD

As Needed

In-house

Motorized Access

3

3, 5

Close selected roads to public access where
an agency mission or resource protection
issues conflict with public use
Install signs, gates, and fences to support
road infrastructure and public access

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

TBD

As Needed

Varies
TBD

As Needed
As Needed

In-house,
Interagency
In-house

Comments

Soil map is being developed.

Imagery will be collected via piloted and/or autonomous
aircraft and/or satellites.

FY 2019

$15,682

FY 2020

$150,000

FY 2021

FY 2022

FY 2023

$21,684

$22,081

$125,000

Consider existing baseline survey data and regional
concerns to determine the need for the implementing of
adaptive management strategies.
Control fugitive dust as required through NEPA.

Continue to work with AGFD to monitor and maintain
existing network.

Continue active and passive restoration of degraded areas.
Determine as needed and as funding is available.

Ensure that sufficient numbers of professionally and
adequately trained natural resource management personnel
and conservation law enforcement personnel are available
and assigned responsibility to manage their installations’
natural resources.

$20,400

$20,808

$21,224

Use baseline survey data to determine the degree of change
and develop a plan appropriate to the findings.
Determine as needed and as funding is available.
Determine as needed.

Install signs as needed to identify restricted areas, range
boundaries, range entry points, along perimeters, road
intersections, and ground support areas.

10-145

Chapter 10

ANNUAL WORK PLANS

Table 10.2: BMGR West 5-Year Action Plan FY 2019–2023.

INRMP BMGR West 5-Year Work Plan: FY 2019–2023

Element1

Action Step2

Fiscal Year3

Funding4

Frequency5

Partners6

Public Use

Maintain the recreational use database to
determine public use, roads, and compliance
in support of natural resource management
actions

Annual

Varies

Annual

In-house

Permits office maintains records of range permits issued
monthly.

A surplus of the 2008 BMGR West informational
brochure/map is available through the permitting office or
Range Management Department; the brochure/map outlines
public use rules and open/closed areas; publication of a
revised map will be completed when existing sources are
exhausted.

4, 5
4
5

Assess benefits and effects of establishing
designated camping areas for adaptive
management of public use areas
Revise and maintain visitor map

TBD

Varies

As Needed

TBD

Varies

As Needed

In-house

Annual

Varies

Annual

In-house

Annual

In-kind

As Needed
As Needed

5

Retain a minimum of four full-time CLEO
positions

Annual

5

Compile recreation-use statistics, analyze
patterns, ascertain where use is heavy to
identify areas of resource concern

Annual

5

8

Public outreach

Evaluate the effects of non-game species
collection on wildlife, habitat, and other
resources; limit or restrict collection
activities within the authority of state law

TBD
TBD

Annual
Annual

10, 17

Monitor illegal immigration, trafficking, and
border-related law enforcement to anticipate
how BMGR resources may be affected

Perimeter Land Use
17

1 INRMP

Resource Management Element addressed
2 Fulfill requirement of Resource Management Element
3 Year of funding and completion of action
4 Estimate of required funding amount to complete project
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

In-house
In-house

Annual

In-house,
Interagency

Varies

As Needed

Interagency

Varies

As Needed

In-house,
Interagency

Manage Realty Property

Cooperate with ADOT, BP, and utility
companies regarding proposed actions within
existing utility/transportation corridors

In-house

Comments

Continue to collect information from visitor passes and CLEO
records/observations/corrective actions to determine the
possible impacts created from public use.

Four full-time Conservation Law Enforcement Officers have
been filled.

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

FY 2022

FY 2023

$3,000

$3,000

$3,000

$3,000

$3,000

630,780

240,113

369,852

249,626

254,413

Support public awareness efforts to educate MCAS Yuma
employees and the Public concerning natural and cultural
resources, historic preservation, and conservation activities.
This is on-going and closely monitored.

Determine as needed and as funding is available.

Continue an open dialogue with partnering agencies at BEC
and IEC meetings; the RMD works in cooperation with the
BEC, ICC, MOG, Pronghorn recovery Team, and local, state,
and federal governments to revise and improve
management actions and policies.

Continue coordinating with law enforcement authorities and
sharing of anecdotal evidence of border-related impacts.

BUDGET TOTALS BY YEAR ($)

How often action will occur
Responsible parties for completing the action
*May require further NEPA review and/or Section 106 consultation

5
6

10-146

CITED REFERENCES

32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). National Defense, 1 March 2018. Available at http://federal.
elaws.us/cfr/title32.
43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 43 CFR Part 4100, Subpart 4150. Unauthroized Grazing Use.
Available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/43/part-4100/subpart-4150.
50.13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). List of Migratory Birds, 5 April 1985. Available at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2000-title50-vol1/pdf/CFR-2000-title50-vol1-sec
10-13.pdf.
5 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 551 et seq. Administrative Procedure Act Available at
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5/subchapter-II.
7 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 136 et seq. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996.
Available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/136.
8 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 1103. Aliens and Nationality. Available at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2010-title8/USCODE-2010-title8-chap12subchapI-sec1103.
10 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 807(7)(b). Uniform Code of Military Justice. Available at http://www.ucmj.us
/sub-chapter-2-apprehension-and-restraint/807-article-7-apprehension.

16 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 470. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Available at https://www
.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/NHPA.pdf.
16 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 668 et seq. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Ac of 1962, as amended in 2016
and corrected in 2017. Available at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=0e9b454f0
7025a0f6eb90e2ccfb5a636&mc=true&node=pt50.9.22&rgn=div5. Correction to final rule
available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/30/2017-18414/eaglepermits-revisions-to-regulations-for-eagle-incidental-take-and-take-of-eagle-nestscorrection.
16 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) §§ 668dd-668ee. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.
Available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/668dd.

16 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 670a et seq. The Sikes Act Improvement Act. Available at https://www.fws.
gov/fisheries/sikes_act/documents/DoD%20Sikes%20Act%20Guidance-8%20October.pdf.
16 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 1131 et seq.. Wilderness Act of 1964. Available at https://wilderness.nps.
gov/RM41/2_Authority/1964_WildernessAct16_USC_1131_1136.pdf.
16 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) §§ 1331-1340. Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as amended
by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Available at https://www.law
.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/chapter-30.
16 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 1531 et seq. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as ameded in 1988). Available
at http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title16/chapter35&edition=prelim.
16 U.S.Code (U.S.C.) § 4321 et seq. National Energy Policy Act (NEPA).
18 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 13. Assimilative Crimes Act of 1948. Available at https://www.law.cornell.
edu/uscode/text/18/13.
31 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 1341. Limitations On Expending and Obligating Amounts (Anti-Deficiency
Act).
33 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 1251 et seq. Clean Water Act. Available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/
uscode/text/33/1251.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

147

CITED REFERENCES

42 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) §§ 4321–4370h. 1992. National Environmental Policy Act, as amended through
1992. Available at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/nepa_statute.pdf.
56th Fighter Wing (56 FW). 2013. Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Reduction Plan, 56
FW OPLAN 91-2. Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
56th Range Management Office (56 RMO). 2007. Inventory and Monitoring Plan, Barry M.
Goldwater Range East. Environmental Science Management, 56 RMO, Luke Air Force Base,
Arizona.
56th Range Management Office (56 RMO). 2009. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan,
Barry M. Goldwater Range. 56 RMO, Luke Air Force Base, Air Education and Training
Command, Arizona.
56th Range Management Office (56 RMO). 2012. Environmental Assessment: Proposed Sahara
Mustard Control on the Barry M. Goldwater Range—East. 56th Fighter Wing, Range
Management Office, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. Available at
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a604140.pdf.
56th Range Management Office (56 RMO). 2014. Draft Wildland Fire Management Plan, Barry M.
Goldwater Range East. Environmental Science Management, 56 RMO, Luke Air Force Base,
Arizona.
Abbate, D. 2017. Acuña cactus surveys on the Barry M. Goldwater Range East 2016-1. Prepared for
Luke Air Force Base by Arizona Game and Fish Department and Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, 2009. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters. Unofficial Copy
of Final Rules, Title 18, Ch. 11, Article 1.
Arizona Administrative Code 3-4-244. Regulated and Restricted Noxious Weeds. Title 3, Chapter 4,
R3-4-244. Available at https://agriculture.az.gov/sites/default/files/Arizona%20Admini
strative%20Code-%20Title%203%2C%20Chapter%204%2C%20Article%202%20%20AZ%20Dept%20of%20Ag.pdf.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Title 18(II)(I), Department of Environmental
Quality Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters. Available at http://legacy.azdeq.gov
/environ/water/standards/download/SWQ_Standards-1-09-unofficial.pdf.
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2017a. Inside AGFD. Available at
https://www.azgfd.com/Agency/Overview/.
Arizona Game and Fish Department/Hunting (AGFD). 2017b. Available at https://www.azgfd.com
/Hunting/Units/.
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 3-1402. Holding and Sale of Stray Animals; Reposssesion Before
and After Sale; Nonliability of State. Available at https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/
?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/3/01402.htm.
Arizona Revised Statutes 17-3-201A. Game and fish department and game and fish commission
members; appointment; removal; meetings. Available at https://www.azleg.gov/view
document/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/17/00201.htm.
Arizona Revised Statutes 17-211E. Director; Selection; Removal; Powers and Duties; Employees.
Available at https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars
/17/00211.htm.
Arizona Revised Statutes 17-231B.7. General Powers and Duties of the Commission. Available at
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/17/00231.
htm.
Arizona Revised Statutes 17-310. Agreement to Appear in Court. Available at https://www.
azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/17/00310.htm.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-148

CITED REFERENCES

Arizona-Sonora Desert Mueseum. 2017. Sonoran Desert region. Available at https://www
.desertmuseum.org/desert/sonora.php.
Atkinson, J. 2012. Personal conversation between Jim Atkinson, USFWS, Sonoran Pronghorn
Recovery Coordinator and Lynn Bowdidge, URS. 26 March 2012.
Bagne, K.E., and D.M. Finch. 2012 Vulnerability of Species to Climate Change in the Southwest:
Threatened, Endangered, and At-Risk Species at the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona
Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-284. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 139 p.
Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) Task Force. 2005. Barry M. Goldwater Range: Military Training
and Protection of Endangered Species, A Report of the Congressionally Appointed Task
Force. 7 March 2005.
Black, C. 2015. Climate Monitoring Data: A Toll to Inform Land Management on the Barry M.
Goldwater Range East and the Wider Region. Duan, Jennifer G., Yu, Chunshui., Potueck,
Michael., Zhou, Kang. 2017. Watershed Erosion and Sedimentation Assessment of BMGR
West, Annual Progress Report.
Bor, N.L. 1968. Schismus. In: Townsend, C.C., E. Guest, and A. Al-Rawi. Flora of Iraq, vol. 9. Ministry
of Agriculture of the Republic of Iraq. Baghdad, Iraq.
Bossard, C.C., Randall, J.M., and Hoshovsky, M.C. 2000. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands.
University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.
Brooks, M.L. and B.M. Lair. 2009. Ecological effects of vehicular routes in a desert ecosystem. In
Webb, R.H., The Mojave Desert Ecosystem Processes and Sustainability. University of
Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada.
Burgess, T.L., J.E. Bowers, and R.M. Turner. 1991. Exotic Plants at the Desert Laboratory, Tucson,
Arizona. Madroño. 38:96-114.
Burrows, G.E. and R.S. Shaik. 2015. Comparative Developmental Anatomy of the Taproot of the
Cucurbitaceous Vines Citrullus colocynthis (perennial), Citrullus lanatus (annual) and
Cucumis myriocarpus (annual). Australian Journal of Botany 62: 537–45.
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2006. Cal-IPC News, vol. 14, no. 3. California Invasive
Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available at http://www.cal-ipc.org/newsletter/fall2006-pdf/.
Cox, J.R., M.H. Martin, F.A. Ibarra, J.H. Fourie, J.F.G. Rethman, and D.G. Wilcox. 1988. The Influence of
Climate and Soils on the Distribution of four African grasses. Journal of Range Management,
41(2), 127-139.
Cuddihy, L.W., C.P. Stone, and J.T. Tunison. 1988. Alien Plants and Their Management in Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society. 24:4246.
Damery-Weston, J. 2016. Buffelgrass Expansion Rate and Dispersal Type on Recently Invaded Barry
M. Goldwater Range of Southwestern Arizona. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona. 23 pp.
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Border Patrol.
2012. Environmental Assessment Addressing Proposed Tactical Infrastructure Maintenance
and Repair Along the U.S./Mexico international border in Arizona. Available at
https://nemo.cbp.gov/sbi/az_timr_final_ea.pdf.
Duan, J., Y. Chunshui, M. Potueck, and Z. Kang. 2017. Watershed Erosion and Sedimentation
Assessment of BMGR West Annual Progress Report. University of Arizona.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-149

CITED REFERENCES

Executive Order (EO) 11987. 1977. Presidential EO 11987 of 24 May 24 1977, Exotic Organisms.
Available at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order
/11987.html.
Executive Order (EO) 13186. 2001. Presidential EO 13186 of 10 January 2001, Responsibilities of
Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg
/FR-2001-01-17/pdf/01-1387.pdf.
Executive Order (EO) 13693. 2015. Presidential EO 13693 of 19 March 24 2015, Planning for
Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade. Available at https://www.fedcenter.gov/
programs/eo13693/.
Executive Order (EO) 1375. 2016. Presidential EO 13751 of 5 December 2016, Safeguarding the
Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2016/12/08/2016-29519/safeguarding-the-nation-from-the-impacts-ofinvasive-species . Accessed 31 August 2017.
Federal Register (FR). 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald
Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Vol. 72,
No. 150. July 9.
Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee. 2003. Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard
Rangewide Management Strategy, 2003 Revision.—An Arizona-California Conservation
Strategy. Available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Species
Docs/FTHL/RMS%20-%20Final%202003.pdf.
Fox, Sheri. 2017. Personal conversation between Sheri Fox, Wildlife Biologist with Barry M.
Goldwater Range, and Jennie Anderson, Project Manager, Center for Environmental
Management of Military Lands, 7 August 2017.
Geiger, E.L. and G.R. McPherson. 2005. No Positive Feedback between Fire and a Nonnative
Perennial Grass, in Gottfried, G.J., Gebow, B.S., Eskew, L.G., and Edminster, C.B., compilers.
Proceedings in Connecting Mountain Islands and Desert Seas: Biodiversity and Management
of the Madrean Archipelago II, 2004 May 11–15, Tucson, AZ. RMRS-P-36, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO 465–468.
Gila Bend. 2017. General Plan 2026: Developing a Brighter Future. Available at http://www
.gilabendaz.org/DocumentCenter/View/462.
Goode, M. and M.R. Parker. 2015. Evaluation of Potential Impacts of the Joint Strike fighter Program
on the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard at MCAS-Yuma, Barry M. Goldwater Range. School of
Natural Resources & Environment—University of Arizona.
Grandmaison, D.D., H.A. Hoffman, and D.J. Leavitt. 2012. Morafka’s Desert Tortoise (Gopherus
morafkai) Home Range Size and Influence of Off-Road Traffic on Desert Tortoise Activity
Patterns on the Barry M. Goldwater Range East and the Sonoran Desert National monument.
Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik , C. Burch Johnson , and D.S. Turner. 2014. Ecoregions of Arizona. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey Report 2014-1141 (poster). Available at
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20141141.
Grimsley, A.A., and D. J. Leavitt. 2015. Flat-tailed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) Demographic
and Occupancy Monitoring within the Yuma Desert Management Area: 2014 Progress
Report. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Contracts Branch, Phoenix, Arizona.
Hammer, R. 1996. Fountain grass: turn off the spigot! Newsletter of the Florida Exotic Pest
Plant Council. 6:1.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-150

CITED REFERENCES

Haddal, C.C., K. Yuel, and M.J. Garcia. 2009. Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International
Border. Congressional Research Service 7-5700, RL33659, pp. 7 and 45. Available at
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33659.pdf.
International Organization for Standards (ISO). 2015. ISO 14001:2015, Environmental Management
Sysytems—A Practical Guide. Available at https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files
/store/en/iso_14001_guide_preview.pdf.
Jackson, L.E. 1985. Ecological origins of California’s Mediterranean Grasses. Journal of
Biogeography. 12: 349-61.
Klawon, J.E., and P.A. Pearthree. 2001. Surficial Geology and Geomorphology of the Western Crater
Range, Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range, southwestern Arizona. Arizona Geological
Survey Open-File Report 01-03, Tucson, AZ.
LeRoy, S. 2015. Pima County, Pima Prospers Comprehensive Plan Initiative. A report by the
Southwest Climate Alliance, Island Press, Washington, DC. Prepared by The Planning Center.
Available at http://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government
/Pima%20Prospers/Official%20Plan/Official%20with%20revisions/Final%20Policy%20D
ocument.pdf.
Li, M. and J. Malusa. 2014. Characterizing and Modeling Sahara Mustard on the Barry M. Goldwater
Range, Arizona. Final Report Submitted May, 2014 to Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma,
Arizona. University of Arizona: Cooperative Agreement W9126G-11-0065.
Li, M. 2016. Biodiversity in a Dynamic World: How Environmental Variability Influences
Coexistence between introduced and Native Species. Dissertation, University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona. 180 pp.
Luke Air Force Base. 2015. Luke AFB Pest Management, Integrated Pest Management Plan. Luke
AFB, Arizona.
Malusa, J. 2003. Vegetation of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge: Vegetation Classification
for the Endangered Sonoran Pronghorn. Report for Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
National Park Service. NPS Cooperative Agreement CA1248.00.002, Task Agreement UA271. Available at: http://sdrsnet.srnr.arizona.edu.
Malusa, J. 2010. Vegetation Mapping at the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Marine Corps Air Station,
Arizona. Phase 2: Mohawk Valley. School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona:
Cooperative Agreement DACA87-05-H-0018, Modification P00012.
Malusa, J. 2012. Vegetation Mapping at the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Marine Corps Air Station,
Arizona. Phase 3: Copper Mountains, Baker Peaks, Wellton Hills, and Northern Lechuguilla
Valley. Annual report submitted to MCAS, Yuma, in compliance with Cooperative Agreement
DACA87-05-H-0018, Modification P00012.
Malusa, J. 2015. Mapping the Vegetation of the Barry M. Goldwater Range. Arizona Native Plant
Society. Volume 38, Number 1.
Malusa, J., and P. Sundt. 2015. Vegetation Mapping at the Barry M. Goldwater Range West, Marine
Corps Air Station—Yuma, Arizona. School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona:
Cooperative Agreement DACA87-05-H-0018.
McDonald, C. J., and G.R. McPherson. 2011. Fire Behavior Characteristics of Buffelgrass-Fueled Fires
and Native Plant Community Composition in Invaded Patches. Journal of Arid
Environments, 75(11), 1147-1154.
McLaughlin, S.P, S.E. Marsh, and S.E. Drake 2007. Mapping of Sonoran Pronghorn Habitat on the Air
Force Portion of the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona. Report submitted to the 56
RMO/ESM, United States Air Force.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-151

CITED REFERENCES

Mixan, R., J. Diamond, J., and R.N. Gwinn. 2016. An Evaluation of Spatial and Temporal Bat Habitat
Use Patterns at the Barry M. Goldwater Range East in southwestern Arizona.
Morris, G., C. Kline, and S. Morris. 2015. Status of Danaus plexippus population in Arizona. Journal of
the Lepidopterists’ Society 69(2):91–107.
Nabhan, G.P. 2000. Interspecific Relationships Affecting Endangered Species Recognized by
O’odham and Comcáac Cultures. Ecological Applications, Volume 10, No 5, pp. 1288-1295.
Ecological Society of America.
National Park Service. 2016. Sonoran Desert Ecosystem. Available at https://science.nature.nps
.gov/im/units/sodn/sonoran.cfm.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. Soil Survey Database SSURGO. United States
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. Web
Soil Survey. Available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey
/geo/?cid=nrcs142p2_053627. Accessed 2012.
Neal, J.C., and A.F. Senesac. 1991. Preemergence herbicide safety in Container-Grown Ornamental
Grass. HortScience 26:157–158.
Nichol, A. 1937. The Natural Vegetation of Arizona. Technical Bulletin no. 68, Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Available at
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/190522/3/TB068-1937.pdf.
Osmer, E, J.S. Fehmi, and P. Guertin. 2009. Vegetation Mapping of Sonoran Desert Communities on
the Barry M. Goldwater Range—East (BMGR-East), Arizona. Report submitted to the 56
RMO/ESM, U.S. Air Force. Cooperative Agreement DACA 87-05-H-0018, Task Agreement No.
1.
Overpeck, J., G. Garfin, A. Jardine, D.E. Busch, D. Cayan, M. Dettinger, E. Fleishman, A. Gershunov, G.
MacDonald, K.T. Redmond, W.R. Travis, and B. Udall. 2013. Summary for Decision-Makers,
in Garfin, G., A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. Leroy. An Assessment of Climate
Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate
Assessment.
Piorkowski, M.D., Sturla, D.P., Mixan, R., Diamond, J.M. and Swinn, R.N. 2014. Development and
Utilization of a Landscape Scale GIS Model to Identify Potential Bat Habitat Features in the
Desert Southwest: Identification and Status of Sensitive Bat Habitat Resources.
Piorkowski, M.D., D.P. Sturla, J.M. Diamond, and M.F. Ingraldi. 2015. Status and Distribution
Modeling of Golden Eagles on Southwestern Military Installations and Overflight Areas:
Assessing “Take” for this Sensitive Species at Risk—Year 2. Installation Partners of
Department of Defense Legacy Program Project #13-631.
Public Law (P.L.) 85-337. Defense Withdrawal Act of 1958. Available at http://uscode.house
.gov/statutes/pl/85/337.pdf.
Public Law (P.L.) 99-606. Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986. Available at https://www.gpo.gov
/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg3457.pdf.
Public Law (P.L.) 104-208. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ocomm/ilink/0-0-0-10948.html.
Public Law (P.L.) 106-65. 1999. National Defence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L.
106-65, § 3031(b)(3)(E)(ix). U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, D.C.
Rasmussen, C., and N. Regmi. 2015. Predictive Soil Mapping on Barry M. Goldwater Range-West.
USACE Cooperative Agreement # W9126G-14-2-0032 Final Report. The University of
Arizona, Department of Soil Water and Environmental Science.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-152

CITED REFERENCES

Robbins, W.W. 1940. Alien Plants Growing without Cultivation in California. Bulletin of the
California Agricultural Experiment Station. 637:1-128.
Rosenburg, A. 2015. The Barry M. Goldwater Range. Arizona Native Plant Society. Volume 38,
Number 1.
Schmid, M., and G.F. Rogers. 1988. Trends in Fire Occurrence in the Arizona Upland Subdivision of
the Sonoran Desert, 1955 to 1983. The Southwestern Naturalist 33(4): 437-444.
Shaik R.S., D. Gopurenko, N.A.R. Urwin, G.E. Burrows, B.J. Lepschi, and L.A. Weston. 2015. Population
Genetics of Invasive Citrullus lanatus, Citrullus colocynthis and Cucumis myriocarpus
(Cucurbitaceae) in Australia: Inferences Based on Chloroplast and Nuclear Gene
Sequencing. Biological Invasions 17, 2475–2490.
Shepherd, A.S. 2011. Mapping of Sonoran Desert Vegetation Communities and Spatial Distribution
Differences of Larrea tridentata Seed Density in Relation to Ambrosia dumosa and Ambrosia
deltoidea, San Cristobal Valley, Arizona. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
92 pp.
Swearingen, J.M. 2008. Survey of Invasive Plants Impacting National Parks in United States.
National Park Service, Center for Urban Ecology, Washington, DC 20007.
Tagg, M.D., and K.L. Blake. 2012. Area B Roads—Intensive Archeological Survey of 62.5 Miles (2,516
Acres) in the Sauceda Mountains. Barry M. Goldwater Range East, Arizona. Barry M.
Goldwater Range East Cultural Resource Management Program, Cultural Resource Studies
in the Western Papagueria 21.
Tohono O'odham Nation. 2016. Districts. Available at http://www.tonation-nsn.gov/districts/.
Tunison, J.T. 1992. Fountain Grass Control in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park: Management
Considerations and Strategies. In Stone, C.P., C.W. Smith, and J.T. Tunison (eds.). Alien Plant
Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawaii: Management and Research, 1986. Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park. Distributed by University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI.
Tunista Services, LLC and Chiulista Services, Inc. 2012–2016. Sonoran Pronghorn Monitoring on the
Barry M. Goldwater Range-East Annual Reports. Annual reports submitted to the 56th
Range Management Office, Luke Air Force Base.
Urreiztieta, L.F. 2013. Barry M. Goldwater Range East—Acuña Cactus 2012/2013 Survey Report.
Harris Environmental Group, Inc.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1994a. Air Force Policy Directive 32-70, 20 July 1994. Environmental Quality.
Available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4_7/publication/afpd3270/afpd32-70.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1994b. Air Force Instruction 32-7064, Integrated Natural Resources
Management. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a329388.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2007. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-10112 of 19 October 2007, Installation
Geospatial Information and Services. Available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil
/production/1/af_a4_7/publication/afi32-10112/afi32-10112.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2010. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Barry M.
Goldwater Range East Range Enhancements, 56th Fighter Wing, Range Management Office,
Luke Air Force Base. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a624761.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2014. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-1053 of 20 November 2014, Integrated
Pest Management Program. Available at https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/AF/AFI/afi_32_1053
.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2015a. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 13-212, Volume 1, Nuclear, Space, Missile,
Command and Control Operations, Range Planning and Operations. Available at
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-153

CITED REFERENCES

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3/publication/afi13-212v1/afi13212v1.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2015b. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 90-2002, Air Force Interactions with
Federally-Recognized Tribes. Available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1
/saf_ie/publication/afi90-2002/afi90-2002.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2016. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7065, with change 1, of 6 October 2016.
Cultural Resources Management. Available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1
/af_a4/publication/afi32-7065/afi32-7065.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2017a. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7001. Air Force Guidance
Memorandum to AFI 32-7001, Environmental Management. Available at http://static.epublishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/afi32-7001/afi32-7001.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2017b. USAF Manual 33-363, Communications and Information, of 23 May
2017. Available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/publication
/afman33-326/afman33-326.pdf.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2015
Cooperative Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Arizona
Game and Fish Department to Collect, Analyze, and Apply Environmental and Cultural
Resource Data and Implement Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance for Optimal
Management of Lands Under Control of the DoD, Retrieved August 8th from the Air Force.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2000. Barry M. Goldwater Range Non-Renewed Parcels
Study. Bureau of Land Management Phoenix Field Office.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Air Force (USAF) 56th Fighter Wing. 2017.
Memorandum of Understanding between the DOI BLM Phoenix District Office and the USAF
56th Fighter Wing, Luke AFB for fire suppression assistance on the Barry M. Goldwater
Range East, 3 May 2017.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010–2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available at
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. QuickFact: Yuma County. Available at https://www.census.gov/
quickfacts/fact/table/yumacountyarizona/PST045217. Retrieved 7 August 2017.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 1996a. DoD Plan for the Certification of Pesticide Applicators.
U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., September 1996.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 1996b. Environmental security. DoD Directive 4715.1. Available
at https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf2/d47151p.pdf.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2002. Updated Guidance for Implementation of the Sikes Act
Improvement Act, 10 October 2002. Available at https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/sikes_act
/documents/DoD%20Sikes%20Act%20Guidance--8%20October.pdf.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2017a. Natural Resources Conservation Program. DoD
Instruction 4715.03 with change 1, 5 October 2017. Available at
http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/471503p.pdf.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2017b. Environmental Managment Program. DoD Directive
4715.17 with change 1, 16 November 2017. Available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/
54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/471517p.pdf?ver=2017-11-16-120744-843.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Memorandum
of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. July. Retrieved 13 April 2012 from
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-154

CITED REFERENCES

U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Partnerships
/DoDMOUfinalSignature.pdf.

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Update to the
2006 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. Available at
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/moudod.pdf.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2002. Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, 6 U.S. C.
§§ 101 et seq.). Available at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications
/hr_5005_enr.pdf.
U.S. Department of the Navy (USN). 2003. Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual,
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) Instruction 5090.1B, with changes 1–4.
Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. Available at
http://www.johnhammerstrom.com/Sustainable_Keys/Click_for_Blog_Page/Entries/2013/
11/3_Record_of_Decision_-_The_Fraud_Persists_files/OPNAVINST%205090.1B%20EA
%20procedures.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Biological Opinion, Effects of Proposed and Ongoing
Activities by Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma and on the Barry M Goldwater Range, Yuma
and Maricopa Counties, on Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana sonoriensis) and
Threatened Peirson’s Milkvetch (Astragalus magdalenae peirsonii), Consultation No. 2-2195-F-114R2. Available at
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin
/95114_R2_Activities_Marine_Pronghorn.PDF.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Migratory Birds Permits; Take of Migratory Birds by
Armed Forces. Federal Register 72(39):8931. Available at https://www.fws.gov/policy
/library/2007/E7-3443.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010a. Final Environmental Assessment for the
Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. Available at
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/SonoranPronghorn
/Sonoran_Pronghorn_Final_EA%2010.06.2010c.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010b. Biological Opinion, Effects on Sonoran Pronghorn,
Lesser Long-Nosed Bat, and Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard, Arizona Ecological Services Office –
Southeast Region 22410-1995-F-0114-R006. Available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest
/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/950114_R6_MCAS_F-35B.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Traditional Ecological Knowledge for Application by
Service Scientists. Available at https://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/pdf/tek-factsheet.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Native American Policy. Available at https://www.fws
.gov/nativeamerican/pdf/Policy-revised-2016.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlfie Service (USFWS). 2018. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Removal of the Lesser Long-Nosed Bat From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. Federal Register 83(75):17093. Available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest
/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/LLNB/LLNB_Delisting_Rule_FR_04-18-2018.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Interagency Desert Tortoise Team. 2015. Candidate
Conservation Agreement for the Sonoran Desert Tortoise (Gopherus morafkai) in Arizona.
Available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs
/SonoranTort/Final_SDT-CCA_201500527%20v2.%20all%20signatures.6.19.2015.pdf.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-155

CITED REFERENCES

U.S. Forest Service. 2014. Field Guide for Managing Buffelgrass in the Southwest. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Technical Report TP-R3-16-03.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2013–2016. Barry M. Goldwater Range East Annual Water Quality Report.
U.S. Geological Survey Arizona Water Science Center, Tucson, Arizona.
U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). 2004. Handbook for Preparing, Revising and Implementing Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plans on Marine Corps Installations. Available at
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/USMC%20SAIA%20Guidance%202004.
pdf?ver=2012-10-11-163505-090.
U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). 2006. NAVMC Directive 5210.11E, 15 May 2006. U.S. Depatment of the
Navy, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps. Available at http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59
/Publications/NAVMC%20DIR%205210.11E.PDF.
U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). 2013a. MCO 11000.25A, Installation Geospatial Information and
Services. Available at http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/MCO%2011000.25A.pdf.
U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). 2013b. MCO P5090.2A, Chapter 11, Natural Resources Management, in
Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual. U.S. Department of the Navy, Marine
Corps. Available at http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/MCO%20P5090.2A%20W%20CH
%201-3.pdf.
U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). 2013c. Marine Corps Air Station Yuma. Station Order 3710.6J MCAS
Yuma Range and Training Areas Standard Operating Procedures.
U.S. National Vegetation Classification. 2017. Natural Vegetation Classification. Available at
http://usnvc.org/data-standard/natural-vegetation-classification/.
Villarreal, Miguel L. 2014. Evaluation of Anthropogenic Impacts on the Barry M. Goldwater RangeWest. United States Geological Survey. Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit agreement
W9126G-11-1-0045.
Villarreal, M.L., C. van Riper, III, R.E. Lovich, R.L. Palmer, T. Nauman, S.E. Studd, S. Drake, and A.S.
Rosenberg. 2011. An Inventory and Monitoring Plan for a Sonoran Desert Ecosystem: Barry
M. Goldwater Range-West. Open-File Report 2011-1232. U.S. Department of the Interior and
U.S. Geological Society.
Weston, J., and J. Fehmi, 2016. Mapping of Sonoran Desert Vegetation Communities on the Barry M.
Goldwater Range—East. Report submitted to the 56 RMO/ESM, United States Air Force in
partial completion of Agreement W9126G-11-2-0058, Task Nos. 3, 4, and 5.
Whitbeck, D.C. 2013. Mapping of Sonoran Desert Vegetation Communities of San Cristobal Valley
and Southern Sentinel Plains, Barry M. Goldwater Range and Variables Influencing Route
Proliferation in the Barry M. Goldwater Range's San Cristobal Valley. M.S. Thesis. University
of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 102 pp.
Whittle, R.K. and C.W. Black. 2014. Buffelgrass Spread Monitoring and Analysis along the State
Route 85 Corridor through the Barry M. Goldwater Range East. Presentation presented at
the Tri-National Sonoran Symposium, March 18-22, 2014. Ajo, Arizona.
Williams, D.G., Mack, R.N. and Black, R.A., 1995. Ecophysiology of Introduced Pennisetum setaceum
on Hawaii: The Role of Phenotypic Plasticity. Ecology, 76(5), pp.1569-1580.
Yuma County. 2012. Yuma County 2020 Comprehensive Plan with Amendments through 17
January, 2017. Yuma County Department of Development Services, Yuma, AZ. Available at
http://www.yumacountyaz.gov/government/development-services/laws-guidelines
/2020-comprehensive-plan.
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-156

APPENDIX A
BMGR EAST AND WEST 2012–2017 INRMP
MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS AND STATUS OF ACTION ITEMS

The action items proposed for BMGR East (Table A.1) and West (Table A.2) in the 2012 BMGR INRMP
for 2012–2017, and their status/progress as of early 2018, are provided in Appendix A. Action items
are listed by management element. Note that not every management element has proposed action
items in every five-year INRMP cycle.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

A-157

Table A.3: Action items, listed by management element number and title, proposed for BMGR East in the 2012–2017 INRMP, and action item status/progress as of early 2018.
Action Plan Item

1—Resource Inventory and Monitoring

Status

APPENDIX

Progress by 2018

Monitor and control invasive species

Ongoing

Initiated cleaning of drags to prevent spread of invasive species, mapping of invasive species, and physical and chemical
removal of invasive species

Desert tortoise surveys

Ongoing

Landscape-level habitat model developed to determine likelihood of desert tortoise presence (Grandmaison 2012)

Monitor 92 vegetation plots in several plant communities
Raptor management surveys and monitoring
Bird surveys

Support AGFD surveys for game ungulates
Support AGFD surveys for gamebirds

Collaborate with AGFD to identify/maintain important wildlife connectivity corridors at BMGR East
Kit fox population monitoring

Bat surveys; evaluate, monitor and protect important bat roosts
CFPO survey (low priority)

Weather stations and rain gauges
Monitor use of wildlife waters

Medium and low priority actions as resources allow
Vegetation mapping

Support special studies to address specific management issues, such as invasives, species of concern,
climate change, etc.
Implement cultural resource survey and monitoring requirements for INRMP – related actions
2—Special Natural/Interest Areas

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing

Not initiated
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing

Plots have been checked at five-year intervals and will continue to be checked on the same schedule

AGFD 2013–2015 study to evaluate airborne military activities on golden eagles, breeding bird survey (2012–2014), avian
species survey conducted by Tunista Service and Chiulista Services 2012–2016 for the Annual BASH Summary Report

Breeding bird survey (2012–2014), avian species survey conducted by Tunista Service and Chiulista Services 2012–2016 for
the Annual BASH Summary Report, total of 1253 bird surveys from 2012–2016
Annual deer surveys; bighorn sheep surveys (2014, 2017)
Game bird surveys conducted on an annual basis

Desert tortoise research identified wash systems as important movement corridors
Completed kit fox population monitoring using scent stations (2013, 2016)

Bat monitoring study (Mixan et al. 2016), 2012–2014 study (Piorkowski et al.) to determine potential conflict with bats and
military mission
Repeated surveys spanning the past 20 years on The BMGR East

BMGR East implemented network of communication grade weather systems in 2011; BMGR West uses manual-download
weather stations
Wildlife cameras used to record species which use wildlife waters (2008–2012)

The BMGR West completed vegetation mapping in 2014 (Malusa and Sundt 2015), The BMGR East initiated mapping in 2003
and plans to complete mapping by FY 2019
Continuing Research of Impacts associated with Drag Roads

Completed cultural resources survey for a renewable energy project for MCAS Yuma in 2013 and a number of archeological
surveys at BMGR West from 2013–2016

A-158

Identify and evaluate other possible Special Natural / Interest Areas
3—Motorized Access and Non-Roaded Area Management

Close selected roads to public access where an agency mission or resource protection issues conflict
with public use
4—Camping and Stay Limits

Assess benefits and effects of establishing designated camping areas and implement a decision based
on findings
5—Recreation Services and Use Supervision

Revise public visitation maps and rules for public education and recreation use; would inform the
public about road restrictions and resource sensitivities
Public outreach

Hire law enforcement officers to be retained and dedicated to the BMGR East; interim measure
consists of contract security guards with detention authority
Install signs, gates, and fences to support road infrastructure and public access

Compile recreation use statistics; analyze patterns, identify heavily used areas; monitor those areas
to identify and resource concerns
7—Wood cutting, Gathering, and Firewood Use, and Collection of Native Plants

Monitor native wood supplies in high-use areas; restrict wood collection if resource conditions
dictate

Not initiated
Ongoing
Initiated/incomplete
Ongoing
Ongoing

Initiated/incomplete
Ongoing

Initiated/incomplete

Project to be initiated in 2021

APPENDIX

Access restrictions have been imposed in the past due to security, safety, cultural or environmental reasons and will continue
to be imposed as required
Documented known camping areas to detect changes by repeat photography
Annual process which has been conducted for a number of years and will continue to as restrictions change

Public awareness projects have been used to educate base personnel and the public about activities at The BMGR
One CLEO started in October 2017 and a second will begin in FY 2019

Ongoing annual process which will continue to update signage as public access and road infrastructure changes
Deployed traffic counters at gate entry areas; new iSportsman application will aid in recreation use statistics

Ongoing

Documented known camping areas to detect changes by repeat photography

Ongoing

Cooperate with partners on all utility/transportation corridors

Monitor and control invasive species

Ongoing

Initiated cleaning of drags to prevent spread of invasive species, mapping of invasive species, and physical and chemical
removal of invasive species

Develop and implement procedures to control trespass livestock

Ongoing

Fences have been established around the BMGR perimeter

10—Utility/Transportations Corridors

Cooperate with ADOT, BLM, U.S. Border patrol, and utility companies regarding proposed actions
within existing utility/transportation corridors
Coordinate with CE Real Property to restrict future utility and transportation corridors to the
existing State Route 85 and railroad rights of way
11—General Vegetation, Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, and Wildlife Waters

Habitat restoration1

Evaluate benefits and adverse effects of wildlife waters

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Ongoing

Ongoing
Ongoing

Coordinate to ensure proper procedures are implemented

Implement as needed and based on priority level and type of threat

Water quality tested by USGS (2013–2016), camera trapping program (2008–2012)

A-159

Allow for the maintenance and repair of existing water developments1

Ongoing

Participate and implement actions per the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan

Ongoing

12—Special Status Species

13—Soil and Water Resources

AGFD has constructed catchments and refills them during periods of extreme drought

APPENDIX

Established semi-captive breeding program at the Cabeza Prieta NWR (2003) and at Kofa NWR (2011); established a second
population within historical range at BMGR East, monitoring program established on ranges when EOD operations or
weapon use is expected

Evaluate erosion conditions of range roads; repair or temporarily restrict use1

Ongoing

USGS developed erosion vulnerability model from vehicle use at BMGR West (2014), implemented 3D cameras to monitor
erosion across range

14—Air Resources

Ongoing

All county air quality regulations are followed

Evaluate erosion problems in specific areas, develop plans for repair
Monitor water table levels

Control excessive fugitive dust at permitted construction sites and recreation activity areas
16—Wildfire Management

Complete and subsequently implement Fire Management Plan

17—Perimeter Land Use, Encroachment, and Regional Planning

Participate in local and regional planning and monitoring land use patterns

Monitor illegal immigration, trafficking, and border-related law enforcement to anticipate how the
BMGR resources may be affected

1 May

require further NEPA review and/or Section 106 consultation.

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Ongoing
Ongoing

Initiated/incomplete
Ongoing
Ongoing

Installed hay bales and straw waddles to reduce erosion
Annual Gila Bend contractor requirement

56 RMO to complete Wildland Fire Management Plan in 2018

2018 Public Report provides opportunity for public input, public allowed to participate in development or review of
environmental assessments or impact statements

BEC meetings held six times a year regarding illegal traffic and patrol impacts on natural resources in the BMGR region; law
enforcement required to complete the Range Access and Safety Training Program

A-160

Table A.4: Action items, listed by management element number and title, proposed for BMGR West in the 2012–2017 INRMP, and action item status/progress as of early 2018.
Action Plan Item

1—Resource Inventory and Monitoring
FTHL Joint Strike Fighter Impact Study
Complete range wide vegetation map

Identify and monitor vegetation plots in several plant communities
Reptile, small mammal, and amphibian surveys and monitoring
General bird surveys
Bat surveys

Collaborate with AGFD to identify and maintain important wildlife connectivity corridors at BMGR
West
Installation and maintenance of weather stations and rain gauges

Support special studies to address specific management issues, such as invasives, species of
concern, climate change, etc.

Implement cultural resource survey and monitoring requirements for INRMP—related actions
Develop and implement systems to monitor the effectiveness of compliance actions

Develop a plan for determining the limits-of-acceptable change for recreational, natural, and
cultural resources
Construct adaptive management strategies for maintaining acceptable limits of change
Annual FTHL occupancy surveys

3—Motorized Access and Non-Roaded Area Management

Temporarily close selected roads to public access where an agency mission or resource protection
issues conflict with public use
Evaluate site-specific proposals for future need and impacts of developing additional roads for
agency purposes1
Implement site specific planning for two bypass roads that would reroute
vehicle traffic around the northwest corner of the Cabeza Prieta NWR
4—Camping and Stay Limits

Assess benefits and effects of establishing designated camping areas and implement a decision
based on the findings

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Status

Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing

Not initiated
Ongoing

Not initiated
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing

Not initiated
Not initiated
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing

Completed
Ongoing

APPENDIX

Progress by 2018

This action is completed
This action is completed

Working with National Park Service to control invasive species

(1) Establish a repeatable baseline monitoring methodology that will capture the diversity of small mammals, reptiles,
and amphibians; (2) develop potential distribution maps captured wildlife, and; (3) provide recommendations to
monitoring efforts and natural resource stewardship (will continue through FY 2018, 2019)
New protocol under development

Assist AGFD in conducting bat surveys at BMGR-West

Collaborate with AGFD and partner agencies to identify and maintain important wildlife connectivity corridors at BMGR
West
Upgrade existing weather stations to wireless communication with Luke AFB
This is an ongoing action

Cultural resource surveys and monitoring will continue
This is an ongoing action

Use baseline survey data to determine the degree of change and develop a plan appropriate to the findings

Consider existing baseline survey data and regional concerns to determine the need for the implementing of adaptive
management strategies
These surveys will continue

This action is ongoing and as needed

At this time there are no plans for any new roads for agency use
This action is completed

Continue to collect information from visitor passes and CLEO records/observations/corrective actions to determine the
possible impacts created form public use

A-161

APPENDIX
Action Plan Item
5—Recreation Services and Use Supervision

Develop a plan for determining the limits-of-acceptable change for recreational, natural, and
cultural resources
Revise visitor map
Public outreach

Install signs, gates and fences to support road infrastructure and public access

Compile recreation use statistics; analyze patterns, identify heavily used areas; monitor those
areas to identify and resource concerns
7—Wood cutting, Gathering, and Firewood Use, and Collection of Native Plants

Progress by 2018

Status

Not initiated
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing

Use baseline survey data to determine the degree of change and develop a plan appropriate to the findings
This action is scheduled during the next five years

Support public awareness efforts to educate MCAS Yuma employees and the public concerning natural, and cultural
resources, historic preservation, and conservation activities
Install signs as needed to identify restricted areas, range boundaries, range entry points, along perimeters, road
intersections, and ground support areas
This is on-going and closely monitored

Develop a plan for determining the limits-of-acceptable change for recreational, natural, and
cultural resources

Not initiated

Use baseline survey data to determine the degree of change and develop a plan appropriate to the findings

Develop a plan for determining the limits-of-acceptable change for recreational, natural, and
cultural resources

Not initiated

Use baseline survey data to determine the degree of change and develop a plan appropriate to the findings

8— Hunting

10—Utility/Transportations Corridors

Cooperate with ADOT, U.S. Border Patrol, and utility companies regarding proposed actions within
existing utility/transportation corridors
11—General Vegetation, Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, and Wildlife Waters

Develop a plan for determining the limits-of-acceptable change for recreational, natural, and
cultural resources
Allow maintenance and development of existing water sources supporting wildlife
Partner with U.S. Border Patrol to identify and implement the habitat restoration
Support AGFD installation of up to a total of six high-priority wildlife waters1
12—Special Status Species

Participate and implement actions per the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Ongoing
Not initiated
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing

Continue an open dialogue with partnering agencies at BEC and IEC meetings, the RMD works in cooperation with the
BEC, ICC, MOG, Pronghorn Recovery Team, and local, state, and federal governments to revise and improve management
actions and policies
Use baseline survey data to determine the degree of change and develop a plan appropriate to the findings
Continue to work with AGFD to monitor and maintain existing network of wildlife waters at BMGR-West

Collaborate with local U.S. Border Patrol offices to implement maintenance and repair best management practices as
outlined in CBP’s 2012 EA (Department of Homeland Security 2012, https://nemo.cbp.gov/sbi/az_timr_final_ea.pdf
Determine as needed and available funding

Support Sonoran pronghorn recovery actions as stipulated in the Biological Opinion, Recovery Plan, or as determined
by the Interagency Recovery Team
A-162

APPENDIX
Action Plan Item
13—Soil and Water Resources

Comprehensive erosion assessment to prioritize the sites with severe erosion, and examine
available engineering management practice that can mitigate erosion
16—Wildfire Management

Complete and subsequently implement fire management plan

17—Perimeter Land Use, Encroachment, and Regional Planning

Monitor illegal immigration, trafficking, and border-related law enforcement to anticipate how the
BMGR resources may be affected

Barry M. Goldwater Range
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

Progress by 2018

Status

Ongoing

This is on-going and closely monitored

Ongoing

Continue coordinating with law enforcement authorities and sharing of anecdotal evidence of border-related impacts

Ongoing

BMGR-West Fire Management Plan will be completed in FY 2018

A-163

LUKE AIR FORCE BASE
INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
August 2018

Prepared for:
U.S. Department of the Air Force, Luke Air Force Base
In cooperation with:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and
Arizona Game and Fish Department

Prepared by:
Colorado State University
Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands

U. S. AIR FORCE INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Luke Air Force Base, Auxiliary Field 1,
And

Fort Tuthill
Arizona

(See INRMP signature pages for plan approval date)

This installation-specific environmental management plan is based on the U.S. Air Force’s (USAF)
standardized Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) template. This INRMP has
been developed according to the Sikes Act Improvement Act (16 U.S. Code § 670 et seq.) in
cooperation with applicable stakeholders, which may include Sikes Act cooperating agencies and/or
local equivalents, to document how natural resources will be managed. Non-U.S. territories will
comply with applicable Final Governing Standards. Where applicable, external resources, including
Air Force Instructions; USAF Playbooks; and federal, state, local, Final Governing Standards,
biological opinions, and permit requirements, are referenced herein.
About This Plan

Certain sections of this INRMP begin with standardized, USAF-wide “common text” language that
addresses USAF and Department of Defense policies and federal requirements. This common text
language is restricted from editing to ensure that it remains standard throughout all plans.
Immediately following the USAF-wide common text sections are installation sections. The
installation sections contain installation-specific content to address local and/or installation-specific
requirements. Installation sections are unrestricted and are maintained and updated by USAF
environmental Installation Support Sections and/or installation personnel.

NOTE: The terms ‘Natural Resources Manager’ (NRM) and Point of Contact (POC) are used throughout
this document to refer to the installation person responsible for the natural resources program,
regardless of whether this person meets the qualifications within the definition of a natural resources
management professional in U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4715.03, with change 1 (DoD
2017b).

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................................................... V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... VII
CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW AND SCOPE .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

PURPOSE AND SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY................................................................................................................................ 1-1
AUTHORITY ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-3
INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANS ........................................................................................................................ 1-3

CHAPTER 2 INSTALLATION PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 2-5
2.1 INSTALLATION OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................... 2-5
2.1.1 Installation History ............................................................................................................................. 2-10
2.1.2 Military Missions ................................................................................................................................ 2-11
2.1.3 Surrounding Communities ................................................................................................................. 2-12
2.1.4 Local and Regional Natural Areas ...................................................................................................... 2-12
2.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2-13
2.2.1 Climate ............................................................................................................................................... 2-13
2.2.2 Landforms .......................................................................................................................................... 2-15
2.2.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................... 2-15
2.2.4 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................... 2-17
2.3 ECOSYSTEMS AND THE BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................... 2-17
2.3.1 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................................... 2-18
2.3.2 Turf and Landscaped Areas ................................................................................................................ 2-19
2.3.3 Fish and Wildlife................................................................................................................................. 2-19
2.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern ........................................................... 2-21
2.3.5 Wetlands and Floodplains.................................................................................................................. 2-28
2.3.6 Other Natural Resources Information ................................................................................................ 2-28
2.3.7 Mission Impacts on Natural Resources .............................................................................................. 2-28
2.3.8 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................ 2-29
2.3.9 Current Major Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 2-30
2.3.10
Potential Future Impacts ............................................................................................................... 2-31

CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 6

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ................................................................. 3-32
GENERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................... 4-33
TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 5-35
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING ............................................................................... 6-36

6.1 RECORDKEEPING ............................................................................................................................................. 6-36
6.2 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................................... 6-36

CHAPTER 7 NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT .................................................... 7-37
7.1 FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT..................................................................................................................... 7-37
7.2 OUTDOOR RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 7-39
7.3 CONSERVATION LAW ENFORCEMENT................................................................................................................... 7-40
7.4 MANAGEMENT OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED, AND HABITATS . 7-40
7.4.1 Bald and Golden Eagles ..................................................................................................................... 7-41
7.5 WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION ....................................................................................................................... 7-43
7.6 WETLANDS PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................... 7-44
7.7 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................. 7-44
7.8 FOREST MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................... 7-49
7.9 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 7-50
7.10 AGRICULTURAL OUTLEASING.............................................................................................................................. 7-51

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15
7.16

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 7-51
BIRD/WILDLIFE AIRCRAFT STRIKE HAZARD (BASH) ............................................................................................... 7-56
COASTAL ZONE AND MARINE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 7-57
CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION.................................................................................................................... 7-57
PUBLIC OUTREACH........................................................................................................................................... 7-58
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) ......................................................................................................... 7-59

CHAPTER 8 MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................... 8-60
CHAPTER 9 INRMP IMPLEMENTATION, UPDATE, AND REVISION PROCESS ........................... 9-61
9.1 NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STAFFING AND IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................... 9-61
9.2 MONITORING INRMP IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 9-61
9.3 ANNUAL INRMP REVIEW AND UPDATE REQUIREMENTS......................................................................................... 9-61
9.3.1 INRMP Update and Revision Process ................................................................................................. 9-62

CHAPTER 10 ANNUAL WORK PLAN ........................................................................................................ 10-63
CITED REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................ 64
FIGURE 1.1: GENERAL LOCATION AND SURROUNDING LAND OWNERSHIP. ............................................................................................ 1-2
FIGURE 2.1: LUKE AFB INSTALLATION AREA............................................................................................................................................. 2-7
FIGURE 2.2: AUX-1 INSTALLATION AREA. .................................................................................................................................................. 2-8
FIGURE 2.3: FORT TUTHILL RECREATION AREA. ........................................................................................................................................ 2-9
FIGURE 2.4: F-35 LIGHTNING II FLIES ALONGSIDE AN F-16 FIGHTING FALCON.................................................................................................... 2-11
FIGURE 7.1: NATURE TRAILS CAN BE FOUND THROUGHOUT THE CAMPGROUNDS AT FORT TUTHILL. ........................................... 7-40
FIGURE 7.2: ARCHAEOLOGISTS EXCAVATE LAND BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOLAR ARRAY AT LUKE AFB. ................ 7-58

FIGURES

TABLE 2.1: INSTALLATION PROFILE. ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-5
TABLE 2.2: SURROUNDING COMMUNITY POPULATION 2010–2015. ................................................................................................. 2-12
TABLE 2.3: FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND ARIZONA SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION
NEED. .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-22
TABLE 4.1: GENERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. ............................................................................................................................. 4-33
TABLE 10.1: USAF 2018–2023 5-YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR LUKE AFB, AUX-1, AND FORT TUTHILL....................................10-63

TABLES

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

iv

ACRONYMS
ADA
AF
AFAF
AFB
AFCEC
AFI
AZAGFD
AGL
AHAS
ABSL
APHIS
AUX-1
AZ
BASH
BMGR
BMP
CEIE
CES
CRP
DoD
DoDI
EIAP
EIS
EMS
EO
ESA
ESM
ESRI
FW
FY
GEM
GIS
ICRMP
IDP
INRMP
IPM
IPMP
ISWMP
MBTA
MCAS
MOU
MWh
NEPA
NIPRNet
NRM
POC
RMO

Arizona Department of Agriculture
Air Force
Air Force Auxiliary Field
Air Force Base
Air Force Civil Engineer Center
Air Force Instruction
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Above-Ground Level
Avian Hazard Advisory System
Above Mean Sea Level
Animal Planet Health Inspection Services
Auxiliary Airfield 1
Arizona
Bird/Wildlife or Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazard
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Best Management Practice
Civil Engineer Environmental Element
Civil Engineer Squadron
Comprehensive Range Plan
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Defense Instruction
Environmental Impact Analysis Process
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Management System
Executive Order
Endangered Species Act
Environmental Sciences Management
Environmental Systems Research Institute
Fighter Wing
Fiscal Year
Golf Course Environmental Management
Geographic Information System
Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan
Installation Development Plan
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated Pest Management Plan
Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Marine Corps Air Station
Memorandum of Understanding
Megawatt hours
National Environmental Policy Act
Non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network
Natural Resource Manager
Point of Contact
Range Management Office

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

v

SGCN
SWPP
TTW
USACE
USAF
USDA
USFWS
WWTP

Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Tactical Training Wing
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Waste Water Treatment Plant

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

ACRONYMS

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) provides guidance for the
management of natural resources at Luke Air Force Base (AFB), Auxiliary Field 1 (AUX-1), and Fort
Tuthill, Arizona. It is a planning tool that instructs managers to take into account an installation’s
natural resources in all potential undertakings on its facilities. The objective is to ensure the
protection and conservation of natural resources at these facilities in compliance with all applicable
laws, regulations, and policies relating to natural resources management. This INRMP serves as a
Cooperative Agreement between the U.S. Air Force (USAF), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) for approval by the participants in order to establish
agreement on recommendations.

The requirements for preparation of this INRMP are derived from the Sikes Act, as most recently
amended by the Sikes Act Improvement Act (16 U.S. Code 670 et seq.) (hereafter referred to as the
Sikes Act) and the implementing Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of
Defense and the U.S. Department of Interior (1978); Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S. Code
§ 661 et seq.); Air Force Policy Directive 32-70, Environmental Quality (USAF 1994); and Air Force
Instruction 32-7064, with change 2, Integrated Natural Resources Management (USAF 2016a).

The last INRMP for these facilities to receive approval was signed in 2001. Recent iterations have
been presented to the AGFD and USFWS for signature, but outdated wildlife and wildlife habitat
information resulted in a non-concurrence determination. The most recent vegetation, wildlife, and
wildlife habitat surveys are listed below. During all site visits, an effort was made to assess the
probability of special-status species (i.e., federal or state listed species) occurring at the three
facilities.
•

•
•

1994 inventory of vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife habitat at Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort
Tuthill
1994 field reconnaissance of Luke AFB was accomplished 17–18 October
1994 field reconnaissance of AUX-1 was conducted 18 October 1994 and 6 December 2013
by the 56th Range Management Office (56 RMO)/Environmental Services Management
Fort Tuthill observations were made May–October 2001

During the past wildlife and habitat surveys, no federal or state protected species were detected. To
determine whether this is still the case, Luke AFB has programmed targeted, threatened, and
endangered species surveys, for both flora and fauna, on all three parcels. Surveys are scheduled to
occur during the next five-year planning period covered by this INRMP, 2018–2023. Surveys will
result in a habitat characterization map, survey maps, a habitat assessment characterizing the quality
and quantity of habitat available to federal or state protected species and conclusions regarding the
presence or absence of protected species. During each annual review, this INRMP will be updated
with survey results as they become available.
•

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

vii

CHAPTER 1
1.1

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

Purpose and Scope

Luke Air Force Base (AFB) is located in Glendale, Arizona, just west of Phoenix, and occupies nearly
4,800 acres of land, (Figure 1.1). Luke AFB is home to the 56th Fighter Wing (56 FW), the largest FW
in the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the only active-duty F-16 training wing. Each year, the base supports
training for more than 280 active-duty, Guard and Reserve F-16 pilots and more that 345
maintenance-crew chiefs. On 21 May 2015, Luke AFB training its first class for the F-35 mission. The
F-35 is the USAF’s latest generation fighter that will replace its aging fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcons
and A-10 Thunderbolt IIs. Luke AFB also supports more than 5,500 military and civilian employees
on base, and approximately 6,700 family members and 65,000 military retirees who live in the
Phoenix area.
Auxiliary Field 1 (AUX-1) is a 1,105-acre inactive airfield located 13 miles northwest of Luke AFB
(Figure 1.1). The airfield is used for low-approach, instrument flight training under visual flight rules
during daytime training only. Approximately 12,000 operations are performed annually.
Fort Tuthill is located approximately 150 miles north of Luke AFB and 2 miles south of Flagstaff in
northern Arizona, adjacent to Fort Tuthill County Park (Figure 1.1). Fort Tuthill is a 14-acre
recreational and lodging facility for active-duty personnel from any branch of the U.S. Armed
Services.

The 56 FW also has purview over the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) East and the Gila Bend Air
Force Auxiliary Field (AFAF). The natural resources and management activities of those lands are
described in the BMGR INRMP (see Volume 1) and in the installation overview of Marine Corps Air
Station Yuma (see Volume 3), which is the managing agency for the BMGR West portion of the range.
A brief discussion of the training activities that occur at BMGR East is provided in Section 2.1
Installation Overview of this INRMP.

The resources of Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill are used for living, working, and recreating. For
these activities to take place, multiple-use coordination of facilities and management plans are
required. The purpose of the INRMP is to serve as the road map for resource management and as the
guiding document for USAF planners, implementers of mission activities, and resource managers.

1.2

Management Philosophy

Resources under the control of Luke AFB will be managed to support the military mission while
practicing the principles of multiple-use and sustainability. The conservation of natural resources
and the military mission need not and shall not be mutually exclusive. All installation decisionmakers and commanders should be kept informed of the conditions of resources, the objectives of
resources management, and potential or actual conflicts between mission activities and management
plans.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1-1

Chapter 1

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

U.S. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4715.03, Natural Resources Conservation Program
(DoD 2017b) outlines policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the integrated
management of natural and cultural resources on property under Department of Defense (DoD)
control. This instruction requires installations to incorporate the principles of an ecosystem-based,
multiple-species management approach that supports present and future mission requirements
while preserving ecological integrity. Ecosystem-based management considers the environment as a
complex system functioning as a whole, which takes into account both people and their social and
economic needs, and is adaptable to complex and changing requirements. Ecosystem-based
management principles are best realized through the engagement and formation of local and regional
partnerships that benefit the goals and objectives of this INRMP. DoD ecosystem-based management
guidelines are intended to promote/protect natural processes, but do not preclude intervention with
active management deemed necessary to address issues, such as invasive species, endangered
species recovery, or barriers to wildlife movement inside or outside of the installation.

1.3

Authority

The Sikes Act Improvement Act (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] § 670 et seq.) (hereafter referred to as the Sikes
Act) stipulates that, to the extent consistent with the military use of Luke AFB, Fort Tuthill, and AUX1, the INRMP must provide for wildlife and land management, wildlife-oriented recreation, wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification, and wetland conservation. Guidance for implementing the
Sikes Act on USAF property is provided by DoDI 4715.03 and U.S. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7064
(DoD 2017b, USAF 2016a).
In accordance with the Sikes Act, INRMPs are to be reviewed to operation and effect on a regular
basis, but not less than every five years (16 U.S.C. 670a (b)(2)). This requirement reflects the fact that
military activities, natural resources protection and conservation needs, and public access
opportunities and patterns are likely to change over time and there must be a mechanism for
adapting an INRMP to changing conditions if the plan is to provide for effective management.

This INRMP was prepared in compliance with the Sikes Act and as a cooperative effort between the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). It sets
forth a single unified management philosophy for the protection, conservation, use, and management
of resources at Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill. In addition, the INRMP was developed in an
interdisciplinary manner through coordination with individuals from various disciplines. They
include pest control, wildlife biology, community planning and landscape planning, and maintenance.
All management strategies will be monitored and adjusted as needed. All installation personnel, both
civilian and military, will act responsibly in the public interest as they manage the land and resources
that are an integral part of the installation. There shall be a conscious and active concern for the
inherent value of resources in installation decisions and actions.

1.4

Integration with Other Plans

The INRMP is a living document that integrates component plans in a manner that fully supports all
aspects of resource management in support of the mission. AFI 32-7062, Comprehensive Planning
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1-3

Chapter 1

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

(USAF 2017c) lists the responsibilities and requirements for comprehensive planning and describes
procedures for developing, implementing, and integrating an Installation Development Plan (IDP)
with activity management plans, including this INRMP. The Luke AFB IDP, developed in April 2014,
establishes goals and objectives to more efficiently and effectively facilitate mission
accomplishments and accommodate new missions. Goal five of the IDP is to promote environmental
stewardship by ensuring continued compliance with this INRMP.
In addition, INRMPs often incorporate subordinate plans that address installation actions, such as
the Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) (Luke AFB 2015), Golf Environmental Management
(GEM) (U.S. Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment 2011), Bird/Wildlife Aircraft
Strike Hazard (BASH) Plan (56 FW 2013), and the Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan
(ICRMP). These plans are referenced throughout this INRMP (Luke AFB 2017).

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1-4

CHAPTER 2
2.1

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Installation Overview

Table 2.1: Installation profile.
Office of Primary
Responsibility

Natural Resources
Manager/ Point of
Contact (POC)

State and/or Local
Regulatory POCs

Total Acreage
Managed by
Installation
Biological Opinions
NR Programs

The U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) Nellis Installation Support
Section serves as the office of primary responsibility for this plan. This INRMP
will be reviewed annually by the Nellis Installation Support Section Natural
Resource Manager (NRM), and updated as needed.
56th Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer Environmental Element (56
CES/CEIE)
Building 302
Luke AFB, AZ 85309

Field Supervisor
USFWS, Ecological Services
9828 North 31st Avenue C #3
Phoenix, AZ 85052-2517
602-242-0210

Region VI Regional Supervisor
Arizona Game and Fish Department
5000 W. Carefree Highway
Phoenix, AZ 85086-5000
602-942-3000
Luke AFB—4,842 acres
AUX-1—1,105 acres
Fort Tuthill—14.5 acres
N/A

•
•
•

Integrated Pest Management
Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Program
Cultural Resources Management Program

Luke AFB (Table 2.1, Figure 2.1) is located in Maricopa County, Arizona, approximately 18 miles
northwest of the Phoenix metropolitan area, and 4 miles to the north of Interstate 10 on Litchfield
Road. It occupies approximately 4,842 acres and hosts the largest fighter wing in the USAF with 138
F-16s assigned to it. The host command at Luke AFB is the 56th FW, under Air Education and Training
Command. An integral part of the Luke AFB F-16 and F-35 fighter pilot training mission is the BMGR,
which consists of approximately 1.7 million acres of relatively undisturbed Sonoran Desert
southwest of Luke AFB between Yuma and Tucson, Arizona, south of Interstate 8. Above is a 57,000cubic-mile airspace where pilots practice air-to-air maneuvers and engage in simulated battlefield
targets on the ground. Additionally, there are more than 85,000 cubic nautical miles of special use
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-5

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

airspace used for military operations beyond the airspace above Luke and BMGR, including adjacent
Federal and Tohono O’odham lands and other parts of southwestern Arizona, as well as a region
northeast of Flagstaff, AZ (BMGR East Comprehensive Range Plan [CRP] in prep.). The Luke AFB 56th
Range Management Office (56 RMO) works closely with the Tohono O’odham Nation to maintain
good relations with the tribal government, minimize impacts of overflights on the Tohono
O’odham people, and educate range users about any concerns and the constraints imposed on
operations in the Military Operation Area over Tohono O’odham lands (CRP, in prep.).

Roughly the size of Connecticut, the immense size of the BMGR complex allows for simultaneous
training activities on nine air-to-ground and two air-to-air ranges. The 56 RMO manages the eastern
BMGR activities and the Marine Corps Air Station at Yuma (MCAS Yuma) oversees operations on the
western portion of BMGR. Luke AFB is transitioning to become the sole pilot training center for the
F-35A, the USAF’s newest multi-role aircraft.

AUX-1 (Table 2.1, Figure 2.2) occupies approximately 1,105 acres. It is owned by the State of Arizona
and leased to Luke AFB. AUX-1 is located approximately 4 miles east of U.S. Highway 60 on Happy
Valley Road and about 13 miles northwest of Luke AFB, adjacent to the City of Surprise in central
Maricopa County, Arizona. The White Tank Mountains lie approximately 5 miles south of the airfield.

Fort Tuthill (Table 2.1, Figure 2.3) is a 14.5-acre recreational facility. It is located two miles south of
Flagstaff in Coconino County, Arizona, and just west of Pulliam Airport off Interstate 17 and State
Route 89-A.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-6

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

2.1.1 Installation History
In 1940, a U.S. Army representative was sent to Arizona to select a site for an Army Air Corps training
field for advanced training in conventional fighter aircraft. The city of Phoenix leased 1,440 acres of
land to the government, at a rate of $1.00 per year, effective 24 March 1941. On 29 March 1941, the
Del. E. Webb Construction Co. began excavation for the first building at what was known at the time
as the Litchfield Park AFB. It wasn’t until 1941, when Luke Field in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, was
transferred to the Navy, that the commander of Litchfield AFB requested the name be changed to
Luke Field. Luke Field was named after the first aviator to be awarded the Congressional Medal of
Honor—2d Lt. Frank Luke Jr., born in Phoenix in 1897. During World War I, Luke, who was also
known as the "Arizona Balloon Buster," scored 18 aerial victories (14 of which were German
observation balloons) in the skies over France before being killed on 29 September 1918 at the age
of 21.
Luke AFB

The first class of 45 students, Class 41 F, arrived 6 June 1941, to begin advanced flight training in the
AT-6, even though few essential buildings had been completed. Pilots flew out of the Sky Harbor
Airport until the Luke runways were completed. Pilots received 10 weeks of instruction, with the
first class graduating on 15 August 1941. Captain Barry Goldwater served as director of ground
training the following year. During World War II, Luke was the largest fighter training base in the
Army Air Force. The base graduated more than 17,000 fighter pilots from advanced and operational
courses in the AT-6, P-40, P-51, and P-38, earning it the nickname "Home of the Fighter Pilot.” By 7
February 1944, pilots at Luke had logged a million hours of flying time. By 1946, however, the
number of pilots trained had dropped to 299 and the base was deactivated on 30 November 1946.
After combat developed in Korea, Luke Field was reactivated on 1 February 1951 as Luke AFB, part
of Air Training Command under a reorganized U.S. Air Force.

Students progressed from the P-51 Mustang to the F-84. Flying training at Luke changed to the F-100
and, on 1 July 1958, the base was transferred from Air Training Command to Tactical Air Command.
In 1964, Luke continued its tradition of providing fighter training for allied nations when an F-104
program for German Air Force pilots and a program in the F-5 for pilots from developing nations
began. During the 1960s, thousands of American fighter pilots completed their training and left to
patrol the skies over Vietnam. In July 1971, the base received the F-4C Phantom II and became the
main provider of fighter pilots for Tactical Air Command and fighter forces worldwide. In November
1974, the USAF's newest air fighter, the F-15 Eagle, came to Luke. In February 1983, fighter pilot
training began for the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Luke units continued to set the pace for the USAF. The
58th Tactical Training Wing (TTW) had two squadrons—the 312th and 314th Tactical Fighter
Training Squadrons—conducting training in the newest C and D models of the Fighting Falcon. The
405th TTW received the first E model of the F-15 Eagle in 1988 and two of its squadrons—the 461st
and 550th—began training in this dual-role fighter. In July 1987, the Reserve function at Luke
changed when the 302nd Special Operations Squadron deactivated its helicopter function and the
944th Tactical Fighter Group was activated to fly the F-16C/D.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-10

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

The early 1990s brought significant changes to the base. As a result of defense realignments, the
312th, 426th, and 550th Tactical Fighter Training Squadrons were inactivated, as were the 832nd
Air Division and the 405th TTW. The F-15A and B models were transferred out, and the 58th TTW,
being the senior wing at Luke, was re-designated the 58th FW and once again became the host unit
at Luke. In April 1994, after 24 years at Luke, the 58th FW was replaced by the 56 FW as part of the
Air Force Heritage program. Air Force officials established the program to preserve Air Force legacy
and history during a time of military draw-down. The 56 FW is one of the most highly decorated units
in USAF history and was selected to remain part of the active fighter force while the 58th was
reassigned as a special operations wing to Kirtland AFB, New Mexico.

The first of Luke’s auxiliary airfields, AUX-1, was activated on 1 July 1941. AUX-1 served as the
training site for P-40 operations when Luke Field became too congested with aircraft. Today, about
12,000 operations are conducted per year at AUX-1 for instrument-approach training. Under this
training, pilots use the instrument landing systems at AUX-1 to simulate approaches under poor
weather conditions. One non-active runway at AUX-1 is used for instrument-approach runway
alignment for Tactical Air Navigation-approaches, which are non-precision with course guidance but
not with glide path guidance; Instrument Landing System approaches, which are precision
approaches with both course and glide path guidance; and Precision Approach Radar, which also is a
precision instrument approach system. AUX-1 is one of only a few locations in the U.S. for training
with Precision Approach Radar, which is commonly used in overseas locations.
AUX-1

Fort Tuthill was a training site for the 158th Infantry Regiment of the Arizona National Guard from
1929 to 1937, in 1939, and in 1948. Established in 1928 as Camp Tuthill (after Brigadier General
Alexander M. Tuthill, Commander of the National Guard), it was renamed Fort Tuthill in 1929.
Located in pine covered forest, the site allowed for the regiment to meet training objectives that the
Arizona desert climate would not allow. In 1955, the Fort became a county park and houses the Fort
Tuthill Military Museum. Fort Tuthill
currently
provides
recreational
opportunities and lodging to active
duty personnel, of any branch of
service, and their immediate families.
The facilities include a hotel, A-frames,
cabins, and yurts.
Fort Tuthill

The primary mission at Luke AFB is
training F-16 and F-35 pilots. The base
mission statement is “We train the
world’s greatest fighter pilots and
combat ready airmen.” to “build the
future of airpower.”

2.1.2 Military Missions

Figure 2.4: F-35 Lightning II flies alongside an F-16
Fighting Falcon. Photo courtesy of Matthew Short.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-11

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

The largest communities near Luke AFB are identified in Table 2.2 along with 2010 U.S. Census data
and 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

2.1.3 Surrounding Communities

Table 2.2: Surrounding community population 2010–2015.
City

Avondale, Maricopa County

2010 U.S. Census Data1
76,238

Recent Population
Estimates2
82,881

Glendale, Maricopa County

226,721

245,895

Surprise, Maricopa County

117,517

127,4923

Peoria, Maricopa and Yavapai, County
Sun City, Maricopa County

El Mirage, Maricopa County
Phoenix, Maricopa County

Flagstaff, Coconino County

1 2011–2015

154,065
37,499
31,797

1,445,632
65,870

American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, at

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
2 2016 U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, by city, at https://www.census.gov/.
3

164,173

39,3633
35,043

1,615,017
71,459

2016 U.S. Census Bureau population estimates not available; 2012–2016 5-year ACS 5-year estimates, at
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml.

The majority of communities near Luke AFB are in Maricopa County, Arizona. Maricopa County has
had the largest annual population increase among any counties in the U.S., with a population now
estimated at 4.2 million people. Phoenix was the fastest growing metropolitan area in the U.S. from
2015 to 2016, averaging an increase of 222 people per day.

Arizona recognizes the importance of military aviation to its economy and the safety concerns that
arise from incompatible land uses in the vicinity of military airports. To mitigate that risk, the State
has adopted legislation to restrict land use in the vicinity of military airports. Pursuant to Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 28-8481 (F) and (P) and Attorney General Opinion No. I08-003, no new
residential development shall occur within a High Noise or Accident Potential Zone. This designation
helps to ensure that future development is compatible with adverse effects that military aircraft may
have on public health and safety.

2.1.4 Local and Regional Natural Areas

The areas surrounding Luke AFB can be described as densely populated suburbia with few patches
of undeveloped land. Within about 5 miles of the installation, there are nearly 12 golf club
communities with maintained grassy greens, scattered ponds, and a few disconnected patchworks of
Luke AFB

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-12

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

trees and shrubs. The Wildlife World Zoo is located about 0.5 mile to the northwest of Luke AFB and
has an abundance of planted and maintained trees, ground cover, and other vegetation to provide
habitat for its collection of South American and African animals. There are no current records of
federally listed species breeding or occurrences of federally listed plant species within a five-mile
radius, although it is possible that listed migratory birds, federally protected bald/golden eagles, or
Arizona Species of Greatest Conservation Need could occur within this radius.

The nearest park (about 8 miles away) of significant size that also has natural vegetation is the White
Tank Mountain Regional Park, which and is described in more detail in the following (AUX-1) section.
The BMGR (see Volume 1) is located approximately 60 miles to the southwest of Luke AFB and is the
largest expanse of relatively unfragmented Sonoran Desert in the U.S. With the exception of State
Route 85, the land is free of major developments and is ecologically linked to Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Sonoran Desert National Monument,
and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

AUX-1 is located near White Tank Mountain Regional Park, which covers nearly 30,000 acres, making
it the largest park in Maricopa County. The park encompasses the rugged White Tank Mountains,
which is a freestanding range that separates the Phoenix Basin of the Salt River from the Hassayampa
Plain. The park has a rich history, with eleven archaeological sites dating back to A.D. 500–1100,
petroglyphs, and possible agricultural terraces or check dams. The park offers approximately 25
miles of trails with vegetation characteristic of the Sonoran Desert.
AUX-1

Fort Tuthill is enveloped within the boundary of a larger county park that is surrounded by Coconino
National Forest. The vegetation is primarily disturbed, open ponderosa pine forest or woodland and
is typical for the forest in this region.
Fort Tuthill

2.2

Physical Environment

The Southwest region of the U.S. has become warmer and drier over the past century, and projections
expect this trend to continue into the 21st Century (Overpeck et al. 2013). Droughts are expected to
become more severe, and precipitation extremes in the winter are expected to become more frequent
and intense (Overpeck et al. 2013). Significant changes in the regional climate will have broad
impacts on ecosystems and will have consequences for biodiversity (Bagne and Finch 2012).

2.2.1 Climate

The climate at Luke AFB is characterized by warm-to-hot spring, summer, and early fall
temperatures. The average July high temperature at nearby Litchfield Park is 106.9 degrees
Fahrenheit. Mean temperatures in spring and fall are 86.1 (April) and 89.5 degrees Fahrenheit
(October), respectively. Winter temperatures tend to be mild; January is the coolest month of the
year, with an average daily high temperature of 66.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Daily minimum
Luke AFB

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-13

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

temperatures range from 75.9 (July) to 36.5 degrees Fahrenheit (January). On an annual average,
Litchfield Park has 177 days when high temperatures reach or exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit and 29
days per year when low temperatures drop to or fall below 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

Precipitation at Litchfield Park occurs almost entirely in the form of rain. The occurrence of snow,
sleet, and hail are rare events that generate just trace amounts of precipitation. Winter rains occur
primarily in December and January, with an annual average of 1.06 and 0.93 inches, respectively.
August is normally the wettest month of the year at Litchfield Park, with an annual average of 1.21
inches of rain. Winter rains result from weather fronts that begin in the Pacific Ocean and move east
across Arizona. They are generally quite widespread and characterized by gentle rainfall. Summer
rains result from moisture moving into Arizona from Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico, and/or the Gulf of
California. Summer rains or monsoons tend to be highly localized and result in brief, torrential
downpours often accompanied by high winds and lightning. Drought conditions in the vicinity of
Luke AFB are common. The weather station at Litchfield Park normally receives about 8 inches of
precipitation annually, but extended periods of drought have been recorded.
The climate of AUX-1, like Luke AFB, is characterized by warm-to-hot spring, summer, and early fall
temperatures. For example, the average July high temperature at the community of Wittman, located
four miles north of AUX-1, is 105.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Mean high temperatures in spring and fall are
81.8 (April) and 87.0 degrees Fahrenheit (October), respectively. Record high temperatures for
Wittman approach 120°F. Winter temperatures are moderate; January is the coolest month of the
year with daily highs in the low 60s, averaging 63.6 degrees Fahrenheit and lows in the middle 30s,
averaging 35.8 degrees Fahrenheit. On average, winter low temperatures can be expected to drop to
32 degrees Fahrenheit or lower on 26 days from November through March (Sellers and Hill 1974).
AUX-1

Precipitation at AUX-1 occurs almost entirely in the form of rain. As is the case in most of west-central
Arizona, snow, sleet, and hail events are extremely rare and hardly ever exceed a trace amount.
Wittman normally receives about nine inches of rainfall per year, with late spring generally being the
driest season of the year. In most years, no rainfall occurs during the month of June, which has a longterm average of 0.06 inches/month. July and August are among the wettest months of the year,
averaging 1.04 and 1.33 inches, respectively. Only December (1.06 inches) and January (0.93 inches)
are comparable (Sellers and Hill 1974).

The climate of Fort Tuthill is vastly different from that of Luke AFB and AUX-1. Mean annual monthly
temperatures range from about 30.5 to 61.2 degrees Fahrenheit. The mean monthly average
temperature in July is 65.9 degrees Fahrenheit. January is the coolest month of the year, with an
average monthly high temperature of 42.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Daily minimums range from 32.0 in
July to –22.0 degrees Fahrenheit in January. On an annual average, Fort Tuthill has 3.1 days where
high temperatures reach or exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit and 208.9 days per year where low
temperatures drop to or fall below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The average frost-free season ranges from
90–120 days. In general, the nighttime freezing temperatures usually begin by mid-September and
end in June.
Fort Tuthill

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-14

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

At Fort Tuthill, mean monthly precipitation ranges from 0.0 to 10.05 inches over 50 years of record
keeping. Annual mean winter snowfall ranges from 52.9 to 132.6 inches with extremes up to 184.3
inches. Spring is generally the driest season of the year.

2.2.2 Landforms

The topography of Luke AFB is flat, with elevations ranging from 1,075 to 1,105 feet above mean sea
level (AMSL). The base area generally slopes from north to south. Erosion on Luke AFB is controlled
only by a man-made canal system found on the northern, southern, and western perimeters of the
airfield. There are two hills between Litchfield Road and the munitions storage area near the
southeastern boundary of the main portion of Luke AFB. The southernmost hill is known as Sunset
Point, the elevation of which is approximately 1,125 feet AMSL. The other hill (unnamed) is about
1,500 feet to the north and has an elevation of approximately 1,100 feet AMSL.
Luke AFB

The topography of AUX-1 is flat. The elevation of the northwest portion of the site, adjacent to Trilby
Wash, is approximately 1,560 feet AMSL. The site slopes from northwest to southeast. The
approximate elevation of the southeast portion of the site is 1,500 feet AMSL.
AUX-1

Fort Tuthill lies in an area where the slope varies from 0 to 10 percent or greater, with elevations
ranging from 6,990 to 7,060 feet. The hotel and immediate structures are in an area characterized by
slopes of 2–5 percent surrounded by areas of 5–10 percent slope; the balance of the property is
characterized by slopes of greater than 10 percent.
Fort Tuthill

2.2.3 Geology and Soils

Luke AFB is in the Basin and Range physiographic province of the inland Western U.S. and
Northwestern Mexico. This province is characterized by north-south trending mountain ranges
separated by broad, alluvial valleys (Fenneman 1931). It is situated in the Luke basin, one of many
deep, broad basins bound by narrow fault-block mountain ranges. The base is located approximately
six miles to the east of the White Tank Mountains (Cook 2013). The White Tank Mountains trend
north-south and are remnants of faulted blocks of the earth's crust. To the south are the Sierra
Estrella Mountains and to the north are the Hieroglyphic Mountains and numerous inselbergs (Cook
2013). Erosion from these mountains has deposited large volumes of sand and gravel on the valley
floors, in many places so deep that it is often difficult to estimate the thickness of these deposits
(Chronic 1983). The depth of bedrock in the Luke Basin area ranges from 400 feet near the base of
the White Tank Mountains to over 11,200 feet on the eastern edge of the basin (Cook 2013).
Luke AFB

Rock types commonly found at Luke AFB include gravel-sized fragments of metamorphic gneiss and
igneous granite, both typical of the White Tank Mountains. These rocks are found randomly
dispersed in the soil matrix consisting of loam or mixtures of sands, silts, and clays. No sinks or fossil

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-15

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

beds are known to occur at Luke AFB and there are no geological features present to suggest the
presence of any fossil beds. The Luke basin contains extensive amounts of evaporate deposits that
are a likely remnants of a closed-basin saline lake. The largest of these evaporate deposits is the Luke
Salt Body, which is a large salt dome deposit approximately 9 miles long, 6 miles wide, and possibly
up to 10,000 feet thick (Cook 2013). Upper-level unconsolidated sediments have been the source of
groundwater in the area since the early 1900s.

AUX-1 is also located within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province of the southwestern U.S.
(Fenneman 1931). It is situated in a basin approximately five miles east of the White Tank Mountains.
The White Tank Mountains trend north-south and are remnants of faulted blocks of the earth's crust.
The Vulture Mountains are located to the north and the Hieroglyphic Mountains to the northeast.
Erosion from these mountains has resulted in the deposition of large volumes of sand and gravel onto
the valley floors (Chronic 1983).
AUX-1

Gravel- to boulder-sized fragments of metamorphic and igneous rock, including schist, gneiss, and
granite, all typical rock types of the adjacent mountain ranges, can be found in the AUX-1 alluvium.
Volcanic rock identified as pink, moderately-to-highly-welded tuff can also be found in the alluvium
at the site and likely originates from the Vulture Mountains, where volcanic tuff and schist are the
dominant rock material (Chronic 1983). Rock material is randomly dispersed in the sand, silt, and
clay soil matrix at AUX-1. Various authorities indicate that the area around AUX-1 may not be a
significant mineral resource area (McCory and O’Hare 1965, Stipp et al. 1967, Beikman et al. 1986).
No fossil beds are known to occur in the area.

According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service soil map for Coconino County, Fort Tuthill
lies within the Brolliar-Sponseller Association that is comprised of high basaltic plateaus and mesas
south of Flagstaff. The soils are moderately deep and moderately fine-textured. Overall, slopes range
from 0 to 30 percent throughout the entire park system.
Fort Tuthill

Brolliar soils have dark-colored, cobbly or stony loam surface layers covered by forest litter with
reddish brown clay loam or clay subsoils. Brolliar soils compose approximately 60 percent of the
association, with Sponseller soils making up the other 30 percent. The permeability of Brolliar soils
is slow, ranging from 0.06 to 0.20 inches per hour with a high water-holding capacity of 0.13 to 0.16
inches at a depth of 30 to 60 inches. Ordinarily found on basalt bedrock, Brolliar soils have a high
shrink-swell potential and moderate frost action. Erosion potential for this soil association is severe
on slopes greater than 8 percent.

Sponseller soils occur on basalt flows and cinder cones with dominant slopes of 8–25 percent. They
have reddish-brown, gravelly or cobbly loam surface layers with reddish-brown gravelly or cobbly
clay loam subsoils. Basalt bedrock lies at a depth of 30 to 60 inches. Weathered bedrock of basaltic
or cindery materials occur at a depth of 24 to 60 inches. A majority of this soil association lies within
the U.S. National Forest. Sponseller soils drain slowly, with a permeability rate ranging from 0.2 to
0.6 inches per hour. As with the Brolliar soils, Sponseller soils have a high water-holding capacity of

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-16

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

0.13 to 0.16 inches in cinders or fractured basalt at a depth of 24 to 60 inches. The shrink-swell
potential is moderate to high, as is the potential for frost action. Erosion potential is moderate to
severe on slopes greater than 40 percent.

2.2.4 Hydrology

Principal rivers in the region include the Salt and Gila Rivers. The Salt River flows into the Gila River
south of the greater Phoenix area. Near Luke AFB, the Agua Fria River is intermittent and runs
infrequently during storm events. There are no perennial or intermittent streams present on base.
The area immediately surrounding Luke AFB is highly developed and most natural drainage features
have been altered. Surface water at Luke AFB is very limited to nonexistent. During storm events,
sheet-flow surface water runoff occurs towards the south of the base. There is a man-made canal
around the perimeter of the airfield.
Luke AFB

Surface-water runoff at AUX-1 occurs towards the southeast by way of a man-made drainage canal
that parallels the abandoned runway, and by five, small, unnamed drainages paralleling the Trilby
Wash south of the runway. The Trilby Wash drainage trends northwest to southeast and crosses the
western boundary of the AUX-1 site. Surface runoff from AUX-1 flows into the Trilby Wash Detention
Basin and into the Agua Fria River. Downstream, the Agua Fria River drains into the Gila River. The
Granite Reef Aqueduct of the Central Arizona Project passes along the northwestern boundary of
AUX-1, but it does not appear to affect on-site erosional features.
AUX-1

Surface water runoff is generally down slope from south to north and from west to east at Fort Tuthill.
In terms of soil limitations for septic tank leach fields, both the Brolliar and the Sponseller soil
associations have severe limitations due to its slow permeability rate of less than 0.60 inches per
hour. In addition, Brolliar soils tend to have a layer of bedrock 3–4 feet below the surface, further
impacting infiltration.
Fort Tuthill

2.3

Ecosystems and the Biotic Environment

Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of
environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research,
assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. Ecoregions are
critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across various agencies
and organizations. Ecoregions are identified through the spatial patterns and composition of biotic
and abiotic phenomena, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife,
and hydrology. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of
ecological regions, with Level I being the coarsest and Level IV the most detailed. Luke AFB and AUX1 lie within the Level III Sonoran Basin and Range Ecoregion, and within the Gila/Salt Intermediate
Basins Level IV ecoregions (Griffith et al. 2014). The Gila/Salt Intermediate Basin ecoregion supports
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-17

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

the majority of the state’s human population and has permanently altered ecological features and
processes (Griffith et al. 2014).

Fort Tuthill lies within the Level III Arizona/New Mexico Mountains and within level IV Montane
Conifer Forest ecoregions. The ecoregion is based upon the oldest mountains in the Southwest,
containing Precambrian igneous rocks as old as 1.5 billion years. These older volcanic deposits are
overlaid by recent sediments and recent Holocene volcanics. This results in a diverse physiographic
region with elevations ranging from 6,000 to 9,700 feet in Arizona. The region contains more species
of birds and mammals than any other place in the southwestern region of the U.S. (Bell et al. 1999).
Ponderosa pine forests in the mountains are subject to fire and flood from poorly managed livestock
grazing, fire suppression, and altered hydrological regimes on nearly all levels.

2.3.1 Vegetation

Luke AFB is situated in the Lower Colorado River Valley Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert (Brown
and Lowe 1980). The Lower Colorado River Valley Subdivision is the largest and most arid
subdivision of the Sonoran Desert (Turner and Brown 1982). This subdivision is dominated by broad,
intermontane plains of alluvial soils, although it is not restricted to this physical setting. Vegetation
is generally open and simple, often with many hundreds of square miles dominated by one or two
species of low-growing shrubs. The ground surface between shrubs may be fine-textured soil or
desert pavements consisting of gravel or rock. Plants are drought-resistant with sclerophyllous
adaptations to retard transpiration. Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) is the dominant plant species
at most localities, typically forming monotonous, uniform growth on the flat intermontane plains,
occasionally broken by paloverde (Parkinsonia spp.) and mesquite (Prosopis spp.) along the washes.
Luke AFB

As with Luke AFB, AUX-1 is situated in the Lower Colorado River Valley Subdivision of the Sonoran
Desert (Turner and Brown 1982). Vegetation is composed almost entirely of drought-adapted (e.g.,
the microphyllous species) or drought-avoiding species (e.g., the macrophyllous species that are
active only during periods of abundant moisture). The site has a history of disturbance and human
use, which is manifested in the present distribution of vegetation across the site. In the absences of
disturbance, AUX-1 would likely be dominated by a creosote bush-bursage (Ambrosia spp.)
shrubland community, with mesquite and blue paloverde (P. florida) shrublands and woodlands
occurring along the major drainages. At present, there are a few highly degraded creosote-bursage
communities. A majority of AUX-1 is dominated by weedy perennial and annual species. Degraded
mesquite and blue paloverde shrublands and woodlands are found along the drainages and a
mesquite scrub shrub community grows in the low-lying areas.
AUX-1

At an average elevation of 7,000 feet, Fort Tuthills is located in the cold-temperate climatic zone,
which encompasses the Montane Conifer Forest biotic community (Brown and Lowe 1980).
Generally, montane forests in the region can be divided into two major communities: a Ponderosa
Pine forest and woodland, which is generally found at lower elevations and along south facing slopes;
Fort Tuthill

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-18

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

and a Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), White Fir (Abies concolor), Limber Pine (P. flexilis), and
Aspen (Populus tremuloides) forest community, which occurs on north facing slopes, in deep canyons,
and at higher elevations.

The Fort Tuthill area is dominated by degraded ponderosa pine forests that occur in a “dog-hair
thicket” stage characterized by numerous small and closely spaced trees. Gambel oaks (Quercus
gambelii) are also present in small numbers, as well as a scattering of other tree species. An inventory
of vertebrate and plant species likely to occur and actually observed at Fort Tuthill will be included
when results from planned species and habitat surveys (see Table 10.1) are available.

2.3.2 Turf and Landscaped Areas

The largest turf and landscape area at Luke AFB is the Falcon Dunes Golf Course, an 18-hole course
occupying approximately 100 acres directly north of the main base. It was constructed as part of a
Maricopa County Flood Control District project to contain flooding from Luke AFB and other nearby
communities. The golf course is designed to contain runoff from a 100-year storm event. About 30
acres of the course are xeriscaped with regionally appropriate, drought-tolerant (low water use),
native vegetation; only the greens, tees, fairways, and parts of the rough are turf.
Luke AFB

There are not any landscaped areas at AUX-1.
AUX-1

The only landscaped areas are around the main hotel and outbuildings. Ornamental landscaping is
rudimentary around the cabins and vegetation is cleared away from the primitive campsites.
Fort Tuthill

The last wildlife surveys at Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill were conducted during the 1980s and
1990s. Luke AFB has programmed funding for the AGFD to conduct wildlife and habitat surveys to
update the wildlife inventory. Surveying will begin in FY 2018 and continue for three years.

2.3.3 Fish and Wildlife

Luke AFB is a highly developed area with some wildlife habitat utilized by an array of generalist
species and no water resources for fish. Wildlife species present at Luke AFB are characteristic of the
Lower Colorado River Valley Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert (Turner and Brown 1982) and urbanadapted species common to this area of Central Arizona. Small, nocturnal, burrowing species of
Heteromyid rodents (e.g., pocket mice [Chaetodipus spp.] and kangaroo rats [Dipodomys spp.]); bats;
and diurnal, burrowing species (e.g., round-tailed ground squirrel [Xerospermophilus tereticaudus])
are probably the most common and most likely to be encountered in areas that retain some natural
habitat characteristics. Bats are unlikely to occur in large numbers over the highly urbanized and
landscaped areas of the base. It is common, however, to find small numbers of foraging and/or
roosting bats in the area. Other mammals likely to occur within the relatively intact native habitats
include black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), kit fox
Luke AFB

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-19

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

(Vulpes macrotis), and coyote (Canis latrans). Some species, particularly the desert cottontail and
coyote, are highly adapted to urbanized settings and may utilize landscaped areas such as the golf
course. The presence of these prey species may attract a variety of raptors, including (but not limited
to) ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrels (Falco
sparverius), and western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), as well as vultures. These birds have
been observed infrequently, but may occasionally hunt on these grounds or even become resident
species.

Surveys conducted in the 1990s by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1994) indicated that
the most common birds at Luke AFB include the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris), common starling (Sturnus vulgaris), great-tailed grackle (Quiscalus
mexicanus), and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). Among this group of birds, the starling,
grackle, and finch are mostly associated with human habitation and landscaped habitats. Mourning
doves also occur in such habitats but are also very common in native habitats. Horned larks are most
common in the open, mowed fields surrounding the base airfield. Reptiles and amphibians likely to
occur at Luke AFB include common, widely distributed species, such as side-blotched lizard (Uta
stansburiana), western whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus tigris), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer),
Great Plains toad (Anaxyrus cognatus), and Couch's spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus couchii). Reptiles and
amphibians are most likely to occur in natural areas, although they may occasionally occur in
developed areas.

The wildlife of AUX-1 is also characteristic of the Lower Colorado River Valley Subdivision of the
Sonoran Desert (Turner and Brown 1982). Small mammal, bird, reptile, and amphibian species are
the most commonly observed wildlife at AUX-1 (Dames & Moore 1994). Surveys from the 1990s
describe the presence of desert cottontail, black-tailed jackrabbit, kangaroo rats and pocket mice
(Dames & Moore 1994). Additionally, more than one hundred bird species have been observed at
AUX-1 over the course of a year, including the spring and fall migration seasons (Dames & Moore
1994). Common bird species at AUX-1 include red-tailed hawk, mourning dove, greater roadrunner
(Geococcyx californianus), common raven (Corvus corax), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos),
cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), curve-billed thrasher (Toxostoma curvirostre),
verdin (Auriparus flaviceps), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Reptiles consist of a diverse
array of lizards and snakes; however, amphibians are limited in numbers due to the absence of
aquatic habitats (Dames & Moore 1994). Common reptiles at AUX-1 include the desert spiny lizard
(Sceloporus magister), western whiptail lizard, side-blotched lizard, tree lizard (Urosaurus ornatus),
gopher snake, night snake (Hypsiglena torquata), and western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus
atrox). Larger predators also likely inhabit the area. Potential dens observed at AUX-1 could have
been constructed by either badgers (Taxidea taxus), kit foxes, or grey foxes (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), although the habitat is most typical of that occupied by kit foxes. Given the
apparently healthy population of round-tailed ground squirrels and other rodents at the site, there
may be a sufficient prey base present to support these predators. At least one coyote has been
observed in the area.
AUX- 1

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-20

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Evidence of trespass cattle (Bos taurus) has been observed at AUX-1. Cattle grazing is not permitted
at AUX-1, nevertheless cattle periodically find their way onto the site, representing a recurring
problem. Human trespass is frequent, including pedestrians, horseback riders, and vehicles.

The wildlife of Fort Tuthill is a combination typical to the ponderosa pine forest ecosystems of
southwestern U.S. and for disturbed areas in the region. Large predators, such as black bears (Ursus
americanus) and mountain lions (Puma concolor), as well as elk (Cervus canadensis) and deer
(Odocoileus spp.), may be found at Fort Tuthill. Other species that have been observed at the site
include house sparrows (Passer domesticus), house finches, and barn swallows (Hirundo rustica).
Fort Tuthill

Feral animals, specifically common house cats (Felis catus), are common in the disturbed portions of
Fort Tuthill and associated buildings. Feral and free-ranging cats have the potential to be serious
pests at Fort Tuthill as they tend to impact native wildlife and migratory bird species. The DoD
mandates that all domestic cats be kept indoors in order to keep them safe, and to prevent the killing
of federally protected wildlife species on federal lands. Such incidents would violate the DoD's
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USFWS to protect birds covered by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act or 1918 (MBTA).

The most recent surveys for protected species conducted at Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill took
place in the 1980s and 1990s; no federal or state listed species were detected at that time. Beginning
in 2018, Luke AFB has programmed funding to have the AGFD conduct a three-year survey for
updating its knowledge of federal and state protected species and potential habitats on the
installation. This section will be updated with new survey information once the survey analysis has
concluded.

2.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern

Special status species are species of plants and animals that, because of their scarcity or documented
declining population in a state or nation, have been placed on a special status list. Those lists include
any endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), or
otherwise sensitive species. Both the USFWS and AGFD maintain such lists (Table 2.3).
Special Status Species Definition

The USFWS has the authority to list species of plants and animals as endangered or threatened for
protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
(hereafter referred to as the ESA). The ESA is intended to provide a program of protection for listed
species and the ecosystems upon which these species depend. Endangered species are those in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges and threatened species are
those likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future if corrective measures are not taken.
Species proposed for listing as endangered or threatened are also protected by the ESA. All federal
agencies are required to consult with the USFWS if actions they propose may affect a listed species.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-21

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Table 2.3: Federally threatened and endangered species and Arizona Species of Greatest
Conservation Need at Luke AFB.
Common Name (Scientific Name)

Federal
Status1

American beaver (Castor canadensis)

NL

Arizona pocket mouse
(Perognathus amplus)

NL

Mammals

Antelope jackrabbit (Lepus alleni)
Arizona myotis (Myotis occultus)

Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida
brasiliensis)

California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus
californicus)
Cave myotis (Myotis velifer)

Greater western bonneted bat
(Eumops perotis californicus)
Harris’ antelope squirrel
(Ammospermophilus harrisii)
Jaguar (Panthera onca)

Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis)
Lesser long-nosed bat
(Leptonycteris curasoae
yerbabuenae)

Little pocket mouse (Perognathus
longimembris)
Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus
baileyi)
Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)

Pale Townsend's big-eared bat
(Corynorhinus townsendii
pallescens)
Pocketed free-tailed bat
(Nyctinomops femorosaccus)

Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra
americana sonoriensis)

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum)
Western red bat (Lasiurus
blossevillii)

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

NL

Arizona
Status2/
SWAP
Score3

Species of
Greatest
Conservation
Need

Federal Register
Reference

1b
1b

NL

SC/1b

NL

SC/1b

NL

1b

NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
LE

NL
LE

1b
1b

SC/1b
SC/1b
1a

1b

SC/1a
1b

53 FR 38456, 30
September 1988

LE,XN
1a

S

SC/1b

LE

SC/1a

NL
NL
S

1b

SC/1b
1b

32 FR 4001, 11
March 1967

2-22

Chapter 2

Common Name (Scientific Name)
Western yellow bat (Lasiurus
xanthinus)

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Federal
Status1
NL

Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis)
Abert's towhee (Melozone aberti)

NL
S

Birds

Arizona Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii
arizonae)

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
California least tern (Sterna
antillarum browni)

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis)
Gila woodpecker (Melanerpes
uropygialis)

Gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides)
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei)
Lincoln's sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii)
Pacific wren (Troglodytes pacificus)
Savannah sparrow (Passerculus
sandwichensis)

Sprague's pipit (Anthus spragueii)
Western burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia hypugaea)
Wood duck (Aix sponsa)

Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechial)

NL

BGEPA
LE

SC/1b
1b
1b

SC/1a

SC/1b

BGEPA

1b

NL
NL

1b
1b

MBTA

SC/1c

NL

1b

NL
NL

Yuma clapper rail (Rallus
longirostris yumanensis)

Desert mud turtle (Kinosternon
sonoriense sonoriense)
Reptiles

Gila monster (Heloderma
suspectum)

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

1b
1b

NL

SC/1a

NL

1b

MBTA

Species of
Greatest
Conservation
Need

Federal Register
Reference

SC/1b

NL

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus)

Regal horned lizard (Phrynosoma
solare)

Arizona
Status2/
SWAP
Score3

16 U.S.C. 668–668d
35 FR 8491, 2
June 1970

16 U.S.C. 703–712

SC/1c

16 U.S.C. 703–712

LT

SC/1a

79 FR 59991, 3
October 2014

NL

1b

NL
LE

NL
NL

1b

SC/1a

32 FR 4001, 11
March 1967

1a

1b

2-23

Chapter 2

Common Name (Scientific Name)
Saddled leaf-nosed snake
(Phyllorhynchus browni)

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Federal
Status1

Sonoran collared lizard (Crotaphytus
nebrius)
Sonoran coralsnake (Micruroides
euryxanthus)

Sonoran Desert toad (Incilius alvarius)
Sonoran Desert tortoise (Gopherus
agassizii)

Sonoran whipsnake (Coluber bilineatus)
Tiger rattlesnake (Crotalus tigris)
Tucson shovel-nosed snake
(Chionactisoccipitalis klauberi)

Variable sandsnake (Chilomeniscus
stramineus)
Arizona toad (Anaxyrus
microscaphus)
Amphibians

Lowland leopard frog (Lithobates
yavapaiensis)
Acuna cactus (Echinomastus
rectocentrus var. acunensis)
Plants

Arizona agave (Agave arizonica)

Arizona bugbane (Cimicifuga arizonica)
Arizona clematis (Clematis hirsutissima
Pursh var. arizonica)
Arizona cliffrose (Purshia (=Cowania)
subintegra)
Arizona hedgehog cactus
(Echinocereus triglochidiatus var.
arizonicus)
Brady pincushion cactus
(Pediocactus bradyi)

Canelo Hills ladies-tresses (Spiranthes
delitescens)
Catalina beardtongue (Penstemon
discolor)

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

NL
NL
NL
NL

Arizona
Status2/
SWAP
Score3
1B

Species of
Greatest
Conservation
Need

Federal Register
Reference

1B
1B
1B

NL

SC/1B

NL

SC/1B

NL

SC/1B

NL
NL
NL

1B
1B
1B

S

SC/1A

NL

HS

LE

NL
NL
LE
LE
LE
LE

NL

HS
HS
HS

78 FR 60607, 1
October 2013

HS

49 FR 22326, 29
May 1984

HS

44 FR 61784, 26
October 1979

HS
HS
HS

44 FR 61556, 25
October 1979
62 FR 665, 6
January 1997

2-24

Chapter 2

Common Name (Scientific Name)
Chiricahua dock (Rumex
orthoneurus)

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Federal
Status1

Cochise pincushion cactus
(Coryphantha robbinsiorum)

Desert Christmas tree (Pholisma
arenarium)

Fickeisen plains cactus (Pediocactus
peeblesianus fickeiseniae)
Gentry milk vetch (Dalea
tentaculoides)

Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii)
Golden-chested beehive cactus
(Coryphantha recurvate)

Goodding's onion (Allium gooddingii)
Holmgren milk-vetch (Astragalus
holmgreniorum)
Huachuca groundsel (Senecio
huachucanus)

Huachuca water-umbel (Lilaeopsis
schaffneriana var. recurve)

Jones cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis var.
jonesii)
Kaibab pincushion cactus (Pediocactus
paradinei)
Kearney's blue-star (Amsonia
kearneyana)

Lemmon's fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii)
Murphey's century plant (Agave
murpheyi)
Navajo sedge (Carex specuicola)

Nichol's Turk's head cactus
(Echinocactus horizonthalonius var.
nicholii)
Parish alkali grass (Puccinellia
parishii)

Peebles Navajo cactus (Pediocactus
peeblesianus var. peeblesianus)
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

NL
LT

NL
LE

NL
LE

Arizona
Status2/
SWAP
Score3
HS
HS
HS

HS
HS

NL

HS

NL

HS

NL
LE
LE

LT

HS
HS
HS

NL

HS

NL

HS

LE

NL
LT
LE

NL
LE

HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS

Species of
Greatest
Conservation
Need

Federal Register
Reference
51 FR 952, 9
January 1986

78 FR 60607, 1
October 2013

78 FR 49149, 13
August 2013
66 FR 49560, 28
September 2001
62 FR 665, 6
January 1997

51 FR 16526, 5
May 1986
54 FR 2131, 19
January 1989

50 FR 19370, 8
May 1985

44 FR 61927, 26
October 1979
44 FR 61922, 16
June 1976
2-25

Chapter 2

Common Name (Scientific Name)
Pima pineapple cactus
(Coryphantha scheeri var.
robustispina)

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Federal
Status1

San Francisco Peaks groundsel
(Senecio franciscanus)
San Francisco Peaks ragwort
(Packera franciscana)

Sandfood (Pholisma sonorae)

Santa Rita mountain yellowshow
(Amoreuxia gonzalezii)

Sentry milk-vetch (Astragalus
cremnophylax var. cremnophylax)

Siler pincushion cactus (Pediocactus
(=Echinocactus=Utahia) sileri)
Smallflower century plant (Agave
parviflora)
Texas purple spike (Hexalectris
warnockii)

Tonto Basin century plant (Agave
delamateri)
Trelease's century plant (Agave
schottii Engelm. var. treleasei)
Welsh's milkweed (Asclepias
welshii)

Yellow lady's slipper (Cypripedium
calceolus var. pubescens)
Zuni fleabane (Erigeron
rhizomatus)

LT
LT

NL
NL
LE

LT

NL
NL
NL
NL
LT

NL
LT

HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS
HS

Species of
Greatest
Conservation
Need

Federal Register
Reference

58 FR 49875,
23 September
1993

48 FR 52743, 22
November 1983
48 FR 52743, 22
November 1983
55 FR 50184, 5
December 1990

44 FR 61786, 26
October 1979

52 FR 41435, 28
October 1987
50 FR 16680, 26
April 1985

Status: BGEPA=Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, LE=Endangered (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service),
LT=Threatened (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), MBTA=Migratory Bird Treaty Act, NL=Not listed, S=Sensitive species
(Bureau of Land Management and/or U.S. Forest Service), SC=Species of Concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

1 Federal
2

LE

Arizona
Status2/
SWAP
Score3

Arizona Status: LE=Listed endangered, HS=Highly Safeguarded, SC=Species of Concern, NA=Not Applicable, NR=Not
Rated, XN=Experimental non-essential population.

3 Arizona State Wildlife Action plan (SWAP) score (species’ vulnerability): 1A=Scored 1 for vulnerability in at least one

of eight vulnerability categories and matches at least one of the following: federally listed as E, T, or Candidate species;
specifically covered under a signed conservation agreement or a signed conservation agreement with assurance; recently
delisted federally and requires post-delisting monitoring;; closed-season species (i.e., no take permitted), as identified in
Arizona Game and Fish; 1B=Scored 1 for vulnerability, but matches none of the criteria listed under 1A; 1C=Unknown
status species.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-26

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

The SGCN list identifies species of concern to the AGFD because their occurrence in Arizona is or may
be in jeopardy. Its focus is the degree to which habitats or populations have been impacted and each
species’ probability of extirpation from Arizona. Known threats and documented population declines
are now more important factors than limited distributions. The Arizona Species SGCN list reflects the
best information available.
Many native plant species are afforded protection by the Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA)
under the Arizona Native Plant Law, and are categorized as highly safeguarded, salvage restricted,
export restricted, salvage assessed, and harvest restricted (ADA 1994). Many plants that fall under
the protection of the Arizona Native Plant Law including ironwood (Olneya tesota), mesquite,
paloverde, ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), and all species of cacti are known to occur at Luke AFB
and AUX-1.

The MBTA, a federal statute that implements four treaties with the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, Japan,
and Russia, is designed to conserve more than 800 species of migratory birds (50 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] 10.13). The MTBA prohibits the taking, killing, or possessing of migratory birds
unless permitted by regulation. In 2003, the National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 107314) directed the Secretary of the Interior to exercise his or her authority under the MBTA to
prescribe regulations exempting the Armed Forces from incidental take during military readiness
activities authorized by the Secretary of Defense. Effective 30 March 2007, the USFWS issued a Final
Rule authorizing the take of migratory birds resulting from military readiness activities, provided
such activities do not have a significant adverse effect on a given population (USFWS 2007b).
2.3.4.1

Migratory Bird and Treaty Act

Executive Order (EO) 13186 directs agencies to take certain actions that further strengthen
migratory bird conservation under the conventions under the MBTA, the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA, 16 U.S.C. § 668, as amended in 1972) (hereafter referred to as the BGEPA)
(USFWS 2007a), and other pertinent statutes. It requires establishing MOUs between the USFWS and
other federal agencies. Accordingly, DoD and USFWS implemented an MOU in 2010 to promote the
conservation of migratory birds (DoD and USFWS 2006). This MOU describes specific actions that
should be taken by DoD to advance migratory bird conservation: avoid or minimize the take of
migratory birds and ensure that DoD operations—other than military readiness activities—are
consistent with the MBTA.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) F-35A Training Basing Mitigation Plan for Luke AFB
(USAF Air Education and Training Command 2013) also addresses migratory bird protection. The
plan stipulates that, in the military training airspace, (1) existing flight restrictions concerning
altitude and offset distances from sensitive species will be adhered to strictly, and (2) the quarter
statute mile overflight avoidance of Mexican spotted owl activity centers will be maintained (as
stated via informal consultation with the USFWS). The plan also stipulates that an open dialogue will
continue between 56 RMO Airspace Managers and Environmental Science staff to (1) ensure
compliance with biological opinions and identify/address any emerging issues associated with
airspace use, and (2) ensure that protected owl-activity centers are charted and avoidances are
described on in-flight guides for military training routes, respectively. Continued
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-27

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

monitoring/recording/tracking of deviations and noise complaints and communicate reported
deviations with appropriate offices.

In addition to the MBTA, the BGEPA prohibits any form of possession or take of bald or golden eagles
(including any body part, nest, or egg) unless allowed by permit. The BGEPA defines take as “to
pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” On 14 December
2016, the USFWS issued a Final Rule (50 CFR Parts 13 and 22) revising the regulations on permits
for incidental take of eagles and eagle nests to improve regulations clarity and improve compliance
while maintaining strong protection for eagles Revisions include changes to permit issuance and
duration, definitions, compensatory mitigation standards, criteria for nest removal permits, permit
application requirements, and fees (50 CFR Parts 13 and 22).
2.3.4.2

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

2.3.5 Wetlands and Floodplains

No wetlands have been identified at Luke AFB (CDM Federal Programs Corporation [CDMFPC] 1995).
A drainage ditch located on the northern boundary of the base was found to support hydrophytic
vegetation and there was evidence of wetland hydrology, but hydric soils were not present. A site
must display evidence of all three wetland indicators to be considered a wetland or, in the case of a
problem area (i.e., arid regions), hydric soil indicators are considered a constant factor during the
drier times of the growing season (CDMFPC 1995).
Luke AFB

There are no wetlands at AUX-1 (CDM Federal Programs Corporation [CDMFPC] 1995).
AUX-1

There are no wetlands at Fort Tuthill.
Fort Tuthill

Details of landscaped areas at Luke AFB are provided in section 7.7 of this document and in the Luke
AFB Landscape Design and Maintenance Standards Plan (Sherman Group 2003).

2.3.6 Other Natural Resources Information

Existing natural resources and outdoor recreation at Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill are described
in the following sections. Descriptions of existing conditions for this INRMP are based on information
in the Field Survey Report (CDMFPC 1995) prepared in support of this INRMP and field investigations
(Cristoffer 1994).

2.3.7 Mission Impacts on Natural Resources

Potential impacts to natural resources due to facilities expansion or mission changes should be
considered during planning. Management issues and concerns should focus on habitat for protected
species, drainage concerns, and compatible land use.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-28

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

To facilitate effective ecosystem management for Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill, impacts on
natural resources from activities carried out to meet the military mission must be understood and
incorporated into a management framework. Biodiversity goals must be defined and objectives
designed to meet those goals and should be integrated into management strategies. Data gaps should
be identified and filled to ensure a comprehensive approach.

2.3.8 Land Use

Luke AFB, is comprised of 3,054 acres (owned) and 1,788 acres (under easement). The population of
Luke AFB averages about 5,500, including military and civilian employees. The majority of Luke AFB is
developed with military and military-support buildings. The operational portions of the base are
controlled access areas, where only military personnel are permitted. These areas include, numerous
hangars, radar and logistics areas, the munitions storage area, the fuels distribution and storage areas,
the Armstrong and Avionics Laboratories, and generally all areas immediately adjacent to the tarmac.
Military support facilities include dormitories, housing areas, medical facilities, hobby buildings, military
retail facilities, warehouses, classrooms, offices, dining halls, leisure areas, and recreational buildings.
Luke AFB

The undeveloped or semi-developed lands of Luke AFB include areas adjacent to the runways and
surrounding the munitions storage area. These areas are designated as clear zones and will remain
undeveloped as long as the fighter-training operations continue.

There is an 18-hole golf course occupying approximately 100 acres directly to the north of the main
part of the base. The course has been planted with native grasses to control erosion and suppress
dust. It was constructed as part of a project to control flooding at Luke AFB and nearby communities
in agreement with Maricopa County Flood Control District. The golf course was designed to contain
runoff from storm events of up to 100-year flows.

AUX-1 is currently used for precision-approach landing practice by jet-fighter aircraft. Fighter pilots
approach the abandoned runway in landing mode and execute basic landing procedures, but they do
not actually touch down on the surface during these maneuvers. The airspace above AUX-1 is labeled
"Alert Area A-231—Concentrated Student Jet Transition Training" on the Phoenix Sectional
Aeronautical Chart. This restricted zone encompasses the air space between 500 and 6,500 feet
above ground level (AGL) (Dames & Moore 1994).
AUX-1

Most of the site is undeveloped land, with the exception of a radar facility and portable generator
station. The radar facility and generator are used to support pilot training. The runways represent
developed lands, even though they are not maintained and vegetation has grown into the asphalt.
Other developments include a limited number of dirt roads; primitive areas cleared for bivouac
facilities; parking; and a number of foxholes, trenches, and gun emplacements for personnel of Luke
AFB and other military forces during field-deployment training.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-29

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

Fort Tuthill, is approximately 14.5 acres in size and is used for lodging and outdoor recreation. The
lower portion of the recreation area is developed, with little remaining vegetation typical of the
natural ponderosa pine forest community. Fort Tuthill is essentially a campground with a variety of
cabins, open spaces with ramadas, and a hotel.
Fort Tuthill

Most current and future impacts associated with military activities at Luke AFB are associated with
the F-35A beddown and were analyzed in the 2012 Final F-35A Training Basing Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) (HQ Air Education and Training Command 2012). Construction started in
2013 and will continue through 2023. Construction for the beddown will occur on approximately
22.6 acres of previously disturbed area, primarily along the flightline. No long-term effects on
vegetation and wildlife are anticipated. Revegetation of disturbed areas would be conducted with
fresh landscaping. Construction activities are monitored as part of the F-35A EIS Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan (USAF 2013). To date, no adverse effects to the natural environment have occurred
from the F-35 support construction program.

2.3.9 Current Major Impacts

Noise levels in the vicinity of Luke AFB are expected to be qualitatively similar to existing noise.
Wildlife species on base live in a military airfield environment and are not expected to be adversely
affected by changes in aircraft overflight and noise associated with the F-35A.

The impacts of low-level flying in the military operating area were analyzed in the F-35A Training
Basing EIS (HQ Air Education and Training Command 2012). Based on the very low percentage of
time spent in low-level flight by F-35As training within the airspace and on the previous and ongoing
exposure of wildlife to training by other aircraft in the airspace, no significant adverse effects on
vegetation or wildlife from overflights or noise are anticipated.

Recent environmental impacts at Luke AFB can be attributed to the construction of the 10-megawatt
solar array that is located south of Super Sabre Street and west of the Munitions Storage Area. Luke
AFB entered into an enhanced-use lease with Arizona Public Service, the base’s provider of
electricity, to build and operate the solar array on 107 acres of undisturbed land on the south side of
the base. The entire 107 acres have been cleared to make way for the photovoltaic panels, with the
exception of the major drainage west of the Munitions Storage Area that bisects the solar array. The
drainage was conserved to maintain a microphyll (i.e., primitive plants with leaves that have one
single, unbranched leaf vein) woodland, an important habitat type that support 90 percent of the
birdlife, while occupying only five percent of the Sonoran Desert landscape (Dimmitt 2000).
Environmental benefits of the solar array are expected to include an offset of 1,847
pounds/Megawatt hours (MWh) of CO2 emissions and 491 gal/MWh of water consumption that
would otherwise be generated/consumed by a coal-fired electric-generating facility. Construction of
the solar array was completed in June 2016.

Growing evidence suggests that solar arrays may impact wildlife species; in particular, they may
attract migratory shore and marsh birds. Although a study to understand the extent of impacts from

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-30

Chapter 2

INSTALLATION PROFILE

the array at Luke AFB has not been implemented, any species found near the solar array are
documented and reported to 56 RMO staff.

The projected transition from the use of fourth-generation aircraft (such as the A-10 and F-16) to
fifth-generation aircraft (the F-35) will require Luke AFB to update and adapt facilities for proper
maintenance, operation, and storage requirements. Ongoing construction needs will continue
through 2023. To date, no adverse effects to the natural environment have occurred from the F-35
support construction program.

2.3.10 Potential Future Impacts

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

2-31

CHAPTER 3

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The USAF environmental program adheres to the Environmental Management System (EMS)
framework and its “Plan, Do, Check, Act” cycle for ensuring mission success. EO 13693, Planning for
Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade; DoDI 4715.17, Environmental Management Systems (DoD
2017c); AFI 32-7001, Environmental Management, with guidance changes (USAF 2017a); and
International Standards guidance ISO 14001:2004 (International Organization for Standards 2004),
provide guidance on how environmental programs should be established, implemented, and
maintained to operate under the EMS framework.
The Natural Resources Programs employ EMS-based processes to achieve compliance with all legal
obligations and current policy drivers by effectively managing associated risks, and instilling a
culture of continuous improvement. The INRMP serves as an administrative operational control that
defines compliance-related activities and processes.

The host command at Luke AFB is the 56 FW. The 56 FW enterprise includes Luke AFB, AUX-1, Fort
Tuthill, BMGR East, and the Gila Bend AFAF. Within the boundaries of Luke AFB, there are a number
of tenant units. The scope of Luke AFB’s EMS includes all the activities, services, and products
associated with the operations of the 56 FW and tenants.

The 56 FW Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer Environmental Element (CES/CEIE) provides
Luke AFB, AUX-1, Fort Tuthill, Gila Bend AFAF, and tenants with effective program management and
technical oversight of all environmental aspects. The 56 RMO Environmental Science Management
(ESM) (56 RMO/ESM) manages the natural and cultural resource aspects of BMGR East, while 56
CES/CEIE manages the other compliance aspects of BMGR East.
The Luke AFB ESM Commitment Statement reads as follows:

•
•
•

“The 56 FW enterprise is committed to building the future of airpower in an
environmentally responsible manner. We will comply with all environmental regulations
and AF [USAF] instructions, and strive for continual improvement in our environmental
performance. This commitment encompasses the integration of sound environmental
practices into our daily decisions and activities while recognizing the regional
environmental concerns of air quality and water availability. In support of this
commitment, we will:

Set environmental goals, measure progress, and communicate results via the Cross
Functional Team and Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health Council.
Maintain an effective sustainability program to minimize the generation of wastes and
encourage recycling.
Conduct regular environmental performance assessments, and develop plans to address
noncompliance situations.

“Supporting this EMS commitment is the responsibility of every member of the Luke AFB
community in accordance with his or her role and responsibilities in the organization.”

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

3-32

CHAPTER 4

GENERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

General roles and responsibilities necessary to implement and support the Natural Resources
Program are listed in the table below. Specific natural resources management-related roles and
responsibilities are described in appropriate sections of this plan.
Table 4.1: General roles and responsibilities necessary to implement and support the Natural Resources
Program.
Office/Organization/Job Tile
(not in order of responsibility)

Installation Role/Responsibility Description

The 56 FW Commander has delegated authority and oversight for
all Luke AFB functions, including those occurring on all outlying and
satellite areas.

Approve the INRMP by signature and certifies all INRMP
revisions.
Ensure that the INRMP is consistent with the use of the
installations to ensure the preparedness of the Armed Forces.
Control access to and use of natural resources.
Commit to seek funding and execute all “must fund” projects
and activities within identified timeframe.
Provide appropriate staffing to execute INRMP implementation.

Roles and Responsibilities
•
Installation Commander

•
•
•
•

AFCEC Natural Resources Media
Manager/Subject Matter Expert
(SME)/Subject Matter Specialist
(SMS)

Advocate for resources and funding to implement approved INRMPs.

•
Installation Natural Resources
Manager/POC

Installation Security Forces
Installation Wildland Fire
Program Manager

•

N/A
N/A

Support military training by managing the natural resources in
accordance with applicable laws, executive orders, and
directives.
Coordinate INRMP updates, revisions, and implementation
requirements with applicable federal, state, and tribal
government agencies, as well as nongovernmental
organizations and parties.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

4-33

Chapter 4

GENERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Office/Organization/Job Tile
(not in order of responsibility)

Pest Manager

Range Operating Agency
Conservation Law Enforcement
Officer (CLEO)
National Environmental Policy
Act/Environmental Impact
Analysis Process (NEPA/EIAP)
Manager

Installation Role/Responsibility Description
•
•

N/A
N/A

Conduct NEPA/EIAP for all installation projects in coordination with
the Natural Resources Managers.
•
•

U.S. Forest Service

•

•
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Serve as primary POC for all base pesticide use.
Assist natural resources staff with the safe, effective,
economical, and environmentally acceptable management of
pests.

•
•

Manage the Coconino National Forest surrounding Fort Tuthill.
Serve as the participating agency in the Greater Flagstaff Forest
Partnership.
Coordinate with adjacent landowners (Fort Tuthill) to reduce
wildfire risk and improve public safety and health through
large-scale forest thinning and other fire-suppression activities.

Serve as the implementing agency for the ESA, MBTA, and
BGEPA.
Conduct Section 7 consultations and issue biological opinions
as warranted.
Work with federal and non-federal partners toward recovery of
listed species.
•
•

Arizona Game and Fish
Department

•
•
•

Provide primary jurisdiction over wildlife management,
except where pre-empted by federal law.
Provide assistance for INRMP development and
implementation through the 2015 Cooperative Agreement
(USACE and AGFD 2015).
Develop and maintain habitat assessment/evaluation,
protection, management, and enhancement projects.
Conduct wildlife monitoring.
Manage wildlife predators and recovery of protected
species in accordance with the ESA, shared responsibility
with the USFWS.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

4-34

CHAPTER 5

TRAINING

USAF installation Natural Resource Manager/Point of Contact (NRM/POC) personnel and other
natural resources support personnel require specific education, training, and work experience to
adequately perform their jobs. Section 107 of the Sikes Act requires that professionally trained
personnel perform the tasks necessary to update and carry out certain actions required within this
INRMP. Specific training and certification may be necessary to maintain a level of competence in
relevant areas as installation needs change or to fulfill a permitting requirement.
Training requirements and suggested trainings for Luke AFB natural resource support personnel are
listed below.
•
•

•

•

•

•

•

All natural resources managers are required to complete DoD Natural Resources Compliance.
All personnel tasked with handling or managing protected species should complete
Interagency Consultation for Endangered Species and/or other courses related to the ESA,
MBTA, and BGEPA.
Natural resource management personnel shall be encouraged to attain professional
registration, certification, or licensing for their related fields and may be allowed to attend
appropriate national, regional, and state conferences and training courses.
All individuals who will be enforcing fish, wildlife, and natural resources laws on USAF lands
must receive specialized, professional training on the enforcement of fish, wildlife, and
natural resources laws in compliance with the Sikes Act. This training may be obtained by
successfully completing the Land Management Police Training course at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (http://www.fletc.gov/).
Individuals participating in the capture and handling of sick, injured, or nuisance wildlife
should receive appropriate training, including training that is mandatory to attain any
required permits.
Personnel supporting the BASH program should receive flight-line drivers training, training
in identification of bird species occurring on airfields, and specialized training in the use of
firearms and pyrotechnics as appropriate for their expected level of involvement.
The DoD-supported publication Conserving Biodiversity on Military Lands—A Handbook for
Natural Resources Managers provides guidance, case studies and other information regarding
the management of natural resources on DoD installations.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

5-35

CHAPTER 6
6.1

RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING

Recordkeeping

Military installations maintain required records in accordance with Air Force Manual 33-363,
Management of Records (USAF 2008), and dispose of records in accordance with the Air Force
Records Management System records disposition schedule (USAF 2018). Numerous types of records
must be maintained to support implementation of the Natural Resources Programs. Specific records
are identified in applicable sections of this plan, in the Natural Resources Playbook, and in referenced
documents.

All natural resources-related documentation is stored and maintained at Building 500, Luke AFB. The
56 CES maintains a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) server for data, which resides in the 56th
Comm Network Communication Center and is on the Non-classified Internet Protocol Router
Network (NIPRNet).

6.2

Reporting

The installation NRM is responsible for responding to natural resources-related data calls and
reporting requirements. The NRM and supporting AFCEC Media Manager and Subject Matter
Specialists should refer to the Environmental Reporting Playbook for guidance on execution of data
gathering, quality control/quality assurance, and report development.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

6-36

CHAPTER 7

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

A primary goal of integrated natural resource planning is to maintain ecosystem integrity and
dynamics without compromising the military mission. Maintaining healthy ecosystems promotes
good stewardship by protecting existing biodiversity, ensures sustainable use of the facility, and
minimizes management costs and efforts.
Goals are overall statements of what conditions are desirable within the installation. Objectives are
more specific actions designed to meet the stated goals. Objectives are based on current and
anticipated conditions. This INRMP must be reviewed over time to ensure that implementation of the
objectives is proving effective in working toward achieving stated goals. As resource concerns arise
and conditions change, or if goals are not being met, the objectives must be altered to meet those
changing needs. The INRMP provides the flexibility to allow for such changes.

7.1

Fish and Wildlife Management

Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations that require fish and wildlife management. This section IS
applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill.
Program Overview/Current Management Practices

Many of the flora and fauna surveys took place in the 1990s and are considered outdated. As a result,
Luke AFB has approved funding for conducting surveys over the next five years. Survey results will
be incorporated into this INRMP during the annual review process. The following outlines the
planned projects to update the species and species habitat information within this INRMP.
FY 2018
•
•
•

Bird species and migratory bird species survey
Species, species at risk and candidate/concern species survey
Habitat and vegetation classification survey

FY 2019

Habitat and invasive species survey

FY 2020
•

•

Habitat and invasive species survey

Of primary importance to wildlife species currently occurring at Luke AFB is protecting and
conserving portions of the base that support natural, undisturbed vegetation. The 56 CES
Environmental Element at Luke AFB must be contacted before any ground-disturbing activities are
authorized in these areas. If possible, future development should avoid the major drainage (west of
the munitions enclosure) that supports microphyll woodlands and smaller patches of this valuable
wildlife habitat type. In terms of wildlife diversity, these areas probably support the most species on
Luke AFB

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-37

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Luke AFB, providing food, cover, and relatively more water for wildlife than the adjacent desert scrub
or disturbed areas. In particular, microphyll woodlands should be preserved, as they are likely to
support more nesting bird species in comparison to adjacent areas. Microphyll woodlands represent
an important resource for resident and Neotropical migratory birds, as well as various small
mammals that forage on the seeds produced by the mesquite trees.

In addition to seeds, leaves from the rich ephemeral flora associated with the drainage area provide
an important food source for herbivores. Many species of reptiles occur in these drainages, where
forage (insects, fruits, green plants, and lizard prey) is more readily available. The protection and
conservation of the remaining undisturbed desert scrub vegetation is also desirable. These areas
support a host of small mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, and they add an important habitat
component for wildlife utilizing the contiguous wash areas. Future development or ground
disturbing activities should be restricted to the relatively extensive areas that are already disturbed.

The base housing areas support a variety of large trees, shrubs, and herbaceous flowering plants that
provide some foraging and roosting habitat for resident and Neotropical migratory birds. Current
conditions should be maintained by replacing or replanting trees and shrubs lost to disease or
storms. Native trees should be used to replace ornamental and other non-native trees that are lost
(USACE 1994, Clark and Ingraldi 2017).

Ferruginous hawks and western burrowing owls, both protected by the MBTA, are observed at Luke
AFB, but they are observed infrequently. The mowed areas around the runways at Luke AFB could
provide suitable foraging habitat for ferruginous hawks. This is especially true in early fall and spring
when the round-tailed ground squirrel, an important prey species, is active. Ferruginous hawks also
have been observed on base in winter and may be attracted by Arizona cotton rats (Sigmodon
arizonae) that can be found in this disturbed habitat.

Management of an area for special status wildlife species usually involves initiating techniques
known to improve habitat and/or food resources for them. However, encouraging the ferruginous
hawk population at Luke AFB also increases BASH issues. The goal of management at all USAF bases
is to reduce the potential for bird/wildlife air strike hazards by discouraging birds to enter areas of
aircraft operation (USACE 1994). As such, a change in maintenance procedures has been
recommended to protect aircraft, pilots, and birds of conservation concern (USACE 1994). Any
airfield maintenance activity that disturbs a relatively large area of ground (e.g., mowing,
construction, etc.) should not be scheduled during hawk migration season (i.e., mid-August, October,
November, February, March). Such activity would potentially attract more raptors to feed on rodents
displaced by mowing into open areas of the base, which would increase the potential for an aircraftbird strike and its catastrophic consequences to the pilot, aircraft, and bird (USACE 1994).
The presence of introduced feral animals can have a negative impact on native wildlife. The most
prevalent feral animal species is the common house cat, which is found in the disturbed portions of
Luke AFB and associated building structures. Feral cats have the potential to be serious pests at Luke
AFB and negatively affect native wildlife and migratory bird species. The DoD requires that all cats
be kept indoors to keep them safe and to prevent them from killing federally protected wildlife on
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-38

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

federal lands, which would be a violation of DoD's MOU with the USFWS to protect birds covered by
the MBTA.

Whereas much of AUX–1 is disturbed, important wildlife habitat does remain along the major
drainages of this facility. These drainages support microphyll woodlands, which include small
mesquite and blue paloverde trees important to Neotropical migratory birds and a variety of other
wildlife species discussed in the previous section. All ongoing and future activities should avoid any
ground-disturbing activities in these drainages. Ground-disturbing activities should be confined to
previously disturbed areas of relatively low wildlife habitat value. These areas, have been mapped as
forb, grass, and creosote bush mixed communities and account for the majority of the surface area at
AUX-1. As such, there should be sufficient area to accommodate all ongoing and future training
activity.
AUX-1

Deployed troops shall not shoot at, chase, scare, or in any other way harass wildlife at the AUX-1 site,
including snakes, lizards, birds, or mammals.

Wildlife at Fort Tuthill should benefit from the proposed tree thinning, exotic plant removal, and
wildflower plantings occurring at the area. A Watchable Wildlife program may be initiated at Fort
Tuthill to enhance user enjoyment and expand recreational opportunities. Since there is no hunting
allowed at Fort Tuthill, emphasis should be placed on non-game species. More specific objectives will
be created in collaboration with the AGFD and other interested organizations.
Fort Tuthill

Feral cats have the greatest potential to be serious pests at Fort Tuthill and have a negative impact
on native wildlife and migratory bird species. To reduce the killing of birds and other wildlife, Luke
AFB has initiated a live trapping and removal program for feral cats. All animals are captured
humanely and turned over to the local Humane Society for care.

7.2

Outdoor Recreation and Public Access to Natural Resources

Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations that have available recreational activities. This section IS
applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill.
Program Overview/Current Management Practices

There are limited outdoor recreational opportunities at Luke AFB. Military personnel and civilians
interested in hiking, birdwatching, nature observations, and small game hunting should be directed
to the larger natural areas available for these activities outside the installation.
Luke AFB

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-39

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Recreational activities at this site are restricted and generally not allowed because of potential
interference with military field-training maneuvers. Moreover, field-training maneuvers could pose
a threat to the health and safety of recreational users. If the operational status of AUX-1 were to
change and safety of recreational users was not an issue, potential outdoor recreational activities
available to the public could include hunting, hiking, off-road bicycling, rock hounding, nature
photography, and birdwatching. Any small game hunting at AUX-1 would require a hunting license
from AGFD.
AUX-1

Presently, there is no permanent Watchable
Wildlife program Fort Tuthill. Because the
primary purpose of Fort Tuthill is to provide
natural-resource based recreation for USAF
personnel, it seems the most likely place to
initiate such a program. One possibility is to
make visitors more aware of the recreational
opportunities on the county, state, and U.S.
Forest Service lands adjacent to Fort Tuthill,
where certain species such as elk and deer are
more likely to be seen. There is an extensive
network of hiking and bicycle trails within easy
access to Fort Tuthill visitors, as well as other
activities (Figure 7.1).
Fort Tuthill

7.3

Conservation Law Enforcement

Figure 7.1: Nature trails can be found throughout
the campgrounds at Fort Tuthill. Photo courtesy of
Senior Airman Darlene Seltmann.

Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations that require conservation law enforcement. This section IS
NOT applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill. Natural Resources staff are supported by the
56th Security Forces Squadron. With regard to conservation law enforcement needs, the NRM
coordinates with the Security Forces and USFWS and AGFD enforcement personnel, as necessary.
USAF policy permits access to installations by federal, state, and local conservation personnel for
enforcement duties.

7.4

Management of Threatened and Endangered Species, Species of Greatest
Conservation Need, and Habitats

Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations that provide suitable habitat and where sensitive species
are known to occur. This section IS applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-40

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Program Overview/Current Management Practices

Conclusions from past surveys indicate that there are no special-status plant or animal species at
Luke AFB, AUX-1, or Fort Tuthill that reside and rely on resources at either site. The installation,
however, is interested in updating its knowledge on the existence of resident and migratory birds,
protected species, and species habitat and has secured funding for these surveys to occur over the
next three years (FY 2018–2020). This section will be updated during annual reviews with the results
of those surveys and any new management actions to be implemented if protected species or habitat
are found.

Species protected by the MBTA or ESA and species listed by AGFD as SGCN are discouraged from
occurring on the Luke AFB airfield to minimize the risk of BASH issues and the risk of protected
species mortality. Whereas species protected by the MBTA and listed by AGFD as SGCN could occur
at AUX-1, AFI 91-202 (USAF 2017d) clarifies that, to reduce BASH issues, airfields and the
surrounding airfield environments are not to be managed as wildlife habitat. A U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Animal Planet Health Inspection Services (APHIS) wildlife specialist monitors
wildlife populations at and around the airfield and identifies and mitigates threats to aircraft.
Even though Luke AFB and Aux-1 are not managed as wildlife habitat, the 56 FW manages designated
airspace over central and southern Arizona. The BMGR and surrounding federal and state lands
provide a haven for wildlife dependent on undeveloped desert habitat. A thorough discussion of the
species present in these areas and the management actions taken by Luke AFB to protect these
species is discussed in detail in the BMGR INRMP (see Volume 1, Section 7.1 Fish and Wildlife
Management and Section 7.4 Management of Threatened and Endangered Species). Actions to protect
migratory birds covered by the MBTA and to reduce BASH issues are discussed in Section 7.12
Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazards. Efforts for protecting bald and golden eagles that could be
encountered during training activities are provided below in Section 7.4.1. Bald and Golden Eagles.

Since the 1990s when the bald eagle was listed under the ESA, pilots of military aircraft flown or
managed by the 56 FW observe a 1-nautical-mile lateral separation around bald eagle breeding areas
during the breeding season (December 1–July 15), in accordance with measures described in a 1994
biological opinion. Luke AFB also has been a committee member of the Southwestern Bald Eagle
Management Committee since at least the 1990s and, in 2007, the 56 FW became an MOU signatory
to the Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the Bald Eagle in Arizona.

7.4.1 Bald and Golden Eagles

After the bald eagle was delisted on 28 June 2007 and the 1994 biological opinion was no longer in
effect, eagles nonetheless remained protected by the MBTA and the BGEPA. In 2013, the 56 RMO,
with technical assistance from USFWS and AGFD, implemented two changes to the avoidance buffers
around bald eagle breeding areas. First, the avoidance buffer during the breeding season was
changed from 1–nautical-mile of lateral separation to 2,000 feet of lateral and vertical separation.
Second, the breeding season is now observed from December 1 to June 30, in accordance with a 2006
Conservation Assessment, which was renewed in 2014. Because the bald eagle breeding window has
been found recently at specific locations to extend past June 30 (especially at higher elevations where

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-41

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

nesting is initiated later in the spring), further evaluation and information may warrant
consideration in altering this window for specific nesting sites.

Less is known about the avoidance measures needed for golden eagles that may be affected by
military training activities. This lack of knowledge and updates to the BGEPA have increased the need
for golden eagle nest monitoring in the southwestern desert region. In 2011, the Southwestern
Golden Eagle Management Committee was formed and the 56 FW became a participant on that
committee.

Beginning in 2006, AGFD began to investigate breeding golden eagle statewide distribution and
status, which led to an improved understanding and the current ongoing monitoring effort (McCarty
et al. 2017). In 2006, AGFD surveyed 85 previously known breeding areas (BAs), finding 14 were
occupied by golden eagles (McCarty et al. 2017). From 2011 to 2014, the Department conducted
statewide aerial occupancy and nest survey efforts for cliff-nesting golden eagles (McCarty et al.
2017). Building upon these survey results, the AGFD began assessing productivity at a subsample of
known BAs in 2015 and 2016 (McCarty et al. 2017). After the 2017 season, there were 275 known
golden eagle BAs, 46 historic BAs, and 474 potential BAs outside of Native American lands in Arizona.

The DOD also contracted with AGFD to design and implement a three-year study (2013–2015)
evaluating possible impacts to golden eagles from airborne military training activities and
compliance with BGEPA. The study has three primary objectives: (1) identify and survey the potential
distribution of golden eagle breeding areas across military lands, (2) create a landscape-scale model
to predict the likelihood of potential golden eagle nesting habitat, and (3) collect golden eagle
demographic information and provide management recommendations that will permit BMGR and
other southwestern military installations to maintain their training regimes while also complying
with the BGEPA (Piorkowski et al. 2015).

The following actions were recommended for implementation.
•

•
•
•

•

Continue monitoring known, potential, and historic golden eagle nests on military
installations.
Coordinate with local, state, and regional authorities on current golden eagle distribution and
status to inform current and future military activities for compliance with BGEPA.
Develop avoidance buffers around known golden eagle nests during the breeding season,
specifically those that were occupied within the last five years.
Avoid disturbance around potential and historic golden eagle nests during the early (preincubation, incubation, and nests with nestlings <4 weeks of age) breeding season. Potential
nest sites are described as those that provide suitable nest-site structure but where no golden
eagles have been previously observed. Historic nests are sites that were used by golden
eagles in the past, but have had no occupancy for the most recent decade. Normal military
training activities can resume in the area once all potential or historic nests have been
deemed unoccupied for a given breeding season.
Avoid heavy ground and aerial disturbance during the early breeding season within habitat
predicted by the habitat model as having a high likelihood of being potential golden eagle
nesting habitat. By using precise modeling, reducing heavy disturbance activities in areas of

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-42

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

high likelihood may reduce or eliminate incidental take even if surveys to document nesting
golden eagles have not been completed in those areas. Future model validation should allow
quantification of thresholds associated with high likelihood habitat in the modeled estimates.

There is a current effort underway (via contract between USAF and the Colorado State University’s
Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands) to compile and standardize all historical
locations of eagle nests and associated data for a subset of Air Force installations in the western U.S.,
including Luke AFB and BMGR. All nest locations recorded on installations after project completion
should be shared with the AGFD. Likewise, periodically BMGR and Luke AFB will request all eagle
nest data recorded by AGFD within the military operating area. The project products will include
recommendations for compliance with BGEPA, including monitoring eagle populations, behaviors,
and productivity; mitigating disturbance; and assessing the risks associated with overhead utility
infrastructure. Meanwhile, the 56 FW observes the same buffer parameters for golden eagle nests as
it does for bald eagle nests (territories occupied within the most recent decade): 2,000 feet of lateral
and vertical separation from December 1 to June 30. As new information about sensitive areas is
acquired, it will be provided to the 56 RMO Airspace Manager, who updates the GIS layers with the
new data, displays all the sensitive species areas on maps, and shares the maps with trainees so that
these sensitive areas may be avoided during crucial times and/or seasons.

7.5

Water Resources Protection

Applicability Statement

This section applies to AF installations that hold water resources that require protection to maintain
the integrity of the watershed. This section IS applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill.
Program Overview/Current Management Practices

Surface water at Luke AFB is very limited. There are no perennial or intermittent streams present on
the base. Surface water at Luke AFB generally drains along a stormwater drainage network to the
south side of Glendale.
The following objectives are set forth to achieve the goal of protecting watershed integrity. Luke AFB
is actively pursuing these objectives.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Continue to restrict aircraft washing to the wash rack.
Conduct bioremediation of oil/water separators.
Continue to work with shops to implement best management practices.
Inspect outfalls during/after rain events that result in discharges.
Continue to issue Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge Permits.
Conduct monthly reviews of Wastewater Treatment Plant operations.
Conduct monthly reviews of discharge monitoring reports.
Implement a Water Conservation Program.
Reduce water usage.
Convert turf areas to xeriscape.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-43

Chapter 7

•

7.6

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Incorporate LEED water conservation strategies at New F-35 facilities.

Wetlands Protection

Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations that have identified wetlands that require protection. This
section IS NOT applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill.
Program Overview/Current Management Practices

Even though no wetlands have been identified at Luke AFB, AUX-1 or Fort Tuthill (USACE 1995), in
practice any drainage that functions to transport water and has a discernable high-water mark can
qualify as a U.S. Water. Developing such drainages would require obtaining a permit from the USACE,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act if dredge or fill material is discharged into the
drainage (33 U.S. Code § 1344). The Nationwide 26 Permit is applicable if less than an acre of a U.S.
Water is affected. When 1–10 acres are affected, it is discretionary as to whether a Nationwide or
Individual Permit is required. The determination takes into account whether potential impacts are
considered minor or major. An individual permit is required when more than 10 acres are effected.
Before any proposed projects that would entail development in washes or small drainages are
initiated, the Environmental Flight should be notified so they can consult with the Arizona Area Office
of the USACE (Los Angeles District), Regulatory Branch, with regard to permit requirements for the
action.

While Fort Tuthill does not include any wetland areas, at times there may be large amounts of runoff
during storm events from the steep slopes on that property. Recommendations include monitoring
such events to determine the necessity and feasibility of constructing stormwater retention facilities
to prevent or mitigate damage.

7.7

Grounds Maintenance

Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations that perform ground maintenance activities that could
impact natural resources. This section IS applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill.

Program Overview/Current Management Practices

A majority of Luke AFB is developed with office and residential buildings; air fields; and recreational
facilities (i.e., Falcon Dunes Golf Course). These areas account for approximately 91 percent (about
2,650 acres) of the total Luke AFB land area. Landscaping and grounds maintenance across the
developed portions of Luke AFB provide environmental, economic, and social benefits. These
benefits, as outlined in the Luke AFB Urban Forest Inventory and Urban Forest Management
Guidelines (Clark and Ingraldi 2017), are listed below.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-44

Chapter 7

•

•

•

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Economic—Landscaping increases property value, reduces cooling costs, increases economic
stability, increases community and business district appeal, reduces expenditures on gray
infrastructure, and increases the lifespan of pavement.
Environmental—Landscaping reduces greenhouse gasses, the urban heat island effect,
energy consumption (i.e., cooling), and stormwater pollution; improves air and water quality;
and provides wildlife habitat.
Social benefits—Landscaping provides shade for outdoor activities, serves as a sound buffer
by reducing noises, and generally increases the quality of life for military personnel and
families living and working at Luke AFB.

USAF policies and guidelines regarding grounds maintenance and urban forest management are
included under “Land Management” in Chapter 11 of AFI 32-7064 (USAF 2016a). In general, AFI 327064 states that installations should design and implement landscaping that emphasizes the use of
native plants, minimizes chemical usage and encourages pollution prevention, promotes designs that
minimize adverse impacts to natural resources, and implements landscape designs that reduce
maintenance and input costs associated with energy, water, chemicals, labor, and equipment needs.
To comply with AFI 32-7064, Luke AFB has developed and implemented several management plans
to govern ground maintenance and urban forest management activities at the installation. These
plans are listed below.
•
•

•
•
•

Luke AFB Landscape Design and Maintenance Standards (Sherman Group 2003)
Urban Forest Inventory and Urban Forest Management Guidelines for Luke AFB (Clark and
Ingraldi 2017)
Luke AFB IPMP (Luke AFB 2015)
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) for Luke AFB (CH2MHILL 2012)
Falcon Dunes GEM Plan for Luke AFB (Air Force Center for Engineering & the Environment
2011)

The Luke AFB Landscape Design and Maintenance Standards Plan (Sherman Group 2003) defines the
roles, standards, and guidelines for grounds maintenance at the installation. In general, the plan
defines the approved plant material list with planting specifications for all turf and ornamental
species, mowing and pruning requirements, irrigation duration and frequency requirements—by
species—for all seasons, and approved design specifications for all landscaped areas. Grounds
maintenance is performed by private landscaping companies through service contract agreements.
General Maintenance Issues Associated with Turf Areas and Ornamental Planting Areas, Such
As Disease, Insect, or Invasive Species

The Luke AFB IPMP (Luke AFB 2015) discusses the roles, responsibilities, and protocols for grounds
maintenance associated with pest management at Luke AFB, including the Falcon Dunes Golf Course.
The stated goal of this plan is attain 100 percent control of turf and ornamental weeds on Luke AFB
property through a variety of chemical and mechanical treatment methods. Implementation of the
plan falls under the landscape maintenance responsibilities of the National Construction &
Maintenance program. Luke AFB utilizes a comprehensive integrated pest management approach to
weed and pest control that takes into account the various chemical, physical, and biological

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-45

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

suppression techniques available. The program also calls for analyzing the weed or pest habitat and
its interrelationship with the ecosystem. Every attempt is made to use the lowest percentage of
active-ingredient herbicides possible to attain control and to also prioritize the use of mechanical
weed control methods over chemical application wherever practical.

A variety of weeds impact the turf and ornamental areas at Luke AFB. These weeds are controlled
through the use of periodic pre-emergent and post-emergent herbicide applications designed to
protect high value landscape resources. Isolated weed patches are also controlled by mechanical
means such as hoeing and hand pulling. Pest impacting Luke AFB turf and ornamentals areas include
gophers and rodents. Weeds impacting the Falcon Dunes Golf Course include annual bluegrass (Poa
annua), goose grass (Eleusine indica), clover (Trifolium spp.), and nut grass (Cyperus spp.). Pest
species impacting the golf course include Green June beetles (Cotinis nitida), cutworms, and Rove
Beetles (Staphylinidae). Disease issues are not a common at either Luke AFB or the Falcon Dunes Golf
Course and are treated on a case by case basis. The Luke AFB IPMP (2015) provides management
recommendations for each of these weed/pest species and disease issues. More information
regarding the Luke AFB Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program can be found in section 7.11 of
this plan.
Non-Point Source Pollution Issues Associated with Landscape Pesticides and Fertilizers

To prevent impacts from non-point source pollution, Luke AFB has developed and implemented a
SWPP (CH2MHill 2012) covering the entire Luke AFB installation area. The SWPP provides best
management practices (BMPs) for landscaped areas. It is designed to limit water-quality impacts
associated with landscaped areas and specifically addresses issues associated with the use of
pesticides and fertilizers. Practices recommended under this plan include the BMPs, as follows.
•
•
•
•

•

Properly dispose of landscape waste and sediments.
Minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers and follow all label directions.
Utilize an integrated pest management approach.
Reduce the need for irrigation by using native, drought-resistant, plants and select plant
materials requiring little maintenance and pest control.
Incorporate landscaping into stormwater detention/retention areas to reduce peak runoff,
promote infiltration, and improve water quality.

Programs Handling Solid Waste

The Integrated Solid Waste Management program at Luke AFB is managed by the 56 CES with the
primary goal of effectively managing municipal solid waste and construction and demolition waste
generated at Luke AFB. This program is guided by the Luke AFB Integrated Solid Waste Management
Plan (ISWMP) (Luke AFB 2016) and the Luke AFB Qualified Recycling Program Business Plan (Luke
AFB 2016). AFI 32-7042, with change 1 (USAF 2017b), requires installations to implement the
program in the most cost-effective manner possible while meeting all applicable USAF, DoD, federal,
state, and local laws and requirements. Specific goals of the Integrated Solid Waste Management
program, as outlined in the ISWMP (Luke AFB 2016), are listed below.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-46

Chapter 7

•

•
•
•
•
•

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Continuously reduce the quantity of non-hazardous solid waste generated and increase the
percentage of non-hazardous solid waste diverted from disposal facilities to help meet
established solid waste diversion goals.
Increase the economic benefit of solid waste management.
Maintain compliance with applicable Air Force, DoD, federal, state, and local solid waste
management requirements and laws.
Increase participation in the installation’s qualified recycling program and maximize solid
waste diversion through recycling.
Promote source reduction and reuse practices to reduce waste generation.
Promote environmentally preferable procurement to close the recycling loop.

The ISWMP (Luke AFB 2016) identifies sources of solid waste on the installation and outlines BMPs
for reducing the amount of waste generated. Solid waste collection from commercial, institutional,
and industrial areas, along with military family housing areas, are provided by contractors through
separate solid waste collection and disposal contracts. Since Luke AFB does not operate an on-site
landfill, all waste disposal is provided at a local landfill. The Luke AFB ISWMP is reviewed annually
and will be updated by the program manager as required.
Urban Forestry Management Program

As part of the Natural Resource Program at Luke AFB, the Urban Forest Inventory and Urban Forest
Management Guidelines (Clark and Ingraldi 2017) was developed and implemented in 2016. All trees
and saguaros located within the improved portions of Luke AFB were inventoried as part of this
project. Information collected for each tree include location, species, diameter-at-breast-height,
height, and general health condition of the specimen. The health of each specimen was determined
through visual examination and an assessment of coloration/discoloration evidence of decay and dieback; root characteristics; trunk, branch, and canopy structure; condition of the foliage; and any
evidence of disease or pest issues. Each specimen was given a rating of good, fair, poor, or dead. In
total, 5,184 trees representing 68 species were assessed and mapped at Luke AFB and these data
were summarized, forming the basis of the Luke AFB Urban Forest Management Plan (Clark and
Ingraldi 2017).
The Management Guidelines provided recommendations and short- and long-term action items for
urban forest management at Luke AFB. These action items, as identified in Clark and Ingraldi (2016),
include both short- and long-term actions.
Short-Term Action Items
•
•

Start developing the base-wide management plan.
Retain all saguaros when renovations and development occur, whenever possible. Notably,
retain large, old-growth saguaros with multiple arms, given that old-growth saguaros often
contain the most cavities potentially suitable for smaller birds to nest in and the external
structural complexity to support stick nests for larger raptors. The tree inventory data will
be used to inform NRMs and other individuals involved with planning and construction

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-47

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

whether to allow development around an existing saguaro or, when feasible, to move at-risk
saguaros to a new location on base.

Long-Term Action Items
•
•
•

•
•

•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Increase the fiscal budget for urban and community forestry operations.
Increase the number of saguaros through plantings.
Increase the number of trees to increase shade (i.e., reduce energy consumption and the
urban heat island effect, provide cooler temperatures for workers and residents), conserve
more water (native species are already adapted to local dry conditions), provide more and
safer walkable space outdoors for workers and residents, and replace those trees being
eliminated by harsh weather and deleterious maintenance operations.
Increase the diversity of tree species when planting.
Increase the number of native tree species to support and encourage native wildlife diversity
and declining native species (e.g., Gila woodpecker [Melanerpes uropygialis], gilded flicker
[Colaptes chrysoides], lesser long nosed bat [Leptonycteris yerbabuenae], western yellow bat
[Lasiurus xanthinus]).
Increase the number of different age classes of trees to ensure cohorts are being replaced
regularly and mature flowering individuals of a given species are present at all times.
Currently, there is an inadequate number of younger trees to replace the aging veterans when
they eventually succumb to old age.
Remove (cut and spray) invasive salt cedar (Tamarix spp.).
Develop a list of current tree management and subsequent maintenance concerns, issues, and
needs.
Inspect trees periodically and perform systematic trimming of trees containing hazardous
defects (structural problems, disease, or vandalism).
Remove hazard trees on public right-of-ways.
Establish a routine systematic trimming cycle for all trees along the right-of-ways (e.g., clear
traffic signals and signs, street lights, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and buildings).
Develop working partnerships with local and regional utilities, agencies and organizations,
and the local community to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of urban and community
forestry operations.
Identify potential partners for urban and community forestry programming in the
community.
Conduct a community survey to increase awareness and obtain feedback on the appropriate
tree species to plant and those to avoid, based on personal experiences within the community.
Potentially work toward the development of a community Tree Board to provide guidance
and recommendations to Luke AFB for care and maintenance of the community forest.
Increase public education and involvement in the planning, care, and maintenance of the
community trees.
Inform the public of on-going efforts and long-term management strategies for tree recovery
after storms or other catastrophic events.
Work with state highway and transportation agencies on developing standards and criteria
for care of trees growing along roadways.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-48

Chapter 7

•
•
•

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Develop a comprehensive set of specifications for contracted services.
Provide training to in-house personnel on all phases of urban and community tree care.
Continue to update the inventory of all trees, using state of-the-art technology and mapping
methods.

A complete list of recommended plants for landscaping in turf and ornamental areas is included in
the Luke AFB Landscape Design and Maintenance Standards Plan (Sherman Group 2003). The list
includes 37 tree, shrub, and groundcover species. Prohibited species at Luke AFB include all 88
regulated, restricted, or prohibited noxious weeds listed for the State of Arizona, as provided by the
ADA, Plant Services Division Administrative codes R3-4-244, Regulated and Restricted Noxious
Weeds, and R3-4-245, Prohibited Noxious Weeds (ADA 2017).

The GEM Plan was developed to provide environmental management guidelines at the Falcon Dunes
Golf Course (Air Force Center for Engineering & the Environment 2011). This plan complies with the
USAF Golf Course Environmental Management GEM program and AFI 32-7064 (USAF 2016a), which
requires a GEM Plan as part of the INRMP process. The Falcon Dunes GEM Plan provides guidelines
and BMPs for all aspects of environmental management at the golf course, including water
use/supply, erosion, stormwater/water quality, BASH concerns, air quality, and floodplain
management. Additionally, the plan details short and long-term work plan actions, as listed below.
Golf Course Environmental Management (GEM) Plan

Short-Term Action Items
•
•
•

Create, utilize, and collect scouting forms to guide future pest control decisions.
Continue with planned activities for regular maintenance.
Prune as many trees as possible during winter

Long-Term Action Items
•
•

•
•
•

7.8

Compile and implement a Tree Management Plan for the entire facility.
Compile and implement a comprehensive Golf Course Water Resource Management Plan to
include a Drought Management Plan and Water-Quality Management Zones for the entire
facility.
Utilize a handheld global positioning system unit to assist with mapping the course and
improving overall stewardship and management practices.
Aerate all playing surfaces, per regular maintenance plan.
Continue employee environmental, safety, and occupational health training and education
programs, per course work plan.

Forest Management

Applicability Statement

This section applies to AF installations that maintain forested land on USAF property. This section IS
NOT applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-49

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Program Overview/Current Management Practices

No commercial forestry activities occur at Luke AFB, AUX-1, or Fort Tuthill. Urban forest management
is covered is Section 7.7, Grounds Maintenance.

7.9

Wildland Fire Management

Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations with unimproved lands that present a wildfire hazard
and/or that utilize prescribed burns as a land management tool. This section IS NOT applicable to
Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill.
Program Overview/Current Management Practices
Luke AFB

Luke AFB contains approximately 287 acres of unimproved land across three main areas (Figure 2.1).
Dissecting these areas are several roads and drainage ditches that would serve as fire breaks in the
event of wildfires. Moreover, the low densities of desert vegetation found in these areas (described
in section 2.3.1) typically do not provide sufficient fuel to carry a fire over a large area. The
installation is located between extensive urban development to the east and south and agricultural
lands to west and north. Based on these three factors, the risk of wildfire impacting Luke AFB is very
low.
AUX-1

AUX-1 encompasses approximately 900 acres of unimproved land dissected by numerous roads and
air strips that could serve as fire breaks in the event of a wildfire (Figure 2.2). The unimproved land
is dominated by widely spaced desert shrublands; the bare spaces between the shrubs and small
trees can limit a fire’s ability to spread. AUX-1 is completely surrounded by similar desert shrubland
habitats, with the exception of an irrigation canal to the north and west. Based on these factors, the
risk of wildfire impacting AUX-1 is very low.
Fort Tuthill

Only 2.5 acres of the 14.5 total acres at Fort Tuthill contain unimproved lands, with these lands being
dominated by ponderosa pine forest (Figure 2.3). Fort Tuthill is used as a recreation and camping
area by military personnel and includes a hotel, several cabins, A-frames, yurts, and RV and camping
areas. Almost all of Fort Tuthill is surrounded by ponderosa pine forest managed by the Coconino
County Parks & Recreation Department, the State of Arizona, and the Coconino National Forest.
Coconino County is undertaking a large-scale forest thinning project aimed at improving forest health
and public safety and reducing wildfire risk. Eventually, an estimated 220 acres will be treated under
this project, including all unimproved lands immediately surrounding Fort Tuthill (Figure 2.3). In
addition, Coconino National Forest lands to the south and west also have been thinned aggressively,
reducing wildfire risk across the entire area. These projects are part of the larger Greater Flagstaff
Forest Partnership, an alliance of private businesses, environmental groups, and governmental

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-50

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

organizations aiming to restore natural ecosystem function, manage fuels, and reduce the probability
of catastrophic wildfires within ponderosa pine forest surrounding Flagstaff, Arizona (Greater
Flagstaff Forest Partnership 2017).

Given the small size of Fort Tuthill, wildfire risk mitigation and management relies almost completely
on the actions of surrounding land management agencies. Given this, Luke AFB personnel should
keep in contact with these land management agencies and support all efforts to reduce wildfire risk
on adjacent lands across the area. Management actions currently being implemented to reduce
wildfire risk at Fort Tuthill include maintaining vegetation around camp sites, specifically around
designated campfire areas, as well as implementing fire restrictions during times of high fire danger.

7.10 Agricultural Outleasing
Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations that lease eligible USAF land for agricultural purposes. This
section IS NOT applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, or Fort Tuthill.
Program Overview/Current Management Practices

No agricultural outleasing programs are currently being administered at Luke AFB, AUX-1, or Fort
Tuthill.

7.11 Integrated Pest Management Program
Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations that perform pest management activities in support of
natural resources management (e.g., invasive species, forest pests, etc.). This section IS applicable to
Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill.
Program Overview/Current Management Practices

EO 13751 (EO 2016) requires federal agencies to identify actions that may affect invasive species;
use relevant programs to prevent introductions of invasive species; detect, respond, and control such
species; monitor invasive species populations; provide for restoration of native species; conduct
research on invasive species; and promote public education. An invasive species, as defined in EO
13751, is a “…non-native organism whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm, or harm to human, animal, or plant health.” To comply with EO 13751, Luke
AFB has implemented an IPM program guided by the Luke AFB IPMP (Luke AFB 2015). Luke AFB
utilizes a comprehensive IPM approach to weed and pest control, which takes into account the
various chemical, physical, and biological suppression techniques available and the weed’s or pest’s
habitat and its interrelationships within the ecosystem. Pest and weed management records are
retained within the Integrated Pest Management Information System program and includes
management actions covering in-house applications, contractor applications, and golf course
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-51

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

applications. Adherence to the Luke IPMP will ensure compliance with all applicable DoD, USAF,
federal, and State of Arizona laws and regulations.

The IPMP (Luke AFB 2015) outlines the roles and responsibilities for groups implementing the IPMP
at Luke AFB, as listed below.
Civil Engineer Squadron Commander
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

Provide oversight and support of all installation pest management programs in accordance
with DoD, federal, state, and legally applicable host nation laws.
Provide facilities, equipment, and pesticides in accordance with DoDI 4150.07 (DoD 2017a).
Provide the appropriate number of certified pest management personnel according to DoDI
4150.07 and USAF manpower standards to support contingency and installation
requirements.
Provide financial resources for operations and training to meet installation and contingency
pest management requirements.
Select (in writing) an installation pest management coordinator.
Review and approve installation pest management plans and contracts.
Provide pest management support for installation facilities, grounds, and airfield BASH
mitigation measures, range operations, golf course maintenance (in accordance with AFI 65106 [USAF 2009]; Appropriated Fund Support of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation; and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities), recreation areas, etc.

Installation Pest Management Coordinator
•

•
•

Oversee the development of installation pest management plans, collect and report data on
all installation pesticide use, review contract specifications, and serve as the primary POC for
all installation pesticide compliance.
Work closely with other civil engineers, services, medical personnel, and the Major Command
Pest Management Consultants to produce an effective pest management program.
With assistance from the installation Natural Resources office, coordinate with federal, state,
installation, local pest management, and wildlife personnel as necessary.

The plan also outlines the priorities for pest management work and details the health and safety
protocols for implementing the IPMP. Environmental considerations covered under the Luke IPMP
include protection of the public, pesticide reduction/measures of merit, pesticide spills and
remediation, and endangered or protected species and critical habitats in the sections that follow.
Protection of the Public

Precautions are taken during pesticide application to protect the public, both on and off the golf
course. Signs are used to indicate areas of pesticide applications at the golf course and are posted at
the 1st and 10th tees. These signs are left displayed until the chemical label re-entry times are
satisfied. Whenever pesticides are applied outdoors, care is taken to ensure that any spray drift is
kept away from individuals, including the applicator, and non-targeted areas. As a rule, pesticides are
not applied outdoors when wind speeds exceed 10 miles per hour. At no time are personnel
permitted into a treatment area during pesticide application unless they have met the medical
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-52

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

monitoring standards and are wearing proper personal protective equipment. Sensitive Areas, such
as medical facilities and child care centers, require extra precautions on where and how pesticides
are applied around them.
Pesticide Reduction/Measures of Merit

The pest management shop continues to keep the pesticide usage low at Luke AFB by applying
pesticides only as a method of last resort. In general, very little active-ingredient pesticide is used at
Luke AFB.
Pesticide Spills and Remediation

The Spill Prevention and Response Plan (CH2MHILL 2012) accounts for pesticide spills at pest
management storage and mixing facilities and elsewhere on the base. Each shop has a site-specific
spill plan, and the base’s fire plan (Luke AFB 2015) for these facilities takes pesticide storage into
account.
Endangered or Protected Species and Critical Habitats

The Luke AFB natural resource program uses pesticides or IPM techniques to control undesirable
vegetation, urban wildlife, and animal damage. Prevention of harm to threatened and endangered
species and environmentally sensitive areas is coordinated through the 56 CES/CEIE (Natural
Resource Management Element). Pesticide label directions regarding environmentally sensitive
areas are strictly enforced. Whenever pesticide application occurs in proximity to threatened and
endangered species, the USFWS will be consulted.

A variety of pests affect natural resource management at Luke AFB. As outlined in the Luke AFB IPMP
(2015), they include public health pests, animal and insect pests, structural pests, and undesirable
vegetation, as described below.
Public Health Pests

Mosquitoes present a concern to USAF personnel given the variety of diseases they can transmit to
humans. Both pest management and public health personnel on the installation conduct mosquito
breeding site surveys throughout the summer season. Peak mosquito breeding season at Luke AFB
typically coincides with the summer monsoon season, when flash floods tend to create areas of
standing water, providing an optimal breeding habitat for mosquitoes. The decision to implement
mosquito management actions are based on larval surveys, adult trap counts, and customer
complaints. While pest management personnel keep pesticides on hand for larval and adult mosquito
control, efforts are first concentrated on available cultural, mechanical, and biological control
options, as well as customer education, before pesticide application occurs. Management options to
control mosquito populations on base are listed below.
•
•
•
•

Control and remove areas of standing water.
Introduce biological predatory fish to areas of standing water.
Treat areas of standing water with Bactimos Briquettes.
Spot treat with pesticides along ditch banks and other areas where mosquitoes congregate.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-53

Chapter 7

•

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Conduct fogging in the event that the mosquito problems become severe.

Animal and Insect Pests

Rodents—Rodents that directly impact the natural resources program at Luke AFB include gophers
(Geomyidae) and ground squirrels (Sciuridae). These pests can impact turf and ornamental areas and
can become BASH concerns because they serve as a food source for a variety of bird and raptor
species. Management options for controlling rodent populations include trapping and the use of
pesticides. Currently, the most effective control method is trapping using the Gophinator gopher trap.
Gophers and ground squirrels are trapped on an as-needed basis.

Coyotes—Coyotes frequent the Luke AFB area. These animals can be a danger to people and they
present a substantial BASH hazard if they get on the air field. Coyotes are typically shot by pest
management personnel and removed from the installation. Shot guns are utilized for these
depredation events and they are held in the armory by security forces. Security forces must be
notified prior to implementing a depredation activity. Pest management personnel performing the
depredation activity must also be certified to use a shot gun and have their name on the ammunition
storage letter to retrieve the weapon. Animals that are on or near the flight line are handled by USDA
staff or Airfield Management Base Operations personnel.
Insects—Bees, wasps, and hornets are occasionally removed from Luke AFB grounds. Management
options include spot treatment and nest removal when the insects present a danger to USAF
personnel or their families. Because they are valuable pollinators for native plant species, chemical
control options are avoided, if possible.

Snakes—Rattlesnakes (Crotalus spp.) frequent the base and can be a threat to personnel.
Rattlesnakes are also important to the natural resources program, as they reduce rodent issues,
which in turn reduces the BASH threat. One way to discourage snakes is to remove harborage areas
for rodents in proximity to buildings and other structures. Additionally, exclusion methods can be
used to limit snake/people confrontations. When snakes are found in areas near where people are
likely to be, snake tongs are used to remove them and place them in a secured, locked transportation
box. Rattlesnakes are typically relocated to the west side of the base.

Feral Cats—The presence of feral cats is a concern to the Luke AFB natural resource program, as they
can have a substantial negative impact on native wildlife and migratory bird species. Feral cats are
common in the disturbed portions of Luke AFB and associated buildings. The DoD urges that all cats
be kept indoors to keep them safe and to prevent the killing of federally protected wildlife species on
federal lands. A feral cat killing a protected species would violate the DoD’s MOU with the USFWS,
which requires installations to protect bird species covered under the MBTA.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-54

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Structural Pests

Subterranean termites are a severe problem at Luke AFB. Termite inspections are performed every
two years as time and funding allow. When an active termite infestation is found, the area is spot
treated by contractors. In addition, all new construction sites are pretreated for termites after the
new construction statement of work is approved by AFCEC/Chief of Staff Committee. Other structural
pests found at Luke AFB include carpenter bees and carpenter ants, which have been treated on a
limited basis.
Undesirable Vegetation

Grounds—All mowing and trimming is accomplished by contract. All herbicide use is reported to the
pest management shop through the Service Contract’s Section on Quality Assurance Evaluations. The
grounds contractor is responsible for treating approximately 95 acres of improved grounds at Luke
AFB. All contracts require a plan for the application of pre-emergent herbicides for controlling annual
weeds. Contact and systemic herbicides are also used for post-emergence spot treatment.
Electrical Substation Area—The pest management office is responsible for spot treatments of weeds
at electrical substations, generally using a contact or systemic herbicide.

Facilities—Facility managers are responsible for weeds within 25 feet of their buildings. The Pest
Management shop will mix and issue herbicide (glyphosate) in a 1- to 2-gallon tank sprayer for these
applications.

Airfield Pavements—The airfield consists of approximately 267 acres of concrete and asphalt
pavements. Portions of the asphalt have degraded and weeds are growing through the pavement. A
variety of crack and joint sealing products and herbicide sterilants have been used to reduce
vegetation growth on airfield pavements.

Golf Course—Pest control, as it relates to golf course turf management, is the responsibility of the
lead golf course groundskeeper. All pesticide usage at the golf course is reported and reviewed by
the pest management foreman.

Noxious or Invasive Plants and Animals—There are 88 regulated, restricted, or prohibited noxious
weeds listed for the State of Arizona by the ADA, Plant Services Division, within their Administrative
codes R3-4-244, Regulated and Restricted Noxious Weeds, and R3-4-245, Prohibited Noxious Weeds
(ADA 2017).
Fort Tuthill

Noxious weeds affecting Fort Tuthill include Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) and common
mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Possible pest species impacting the ponderosa pine forest include
dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium vaginatum) and bark beetles (Dendroctonus spp.). Given the small
area of Fort Tuthill and the disturbed nature of the ponderosa pine forest there, impacts from these
weed and pest species is expected to be low. Other invasive species could, however, become
problematic in the future and should be monitored.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-55

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

7.12 Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH)
Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations that maintain a BASH program to prevent and reduce
wildlife-related hazards to aircraft operations. This section IS applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, and
Fort Tuthill.
Program Overview/Current Management Practices

Bird and wildlife populations in the vicinity of the airfield pose a hazard to flying operations. Luke
AFB lies within the Pacific flyway, which, at this location, is a minor flyway for waterfowl and a major
flyway for raptors and small songbirds. While the area is a minor flyway for waterfowl, there is a
small number of waterfowl surrounding Luke AFB due to the presence of irrigation canals. Bird strike
concerns at Luke AFB are greatest when aircraft fly at low altitudes during takeoff and landing. An
assessment of bird strikes involving Luke AFB assigned aircraft indicates no exceptional hazard from
any one particular bird species. Analysis of remains from bird strike incidents have shown that
strikes typically involve horned larks, doves (Zenaida spp. and Streptopelia decaocto), meadowlarks
(Sturnella neglecta), swallows, pigeons (Columba livia), American kestrels (Falco sparverius), turkey
vultures (Cathartes aura), and red-tailed hawks. In general, bird strikes are not limited to a particular
time of day and have occurred from early morning to late at night.
BASH reduction plans are developed for DoD military installations where elevated hazards exist and
can be controlled and mitigated, as is the case for Luke AFB. In response to this hazard, the 56 FW
has developed and implemented a BASH Reduction Plan for Luke AFB and AUX-1 as well as Gila Bend
AFAF and BMGR East (56 FW 2013). This plan is designed to accomplish the objectives, as follows.
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

Establish a Bird Hazard Working Group.
Establish procedures to identify and communicate high-hazard situations to aircrews and
supervisors to determine whether altering flying operations is required.
Provide aircraft and airfield operating procedures designed to avoid high-hazard situations.
Provide for dissemination of information to all assigned aircrews and transient aircrews on
specific bird hazards and procedures for avoidance.
Decrease the attractiveness of the airfield to birds by eliminating, controlling, and reducing
environmental factors that support birds and wildlife species.
Establish an avian and wildlife harassment and depredation procedure for the Luke AFB
airfield that will be implemented by qualified personnel and is designed to manage and
eliminate potential BASH threats.
Provide control and management guidelines for specific BASH threat species, including small
birds, raptors, waterfowl, and small and large mammals.

In accordance with this plan, the USAF uses the Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS), which is a
comprehensive method of remote sensing for birds. The AHAS system evaluates weather and radar
data and provides real-time alerts to aviators when concentrations of large birds are in the airspace.
The AHAS is available online and coverage includes the entire continental U.S. Additionally, as part

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-56

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

of the prevention program, AHAS provides pilots and flight schedulers with a near real-time tool
when selecting flight routes.

Environmental management guidelines, as identified in the BASH Reduction Plan for Luke AFB,
include controlling vegetation (e.g., maintaining vegetation height between 7 and 14 inches,
removing dead vegetation and perches), controlling water (e.g., modifying ditches, eliminating
standing water), controlling waste (e.g., collecting and disposing of waste rapidly), and controlling
birds through chemical and physical alterations (e.g., installing bird proof structures, controlling
insects and rodents). Priority BASH management actions under this plan include vigilant threat
monitoring and reporting, management of the environment at the Luke AFB airfield, carrion removal
around the airfield to reduce the abundance of large avian scavengers (e.g., turkey vultures), and
bird/wildlife harassment and depredation, as required. A private contractor from the APHIS Wildlife
Services Division currently conducts daily threat monitoring and performs all required airfield
environmental management at the Luke AFB airfield. The contractor is also conducting all
avian/wildlife relocation services in coordination with state and federal agencies, as well as all BASH
harassment and depredation activities. The contractor issues BASH status reports on a monthly basis
and provides annual and semi-annual BASH reports that summarize and analyze all monthly data.
Bird harassment and depredation at Luke AFB is authorized by the USFWS through a permit issued
annually to the 56 FW, which applies to both Luke AFB and Gila Bend Air Force Air Field (USFWS
2017).

7.13 Coastal Zone and Marine Resources Management
Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations that are located along coasts and/or within coastal
management zones. This section IS NOT applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, or Fort Tuthill.

Program Overview/Current Management Practices

Luke AFB, Fort Tuthill, and AUX-1 do not encompass any coastal or marine areas. The installation lies
approximately 160 miles north of the Gulf of California, Mexico, the nearest coastal area to the
installation.

7.14 Cultural Resources Protection
Applicability Statement

This section applies to USAF installations with archaeological and structural cultural resources. This
IS applicable to Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill.
Program Overview/Current Management Practices

Federal statutes, regulations, guidance documents, and EOs constitute the legal basis of USAF
compliance responsibilities for managing cultural resources. The USAF will identify, manage, and
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-57

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

maintain important cultural resources in a spirit of stewardship for the benefit of current and future
Americans (in accordance with AFI 32-7065) (USAF 2016b).
There are currently no listed or listingeligible archaeological resources at Luke
AFB, AUX-1, or Fort Tuthill. To date, no
historical landscape surveys have been
conducted at Luke AFB, and there are no
known landscapes within the base
boundaries that are associated with
Native American culture.

A single Cold War-era structure, the SemiAutomatic
Ground
Environment
Direction Center, or “Blockhouse”
(Building 1150), has been deemed of
Figure 7.2: Archaeologists excavate land before the
national importance. No World War II-era
development of the solar array at Luke AFB. Photo
structures are worthy of preservation,
courtesy of Senior Airmen Sandra Welch.
and aside from the blockhouse, none of
the Cold War properties at Luke AFB qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As
resources turn 50 years of age, they should be re-evaluated under standard criteria for the National
Register of Historic Places.

Extensive subsurface archaeological features were discovered during the mitigation of the surface
archaeological site in the footprint of the solar array, west of the Munitions Storage Area. There are
several other archaeological sites located south of Super Sabre Street that have the potential for the
same subsurface features. Therefore, no facilities should be sited south of Super Sabre Street (IDP
2017).

7.15 Public Outreach

The Public Affairs office at Luke AFB has several missions, including internal information, community
relations, and media operations. Information is available to the public either through the news
section on the Luke AFB website or through the Luke Thunderbolt newspaper. The public affairs
office also coordinates with media to provide a civilian media outlet on activities within Luke AFB.
In the past, public participation programs have included posting project information on the Arizona
Department of Commerce website (www.azcommerce.com); distributing project information to a
mailing list of over 450 community organizations, agencies, and individuals; encouraging local media
coverage of Military Compatibility Project achievements and events through distribution of press
releases; and distributing documents in hard copy web, email, and data disc formats.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-58

Chapter 7

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

7.16 Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Applicability Statement

This section applies to all USAF installations that maintain an INRMP, as all geospatial information
must be maintained within the USAF GeoBase system. Luke AFB, Fort Tuthill, and AUX-1 ARE
required to implement this element.
Program Overview/Current Management Practices

Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-10112 (USAF 2007), Installation Geospatial Information and Services,
provides the policy and guidance for GIS management on all USAF installations, including Luke AFB,
AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill. Geospatial data at Luke AFB, including AUX-1 and Fort Tuthill, are
maintained and managed by the 56 CES with the GIS server residing in the 56th Communication
Squadron Network Communication Center and on the NIPRNet. All Luke AFB geospatial data are
maintained within the USAF GeoBase System and services are provided through the GIS database
that is centrally located on the server. The Luke AFB GIS program currently utilizes software from
the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) for GIS data management. The 56 CES adhere
to the Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment, as required by the DoD,
to provide GIS standardization for table structure, metadata, and data storage among all DoD
installations.

Staff from the 56 CES utilize the GIS in its daily operations, as the data support the natural resource
program at Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill. Plans for updating Geospatial data periodically and
adding GIS data acquisitions over the next five years include, but are not limited to those listed below.
•
•
•
•

•

Further refining and delineating important wildlife habitats and corridors
Monitoring and managing habitat disturbance and restoration efforts
Monitoring and tracking invasive species and control effort results
Analyzing projects for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance and storing
data for regulatory reporting
Identifying and monitoring cultural resource sites, if any.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

7-59

CHAPTER 8

MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The following are the overarching goals for the natural resources program, which reflect the values
and desired future natural resource conditions. In this INRMP, the established goals remain valid for
a five-year review cycle (2018–2023). Both the policy and resource-specific management goals have
base-wide application. The overarching policy goals are non-resource-specific and are in support of
and consistent with the military mission and protection and conservation of natural and cultural
resources at Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill. Objectives for specific resource areas, addressed in
the respective chapters of this INRMP, are listed below.
•
•

•

•

•

•

Protect and enhance environmental quality.
Manage, conserve, develop, and maintain all resources in the best national interest,
compatible with military operations and in accordance with the principles of multiple use
and sustained yield.
Design management activities based on an ecosystems management approach to benefit the
total environment. Use of one resource should not exclude the use of another, except in the
case of endangered or threatened species.
Provide the greatest net public benefit for the greatest period of time, based upon analysis of
prevailing ecological factors, the supply and demand of the various resources, and their uses.
In determining the greatest net public benefit, full consideration will be given to both tangible
and intangible values, including recreational, aesthetic, social, and commercial.
Conduct all management activities to minimize the BASH potential. The primary BASH
reduction measures will involve reducing bird attractants and implementing harassment and
hazing techniques. Depredation will be used as a last option (per USFWS 2017). As much as
possible, activities that could potentially affect the breeding success of birds should occur in
early spring, before most birds reproduce.
Utilize and care for resources in a combination best serving the present and future needs of
the U.S. and its people.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

8-60

CHAPTER 9

9.1

INRMP IMPLEMENTATION, UPDATE, AND REVISION
PROCESS

Natural Resources Management Staffing and Implementation

The Sikes Act encourages the DoD to provide adequate staffing with the appropriate expertise for
updating, writing, and implementing the INRMP within the scope of DoD component responsibilities,
mission, and funding requirements.

The 56 CES provides technically sound combat engineers to build, sustain, and protect Luke AFB
through engineering and emergency response services. The 56 CES is organized into 6 flights
consisting of 350 personnel and includes the Fire and Emergency Services Flight, Explosive Ordnance
Disposal Flight, Readiness and Emergency Management Flight, Installation Management Flight,
Operations Flight, and Engineering Flight. The 56 CES supports military training by managing the
natural and cultural resources of the base in accordance with applicable laws, executive orders, and
directives.

In August 2015, a cooperative agreement was signed between the USACE Omaha District and the
AGFD to “collect, analyze, and apply environmental and cultural resource data and implement land
rehabilitation and maintenance for optimal management of lands under control of the DoD” (USACE
and AGFD 2015). The cooperative agreement provides Luke AFB assistance for executing prescribed
tasks to implement the goals and objectives of the INRMP.

9.2

Monitoring INRMP Implementation

9.3

Annual INRMP Review and Update Requirements

The USAF tracks its progress in implementing the updated INRMP during each subsequent five-year
period. The AGFD and USFWS also each track their own progress using appropriate metrics. Common
elements to be reported include funded/unfunded projects; coordination and feedback from
cooperating agencies and military trainers; time frames for project implementation; deliverables for
complying with biological opinions; and attainment of project-specific objectives. The effectiveness
of management guided by the INRMP also will be gauged annually by tracking the degree to which
each project implemented provides progress toward attaining the resource management goals
established for the INRMP. The INRMP resource management goals are presented in Chapter 8,
Management Goals and Objectives, and current implementation projects and the resource
management goal(s) addressed by each project are identified in Chapter 10, Annual Work Plans.

In accordance with DoDI 4715.03 and AFI 32-7064, INRMPs require annual review to ensure that
projects and activities for the upcoming year have been identified and included in the INRMP and
that all significant changes to the installation's mission requirements or its natural resources have
been identified. The reviews also ensure or verify that all required coordination has occurred;
required trained natural resource positions are filled or are in the process of being filled; all “must
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

9-61

Chapter 9

INRMP IMPLEMENTATION, UPDATE, AND REVISION PROCESS

fund” projects and activities have been budgeted for; project implementation is on schedule; current
information on all conservation metrics is available; any necessary new management requirements
are developed; and mission goals are achieved. This process involves installation natural resources
personnel and external agencies cooperating to review the INRMP during regularly scheduled annual
review meetings.

This is the 2018 update of the Luke AFB INRMP. It was prepared in support of an ongoing process
required by the Sikes Act to monitor and improve INRMP effectiveness and to update or revise the
INRMP at least every five years. If an installation's mission or any of its natural resource management
issues do not change significantly enough to alter or increase environmental consequences identified
in the previous INRMP, then the five-year review generally results in an INRMP update. If, however,
there are to be INRMP changes that will result in significant new or altered environmental impacts,
then a major INRMP revision is required.

9.3.1 INRMP Update and Revision Process

The need for a major revision is normally determined during the annual review with the USFWS and
the AGFD. The NRM/POC documents the annual review findings in an Annual INRMP Review
Summary and obtains signatures from the coordinating agencies on review findings. During the
annual review meetings, the NRM/Installation Support Section updates the external
stakeholders/parties with the year-end execution report and coordinates future work plans and any
necessary changes to management methods and other activities affecting natural resources. All
parties review the INRMP and begin preliminary collaborative work on updating the INRMP (new
policies, procedures, impacts, mitigations, etc.) as applicable.
A major INRMP revision requires approval by all parties involved and, if warranted, preparation of a
new or supplemental NEPA analysis. For this current INRMP update, no changes have been identified
that warrant the preparation of a NEPA document. The updated or revised INRMP is made available
to the public, state and local governments, and Native American tribes on the Luke AFB website.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

9-62

CHAPTER 10 ANNUAL WORK PLAN

For the 2018–2023 5-year planning period, the USAF has prioritized and funded five surveys to be
conducted by AGFD to update species and habitat information (Table 10.1). The flora and fauna
information reported in this INRMP was collected during surveys in the 1990s. Monitoring and
survey results will be incorporated into this INRMP during the annual reviews as results become
available.
Table 10.1: USAF 2018–2023 5-year action plan for Luke AFB, AUX-1, and Fort Tuthill, including year of
funding, frequency of action, and partner likely to be involved.
2018 INRMP Resource Management Actions 2018–2023

Action

Bird species and migratory
bird species survey

Species, species at risk, and
candidate/concern species
survey
Habitat and vegetation
classification survey

Habitat and invasive species
survey
Habitat and invasive species
survey

1 Year

Fiscal Year1

Funding2

Frequency3

Partner4

FY 2018

$50,000

One time

AGFD

FY 2018

FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020

$50,000
$50,000
$60,000
$60,000

One time

One time
One time
One time

of funding and completion of action.
of required funding amount to complete project.
3 How often action will occur.
4 Parties responsible for completing the action; AGDF=Arizona Game and Fish Department.
2 Estimate

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

AGFD
AGFD
AGFD
AGFD

10-63

CITED REFERENCES

50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 10 and 21. Revised List of Migratory Birds; General
Provisions. Federal Register 78(212):65844. Available at https://www.fws.gov
/migratorybirds/pdf/policies-and-regulations/MBTAListofBirdsFinalRule.pdf.
50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 13 and 22. Eagle Permits; Revisions to Regulations for
Eagle Incidental Take and Take of Eagle Nests, Final Rule. Federal Register 81(242):91494.
Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2016-12-16/2016-29908.
16 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 661 et seq. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as Ameneded in 1965.
Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title16/html/USCODE-2013title16-chap5A.htm.
16 U.S.Code (U.S.C.) § 668 et seq. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962, as Amended in
2016 and Corrected in 2017. Available at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=0e9b454f07025a0f6eb90e2ccfb5a636&mc=true&node=pt50.9.22&rgn=div5.
Correction to final rule available at https://www.
federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/30/2017-18414/eagle-permits-revisions-toregulations-for-eagle-incidental-take-and-take-of-eagle-nests-correction.
16 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 670 et seq. The Sikes Act Improvement Act, as Amended through 2003.
Available at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/2004SikesAct%20NMFWA
.pdf.
16 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 1531 et seq. The Endangered Species Act, as Amended. Available at
https://www.fws.gov/le/USStatutes/ESA.pdf and https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esalibrary/pdf/ESAall.pdf.
33 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 1344 2012. Section 404, Clean Water Act. Available at https://www.law
.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1344.
56th Fighter Wing (FW). 2013. Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Reduction Plan. 56 FW
OPLAN 91-2. Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
Air Force Center for Engineering & the Environment. 2012. Falcon Dunes Golf Course
Environmental Management (GEM) Plan, Luke AFB, Arizona.
Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA). 1994. Highly Safeguarded Protected Native Plants. Plant
Services Division, Air Force Instruction. 20 December 1994.
Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA). 2017. Title 3—Agriculture, Chapter 4—Department of
Agriculture, Plant Services Division. Arizona Administrative Code A.R.S. R3-4-244 Regulated
and Restricted Noxious Weeds and R3-4-245 Prohibited Noxious Weeds. Available at
https://agriculture.az.gov/sites/default/files/Arizona%20Administrative%20Code-%20Title
%203%2C%20Chapter%204%2C%20Article%202%20-%20AZ%20Dept%20of%20Ag.pdf.
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 28-8481 (F)(P). 2008. A.R.S. § 28-8481 (F) and (P), with Attorney
General Opinion No. 108-003 (R08-011). Available at https://www.azag.gov/sites/default
/files/I08-003.pdf.
Bagne, K.E., and M.F. Deborah. 2012 Vulnerability of species to Climate Change in the Southwest:
Threatened Endangered, and At-Risk Species at the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona Gen.
Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-284. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station. 139 p.
Beikman, H.M., J.A. Peterson, D.F., Huber, and W.C. Butler. 1986. Metallic Mineral and Mineral-Fuel
Resource Potential Map of Arizona Showing Major Mineral Deposits. Mineral Investigations
Resource Map MR-94. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 1:1,000,000.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-64

CITED REFERENCES

Bell, G., J. Baumgartner, J. Humke, A. Laurenzi, P. McCarthy, P. Mehlhop, K. Rich, M. Silbert, M. Smith,
E. Smith, B. Spicer, T. Sullivan, and S. Yanoff. 1999. Ecoregional Conservation Analysis of the
Arizona-New Mexico Mountains. The Nature Conservancy.
Brown, D.E. and C.H. Lowe. 1980. Biotic Communities of the Southwest. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-78. Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 1 p. (map).
CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDMFPC). 1993. Pre-Draft RCRA Part B Permit Application,
Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha
District.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDMFPC). 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District,
Survey Report for the Natural Resources Management Plan Luke Air Force Base. Prepared
by CDM Federal Programs Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, for U.S. Air Firce, 56th Fighter
Wing, Luke Air Force Base, AZ.
CH2MHILL. 2012. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Luke AFB, Arizona.
Chronic, H. 1983. Roadside Geology of Arizona. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula,
Montana.
Clark, N.D. and M.F. Ingraldi. 2017. Urban Forest Inventory and Urban Forest Management
Guidelines for Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Division
of Field Operations, Wildlife Contracts Branch, Phoenix, Arizona.
Cook, J.P. 2013. Revisiting Earth Fissures Near Luke Air Force Base, Central Maricopa County,
Arizona. Arizona Geological Survey Open File Report, OFR-13-15. Available at
http://repository.azgs.az.gov/sites/default/files/dlio/files/nid1545/ofr-13-15_v1.0.pdf.
Cristoffer, C. 1994. Cristoffer, C., 56th Civil Engineer Squadron (CES) Environmental Flight, Fort
Tutill, personal communication with B. Beatty, CDM Federal Programs Corporation,
regarding species potentially occurring at Luke AFB, 12 December 1994.
Dames & Moore. 1994. Environmental Assessment for the Continued Use of and Increased
Environmental Management of Luke Air Force Base Auxiliary Field #1 (AUX-1) for Military
Field Deployment Training Activities. Submitted to 56th Fighter Wing Environmental
Programs, Luke AFB, Arizona.
Dimmitt, M.A. 2000. Biomes and communities of the Sonoran Desert region. In Phillips, J., and P.W.
Comus, eds. A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Press.
Tucson, Arizona:3-18.
Executive Order (EO). 2015. Presidential Executive Order 13693 of 19 March 2015, Planning for
Federal Sustainbility in the Next Decade. Available at
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/19/executive-orderplanning-federal-sustainability-next-decade.
Executive Order (EO). 2016. Presidential Executive Order 13751 of 5 December 2016, Safeguarding
the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species. Available at https://www.federalregister
.gov/documents/2016/12/08/2016-29519/safeguarding-the-nation-from-the-impacts-ofinvasive-species. Accessed 31 August 2017.
Fenneman, N.M. 1931. Physiography of the Western United States. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership. 2017. Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership Website, at
http://gffp.org/. Accessed 1 October 2017.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, C.B. Johnson, and D.S. Turner. 2014. Ecoregions of Arizona (poster): U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1141, with map, scale 1:1,325,000,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141141.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-65

CITED REFERENCES

HQ Air Education and Training Command. 2012. Final F-35A Training Basing Environmental Impact
Statement, Vol. 2, Appendix D–Comment Response Document. Book 1. Available at
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a612881.pdf.
International Organization for Standards (ISO). 2004. ISO 14001:2004, Environmental Management
Sysytems—Requirements with Guidance for Use. Available at
https://www.iso.org/standard/31807.html.
Luke AFB. 2015. Luke AFB Pest Management, Integrated Pest Management Plan, 2015 Revision.
Luke AFB, Arizona.
Luke AFB. 2016. Luke AFB Qualified Recycling Program Business Plan. Luke AFB, Arizona.
Luke AFB. 2016. Luke AFB Intergrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Luke AFB, Arizona.
Luke AFB. 2017. Integrated Cultural Reources Management Plan. U.S. Air Force, Luke Air Force
Base, Auxlliary Air Field No. 1, and the Fort Tuthill Recreation Area.
Overpeck, J.T. 2013. Climate Science: The Challenge of Hot Drought. Nature 503:350–351.
Overpeck, J., G. Garfin, A. Jardine, D.E. Busch, D. Cayan, M. Dettinger, E. Fleishman, A. Gershunov, G.
MacDonald, K.T. Redmond, W.R. Travis, and B. Udall. 2013. Summary for Decision Makers. In
Garfin, G., A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. Leroy. An Assessment of Climate Change
in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment.
Piorkowski, M.D., D.P. Sturla, J.M. Diamond, and M.F. Ingraldi. 2015. Status and Distribution
Modeling of Golden Eagles on Southwestern Military Installations and Overflight Areas:
Assessing “Take” for this Sensitive Species at Risk—Year 2. Installation Partners of
Department of Defense Legacy Program Project #13-631.
Public law 107-314. Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law
107-314. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ314/pdf/PLAW107publ314.pdf.
Sellers, W.D. and R.H. Hill. 1974. Arizona Climate 1931–1972, second edition. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson. 616 pp.
Sherman Group Inc. 2003. Luke AFB Landscape Design and Maintenance Standards, Luke AFB,
Arizona.
Stipp, T.F., L.B. Haigler, B.R. Alto, and H.L. Sutherland. 1967. Reported Occurrences of Selected
Minerals in Arizona. Mineral Investigations Map MR-46 (South Half). Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 1:5000,000.
Turner, R.M., and D.E. Brown. 1982. Sonoran Desertscrub. Pp. 181-221 in D.E. Brown (ed). Biotic
Communities of the American Southwest-United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4).
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1994. Air Force Policy Directive 32-70, Environmental Quality. Available at
http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4_7/publication/afpd32-70/afpd3270.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2007. Air Force Instruction 32-10112, Installation Geospatial Information
and Services (Installation GI&S).
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2008. Air Force manual 33-363, Management of Records. Available at
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afman33-363.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2009. Air Force Instruction 65-106, Appropriated Fund Support of Morale,
Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities (NAFIS).
Available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_fm/publication/afi65-106
/afi65-106.pdf.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-66

CITED REFERENCES

U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2010. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Barry M.
Goldwater Range East Range Enhancements. 56th Fighter Wing, Range Management Office,
Luke Air Force Base. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a624761.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2016a. Air Force Instruction 32-7064, with change 2, Integrated Natural
Resources Management. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a329388.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2016b. Air Force Instruction 32-7065, with change 1, Cultural Resources
Management. Available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication
/afi32-7065/afi32-7065.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2017a. Air Force Instruction 32-7001, with guidance changes, Environmental
Management. Available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication
/afi32-7001/afi32-7001.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2017b. Air Force Instruction 32-7042, with change 1, Waste Management.
Available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/afi327042/afi32-7042.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2017c. Air Force Instruction 32-7062, Comprehensive Plannning. Available at
http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/afi32-7062/afi327062.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2017d. Air Force Instruction 91-202, The US Air Force Mishap Prevention
Progrm. Available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_se/publication
/afi91-202/afi91-202.pdf.
U.S. Air Force (USAF) Air Education and Training Command. 2013. F-35A Training Basing,
Environmental Impact Statement Luke Air Force Base Mitigation Plan, Adaptive
Managemnet Program. U.S. Air Force, HQ Air Education and Training Command, Randolph
AFB, TX.
U.S. Air Force Center for Engineering & the Environment (AFCEE). 2011. Falcon Dunes Golf Course
Environmental Management (GEM) Plan, Luke AFB, AZ. AFCEE, San Antonio, TX.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1994. (Fort Worth District). Final Endangered, Threatened,
Candidate, and Sensitive Species Habitat Assessment, Survey and Management Plan, Luke
Air Force Base Lands. Prepared for Air Education and Training Command, Randolph Air
Force Base and Luke Air Force Base. November 1994.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2015.
Cooperative Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, and
Arizona Game and Fish Department, State of Arizona to Collect, Analyze, and Apply
Resource Data to Implement Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance for Optimal Management
of Pubic lands under Control of the Department of Defense. Cooperative Agreement No.
W9128F-15-2-0001.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2017a. DoD Instruction 4150.07 with CH 1, DoD Pest
Management Program. Available at
http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/415007p.pdf.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2017b. DoD Instruction 4715.03 with CH 1, Natural Resources
Conservation Program. Available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD
/issuances/dodi/471503p.pdf.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2017c. DoD Instruction 4715.17 with CH 1, Environmental
Management Systems. Available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD
/issuances/dodi/471517p.pdf?ver=2017-11-16-120744-843.
Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-67

CITED REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Memorandum
of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. July. Retrieved 13 April 2012 from
U.S. Fish and Wildlife: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/08/30/E614352/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-us-department-of-defense-and-theus-fish-and-wildlife.
U.S. Department of the Navy. 2012. Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) Instruction 6250.4C, Navy
Pest Management Programs. Available at http://www.med.navy.mil/sites/nepmu5
/Documents/EDNT/15-OPNAVINST%206250.4C(11APR12).pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Handbook of Arizona's Endangered, Threatened, and
Candidate Plants. Phoenix. Summer 1992. 122pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, 50 CFR part 17. Federal Register 72(130):37346. Available at
https://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/documents/baldeaglefinaldelistingpublished
.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007b. Migratory Bird Permits: Take of Migratory Birds by
Armed Forces, Final Rule, CFR 50 10.13. Federal Register 72(3):8931. Available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/02/28/E7-3443/migratory-birdpermits-take-of-migratory-birds-by-the-armed-forces.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Depredation at Airports Permit Number: MB6739641 for U.S. Air Force, Luke AFB. Effective 1 June 2017 to 31 May 2018. Migratory Bird Permit
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Luke Air Force Base
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
2018–2023

R-68

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION YUMA
INSTALLATION OVERVIEW
August 2018

Prepared for:
U.S. Department of the Navy,
U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma

Prepared by:
Colorado State University
Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands

U. S. Marine Corps Installation Overview
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
(MCAS YUMA)
Arizona

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

ii

The Sikes Act Improvement Act (16 U.S. Code § 670a et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to
determine which installations require an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP).
If the Secretary determines that a given installation has no significant natural resources and
determines that preparing such a plan is inappropriate, then a determination can be made that an
INRMP is not needed for that installation. Adequate reasons to justify not preparing an INRMP could
result from negative findings from a biological assessment or the specific nature of an installation
(e.g., fully developed).
About This Plan

Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma is a fully developed installation that lacks significant natural
resources, including any natural habitat that would require active wildlife management. MCAS Yuma
implements separate plans, policies, and agreements that cover all components of land management
that occurs on MCAS Yuma, including
•
•

•
•

Agricultural Outleasing lease agreements;
Bird/Aircraft Strike Hazard Reduction Plan (Marine Corps Air Station Yuma [MCAS Yuma]
Station Order 3750.1C 2014);
Environmental Management System Policy (MCAS Yuma 2017); and
Integrated Pest Management Plan (MCAS Yuma 2016).

This installation overview was created in place of an INRMP to provide interested parties with a
summary of what programs and management activities occur on the installation.

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................... II
ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................................... III
CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW AND MISSION...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

INSTALLATION OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................... 1-1
MCAS YUMA INSTALLATION HISTORY ................................................................................................................... 1-3
MILITARY MISSIONS........................................................................................................................................... 1-5
MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY................................................................................................................................ 1-5

CHAPTER 2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................... 2-7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

CLIMATE .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-7
LANDFORMS AND GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 2-7
HYDROLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-8
ECOSYSTEMS AND THE BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................................... 2-8

CHAPTER 3 NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT .................................................... 3-10
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT..................................................................................................................... 3-10
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN ......................................................................... 3-10
AGRICULTURAL OUTLEASING.............................................................................................................................. 3-11
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 3-11
BIRD/WILDLIFE AIRCRAFT STRIKE HAZARD (BASH) ............................................................................................... 3-14
PUBLIC OUTREACH........................................................................................................................................... 3-16

CITED REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................ 17
FIGURE 1.1: MCAS YUMA INSTALLATION OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 1-2
FIGURE 1.2: YUMA ARMY AIRFIELD 1943. ................................................................................................................................................. 1-4
FIGURE 1.3: U.S. MARINE CORPS F-35B AT MCAS YUMA. ..................................................................................................................... 1-5

FIGURES

TABLE 1.1: INSTALLATION PROFILE. ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-1
TABLE 3.1: MCAS YUMA BASH STRIKE SUMMARY FROM 2012 TO 2017. ...................................................................................... 3-15

TABLES

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

ii

ACRONYMS
ADA
AGFD
AHAS
AZ
BASH
BMGR
BSTRC
CLC-16
CMAGR
Col.
DoD
DoN
EMS
EO
I&L
INRMP
IPMP
MACS-1
MAG-13
MAGTF
MAWTS-1
MBTA
MCAS
MCCRTG-10
MCO
NAF
NAVFAC
NOPRS
POC
RMD
U.S.
USFWS
USMC
VMA-211
VMFT-401
VMU-1
VMX-1
VMX-22

Arizona Department of Agriculture
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Avian Hazard Advisory System
Arizona
Bird/Wildlife or Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazard
Barry M. Goldwater Range
Bob Stump Training Range Complex
Combat Logistics Company 16
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range
Colonel
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of the Navy
Environmental Management System
Executive Order
Installation and Logistics
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
Integrated Pest Management Plan
Marine Air Control Squadron 1
Marine Aircraft Group 13
Marine Air Ground Task Force
Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 1
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Marine Corps Air Station
Marine Corps Crew Readiness Training Group 10
Marine Corps Order
Naval Air Facility
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Online Pesticide Reporting System
Point of Contact
Range Management Department
United States
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Marine Corps
Marine Attack Squadron 211
Marine Fighter Training Squadron 401
Marine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron 1
Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1
Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 22

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

iii

CHAPTER 1
1.1

OVERVIEW AND MISSION

Installation Overview

The U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Yuma (MCAS Yuma), located in Yuma, Arizona (AZ), occupies 4,486
acres of land (Table 1.1, Figure 1.1). MCAS Yuma is currently home to approximately 5,000 activeduty Marines and Sailors and approximately 9,500 dependents and civilian employees. MCAS Yuma
includes Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron that is responsible for the day-to-day operations
of the Air Station, keeping it functioning as a small community within the City of Yuma. A variety of
departments, including Air Traffic Control, Installation and Logistics (I&L), Environmental, Range
Management Department (RMD), Communications, Combat Camera, Provost Marshall, Legal Service
Support, Safety, Fire, Facilities Management, Search and Rescue, Comptroller, and Billeting, make up
the support services needed to keep the Air Station operational. In addition, MCAS Yuma is home to
a number of tenant units, including Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 1 (MAWTS-1),
Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1 (VMX-1), Marine Aircraft Group 13 (MAG-13),
Marine Air Control Squadron 1 (MACS-1), Marine Fighter Training Squadron 401 (VMFT-401), and
Combat Logistics Company 16 (CLC-16).
Table 1.1: Installation profile.
Office of Primary
Responsibility

Natural Resources
Manager/Point of
Contact

Total Acreage
Managed by
Installation
Natural Resource
Programs

The Range Management Department at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma has the
overall responsibility for implementing the Natural Resources Management
Program and serves as the lead organization for monitoring compliance with
applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
Conservation Manager
Range Management Department
Conservation Section
P.O. Box 99134/Building 151
MCAS Yuma, AZ 85369-9134
928-269-3401

MCAS Yuma—3,025 acres
Agricultural Lease Area—1,461 acres
Total MCAS Yuma—4,486 acres
•
•
•

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

Integrated Pest Management
Agricultural Outleasing Program
Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Program

1-1

Chapter 1

OVERVIEW AND MISSION

Through an agreement between the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and Yuma County, MCAS Yuma
provides all air traffic control, airfield rescue and firefighting services, airfield security, and maintains
the runways and taxiways for both MCAS Yuma and the Yuma International Airport. MCAS Yuma is
the only shared-use air station in the USMC.

With access to more than one million acres of bombing and aviation-training ranges within the Bob
Stump Training Range Complex (BSTRC), MCAS Yuma supports 80 percent of the USMC air-to-ground
aviation training. The BSTRC includes the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), the Chocolate
Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR), the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, and the Naval Air
Facility (NAF) El Centro ranges (Figure 1.1). MCAS Yuma is the custodian for the BMGR West and the
CMAGR only, but it also provides scheduling services for the NAF El Centro’s airspace areas. Annually,
the air station hosts approximately 70 aviation units with an average of 600 aircraft and 14,000
personnel receiving ongoing training place throughout the year.

Additionally, there are more than 85,000 cubic nautical miles of special use airspace used for
military operations beyond the airspace above MCAS Yuma and BMGR, including adjacent Federal
lands and other parts of Arizona. Chapter 1, Section 1000.2 Scope in Station Order 3710.6J provides
a comprehensive list of MCAS special use areas, including those outside the installation’s
command, in which MCAS Yuma personnel may operate and/or for which they schedule
activities [USMC 2013b]). Station Order 3710.6J specifies the MBTA among the policies and acts
with which MCAS Yuma complies to “…preserve natural and cultural history, indigenous and
endangered plants and wildlife….”

1.2

MCAS Yuma Installation History

The MCAS Yuma installation history summary that follows was acquired from the MCAS Yuma
website (MCAS Yuma 2018).

It was 1928 when Col. Benjamin F. Fly fulfilled his namesake and persuaded the federal government
to lease 640 acres of cactus, brush and desert wildlife from Yuma County. For the low price of $1 per
year, the government leased Fly Field for 20 years with an option for an additional 20 years.

Aviation was in its infancy and Fly Field became the center of attention in Yuma. During the summer
of 1928, it was a stopover point for 25 planes in a New York to Los Angeles air race, a popular
spectacle of the rapidly advancing world of aviation. It was used sporadically by private aircraft until
1941, when the U.S. government, through the Civil Aeronautics Administration, authorized an
expenditure for permanent runways.

When the United States entered World War II, engineers erected an air base with the astounding
speed that characterized the war effort. By early 1943, Yuma Army Air Base began graduating classes
of pilots. The base became one of the busiest flying schools in the nation, training pilots of AT-6 singleengine trainers, T-17 multiengine trainers and B-17 Flying Fortresses.
At the end of the war, all flight activity here ceased and the area was partially reclaimed by the desert.
During the period of inactivity, it was controlled successively by the War Assets Administration, the
U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Reclamation, which used
it as a headquarters for its irrigation projects.

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

1-3

Chapter 1

On July 7, 1951, the Air Force reactivated
the base and the 4750th Air Base Squadron
resumed training as part of the Western Air
Defense Forces. The airfield was renamed
Vincent Air Force Base in 1956 in memory
of Brig. Gen. Clinton D. Vincent, a pioneer of
bombing techniques who died in 1955.

OVERVIEW AND MISSION

From Air Force Base to Marine Corps
Air Station

The Department of the Navy signed for
control of the base on January 1, 1959, and
nine days later, Col. L.K. Davis became the
first commanding officer of the newly
designated Marine Corps Auxiliary Air
Station. On July 20, 1962, the designation
was changed to Marine Corps Air Station.

Figure 1.2: Yuma Army Airfield 1943.

From 1969 until 1987, the air station served primarily as a training base for pilots assigned to Marine
Corps Crew Readiness Training Group 10, flying the F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk and AV-8A Harrier.
In 1978, Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 1 was commissioned to assist in increasing
combat readiness of fleet aviation units, making Yuma an academic center of excellence for military
aviation.
In 1987, Marine Aircraft Group 13, with Marine Attack Squadrons 211, 214, 311 and 513, replaced
MCCRTG-10 as the major tenant command on the station. The move also brought Marine Wing
Support Squadron 371 to Yuma, joining Marine Air Control Squadron 7 and 2nd Light Anti-Aircraft
Missile Battalion.

Throughout the fall of 1990, virtually every Marine Corps fixed-wing squadron that participated in
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm underwent pre-deployment training on Yuma’s ranges.

In November 2012, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121) became the world's first
operational F-35 squadron at MCAS Yuma. The arrival of the F-35B marked the beginning of a new
chapter in Marine Corps aviation history, bringing the latest and greatest aircraft in the world to the
tip of America's expeditionary spear.

The summer of 2015 saw the arrival of Marine Operational and Evaluation Squadron 22 (VMX-22) to
MCAS Yuma for the purpose of providing integrated operational testing. VMX-22 was later renamed
to VMX-1. As an operation test and evaluation squadron, VMX-22 is primarily responsible for
conducting operational tests in support of newly developed aircraft and programs.

Marine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron 1 (VMU-1) found a new home at MCAS Yuma in January
2016 and Marine Attack Squadron 211 (VMA-211) has begun their transition from the AV-8B Harrier
to the F-35, continuing Yuma’s tradition of leading the way in making aviation technology history
every day.
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

1-4

Chapter 1

1.3

OVERVIEW AND MISSION

Military Missions

The primary mission at MCAS Yuma is to “Provide aviation ranges, support facilities, and services
that enable its tenants, other USMC commands, visiting military, and interagency forces to enhance
their mission capability and combat readiness.”

MCAS Yuma is the Marine Corps' premier aviation training base. With access to approximately 1
million acres of bombing and aviation training ranges and superb flying weather, MCAS Yuma
supports 80 percent of the Corps' air-to-ground aviation training. Each year, the air station hosts
numerous units and aircraft from U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces.

The ideal weather and location along the Colorado River make Yuma and the surrounding area an
oasis in the southwestern
Sonoran Desert with a bounty of
superb recreational opportunities
and water sports. Seasonal
hunting and fishing abound in the
fish- and game-rich Yuma area.

Nestled in five square miles just
southeast of Yuma, the air station
is home to a number of tenant
units including MAWTS-1, VMX-1,
MAG-13, MACS-1, VMFT-401,
VMU-1, VMA-211, and Combat
Logistics Company 16 (CLC-16).

1.4

Figure 1.3: U.S. Marine Corps F-35B at MCAS Yuma.

Management Philosophy

MCAS Yuma is committed to practicing a policy of active environmental management on the ranges,
training areas, and support facilities under the management of the installation. A primary goal is to
incorporate environmental stewardship into day-to-day operations to maintain environmental
integrity without compromising the military mission. This approach is consistent with U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) and USMC environmental management policy (MCAS Yuma 2013),
which states as follows.

The USMC is committed to mission accomplishment and to environmental protection.
Minimizing adverse environmental impacts helps the Marine Corps to be a good steward, win
hearts and minds, and sustain its combat capability into the future. The Marine Corps is
committed to protecting the health and integrity of the environment, both at home and abroad,
complying with the Nation’s laws, conserving our natural resources and national treasures,
preventing pollution through best management practices consistent with mission requirements,
and consistent with mission objectives. The Marine Corps shall continue to refine environmental
management programs, proactively mitigate environmental and health risks, and ensure

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

1-5

Chapter 1

OVERVIEW AND MISSION

individuals are appropriately trained and empowered to provide stewardship of the lands to
which the Marine Corps is entrusted.

Based on this, MCAS Yuma has developed and implemented an Environmental Management System
(EMS) Policy (MCAS Yuma 2017). This approach seeks to balance the goals of maximizing land use
for the military mission readiness while also maintaining the environment. The focus of the EMS
program is to develop, promote, and refine a comprehensive, ecosystem-based management
program for resource conservation. This ecosystem-based approach is intended to facilitate
maximum support of the USMC military training mission and infrastructure while simultaneously
promoting the sustainability of native species and habitats and maintaining compliance with
applicable laws and regulations.

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

1-6

CHAPTER 2
2.1

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Climate

The climate of MCAS Yuma represents one of the driest and hottest in the U.S. It is characterized by
warm-to-hot temperatures in spring, summer, and early fall. The average high temperature in July at
MCAS Yuma is 107 degrees Fahrenheit. Mean temperatures in spring and fall are 87 (April) and 90
degrees Fahrenheit (October). Winter temperatures tend to be mild. December is the coolest month
of the year with an average daily high temperature of 69 degrees Fahrenheit. Daily minimum
temperatures range from 81 (July) to 46 degrees Fahrenheit (January) (Western Regional Climate
Center 2018).

Precipitation at MCAS Yuma occurs almost entirely in the form of rain. The occurrence of snow, sleet,
and hail are rare events that typically generate just trace amounts of precipitation. Winter rains occur
primarily in December and January with monthly averages of 0.38 and 0.42 inches, respectively.
August is normally the wettest month of the year at MCAS Yuma with an average of 0.47 inches of
rain. Winter rains result from weather fronts that begin in the Pacific Ocean and move east across
Arizona. These precipitation events are generally widespread and characterized by gentle rainfall.
Summer rains result from moisture moving into Arizona from Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico, and/or the
Gulf of California. Summer rains or monsoons tend to be highly localized and result in brief, torrential
downpours often accompanied by high winds and lightning. Drought conditions are common in the
Yuma area. The weather station at MCAS Yuma normally receives about 2.99 inches of precipitation
annually, but extended periods of drought have been recorded (Western Regional Climate Center
2018).

2.2

Landforms and Geology

MCAS Yuma lies within a large drainage bowl with higher topographic features along the boundary
of the installation. The interior portions of MCAS Yuma is very flat and nearly void of topography.
Near the center of the installation, there are a few hills that rise approximately 90 feet above the rest
of the base and are the highest points in the area. To the southwest where the installation boundary
ends, a terrace drops down approximately 50 feet towards the Colorado River floodplain.

MCAS Yuma lies within the southern sections of the Salton Trough of the Basin and Range providence
of the Sonoran Desert region. The Sonoran Desert to the east of Yuma consists of elongated, low,
rugged mountains, mostly trending north-northwest with large patches of desert plain in between.
The Salton Trough is a low-lying extension of the Gulf of California with relatively low relief
throughout. The Salton Sea to the northwest of MCAS Yuma has an elevation of -230 feet. The basin
and surrounding mountains were structurally formed by a major fault line associated with the San
Andreas system (Olmsted et al. 1973). The faults nearest to base are the Basement Saddle Fault,
which traverses the southwestern portion of MCAS Yuma, and the Yuma Hills fault, which generally
lies along the installation’s eastern boundary

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

2-7

Chapter 2

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The most prominent mountains in the Yuma area are the Gila Mountains located in the western
portion of the BMGR. These mountains trend north-northwest and are approximately 27 miles long.
The elevation profile of the MCAS Yuma area ranges from 100 to 250 feet above sea level, which
contrasts with the very rugged Gila Mountains to the east, where local relief exceeds 2,000 feet and
can be as high as 3,150 feet. The Gila Mountains’ principle geologic materials are Tertiary, nonmarine,
sedimentary rocks, and pre-Tertiary crystalline granites, gneiss, and schist (Olmsted et al. 1973).
Other small mountain ranges and “hills” that occur sporadically in the basin range area around MCAS
Yuma are primarily composed of pre-Tertiary crystalline rock types.

Soils at MCAS Yuma are primarily alluvial-based sand, silt, and clay deposits (McAuliffe 2018).
Calcium carbonate deposits are common throughout the area. A majority of the saline deposits at the
installation have been removed due to past land-use disturbances. The most prominent geologic
features in the surrounding Yuma area are dune complexes and arid plains with sparse vegetation
and extensive desert pavements.

2.3

Hydrology

Principal rivers in the region include the Colorado and Gila rivers. In the immediate region, the
Colorado River flows from north to south across a broad floodplain surrounded by intensively used
agricultural lands. The Gila River, a principle tributary to the Colorado River, confluences with the
Colorado along the western edge of Yuma, just west of MCAS Yuma. Most streams and rivers in the
region are intermittent in nature due, in part, to the hyper-arid climate and extensive irrigation
withdrawals.
The MCAS Yuma installation does not have any ponds, streams, wetlands, or major drainage channels.
Soils at the installation exhibit rapid permeability rates, leading to little or no natural surface
drainage during precipitation events. This, coupled with the fact that MCAS Yuma lies within a
drainage bowl, means most surface flow is retained on the installation property. Groundwater in the
MCAS Yuma area occurs at approximately 85 to 140 feet below grade. Irrigation water for the MCAS
Yuma agricultural lease areas is supplied from the Colorado River through a series of canals and
ditches.

2.4

Ecosystems and the Biotic Environment

Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and the type, quality, and quantity of
environmental resources. Ecoregions are identified through the spatial patterns and composition of
biotic and abiotic phenomena, including geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use,
wildlife, and hydrology. A hierarchical scheme using Roman numerals has been adopted for
identifying different levels of ecological regions, with Level I being the coarsest and Level IV the most
detailed. MCAS Yuma lies within the Sonoran Basin and Range Level III ecoregion and along the
boundary between the Central Sonoran/Colorado Desert Basin and Lower Colorado/Lower Gila
River Valleys Level IV ecoregions (Griffith et al. 2014).
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

2-8

Chapter 2

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

MCAS Yuma is situated in the Lower Colorado River Valley Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert (Brown
and Lowe 1980). The Lower Colorado River Valley Subdivision is the largest and most arid
subdivision of the Sonoran Desert (Turner and Brown 1982). This subdivision is dominated by broad,
intermountain plains of alluvial soils. Vegetation is generally open and simple, often with many
hundreds of square miles dominated by one or two species of low-growing shrubs. The ground
surface between shrubs may be composed of fine-textured soil or desert pavements consisting of
gravel or rock. Plants are drought-resistant with sclerophyllous adaptations to retard transpiration.
Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) is the dominant plant species at most localities, typically forming
monotonous, uniform growth on the flat intermountain plains occasionally broken by paloverde
(Parkinsonia spp.) and mesquite (Prosopis spp.) along the washes.

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

2-9

CHAPTER 3
3.1

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Fish and Wildlife Management

MCAS Yuma is largely developed with little available natural habitat on the installation. Because of
this, very little active wildlife management occurs on the installation. Wildlife species present at
MCAS Yuma are characteristic of the Lower Colorado River Valley Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert
(Turner and Brown 1982) and urban-adapted species common to this area of southern Arizona.
Small, nocturnal, burrowing species of Heteromyid rodents (e.g., pocket mice (Chaetodipus spp.) and
kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp.); bats; and diurnal, burrowing species (e.g., round-tailed ground
squirrel [Xerospermophilus tereticaudus]) are likely the most common species in areas that retain
some element of natural habitat characteristics. Bats are unlikely to occur in large numbers over the
highly urbanized and landscaped areas of the installation, although they may be present over the
leased agricultural areas. Other mammals likely to occur at MCAS Yuma include the black-tailed
jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and coyote (Canis latrans).
Some species, particularly the desert cottontail and coyote, are highly adapted to urbanized settings
and may use landscaped areas within the installation.

The base’s housing areas support a variety of large trees, shrubs, and herbaceous flowering plants
that provide some foraging and roosting habitat for resident and Neotropical migratory birds.
Current conditions should be maintained by replacing or replanting trees and shrubs lost to disease
or storms. In addition, the agricultural lease areas, particularly the citrus groves, likely provide
habitat for a variety of bird species. While providing habitat is important to the EMS mission,
increased avian species in these areas my lead to increased Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard
(BASH) concerns.
Western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) are infrequently observed at MCAS Yuma and
precautions have been taken in the past to limit impacts to this species. In one such instance, several
burrowing owls were observed roosting near bunkers that were set to be demolished. MCAS Yuma
natural resource staff had these owls safely relocated off-site through the help of an Arizona-based
raptor rescue organization.

Reptiles likely to occur at MCAS Yuma include common, widespread species such as side-blotched
lizard (Uta stansburiana), western whiptail lizard (Aspidoscelis tigris), and the gopher snake
(Pituophis catenifer). Reptiles are most likely to occur within the undeveloped portions of the
installation, although they may frequent developed areas as well.

3.2

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern

There are no federally listed plant or animal species that regularly inhabit MCAS Yuma, although rare
occurrences of vagrant individuals are possible. Species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and species listed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) as Species of Greatest
Conservation Need (SGCN) may occur at MCAS Yuma. These species are discouraged from occupying
the MCAS Yuma airfield to minimize the risk of BASH issues and the risk of mortality to SGCN species.
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

3-10

Chapter 3

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The SGCN list identifies species of concern to the AGFD because their occurrence in Arizona is, or may
be in jeopardy. A species is listed on the basis of the degree to which its habitats or populations have
been impacted and its probability of extirpation from Arizona. Known threats and documented
population decline are now more important factors than a limited distribution.

Many native plant species are afforded protection by the Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA)
under the Arizona Native Plant Law and are categorized as highly safeguarded, salvage restricted,
export restricted, salvage assessed, and/or harvest restricted (Arizona Department of Agriculture
1994). Species with ADA protection that occur at MCAS Yuma include mesquite, paloverde, ocotillo
(Fouquieria splendens), and all species of cacti present on the installation. No populations of federally
listed plants are known to occur at MCAS Yuma.

3.3

Agricultural Outleasing

Approximately 1,461 acres of the MCAS Yuma installation area is leased for agricultural production
(Figure 1.1). This area is broken into separate individual parcels that each have their own contract
and lease agreement. Leases typically include a base period with potential subsequent options not to
exceed a total of 10 years in length. All contracts are awarded through competition. A network of
open concrete-lined canals, ditches, and gated pipe provides surface water from the Colorado River
to irrigate the agricultural area. On average, each acre is allocated approximately 9-acre feet of water
per year. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is the primary crop grown in the leased area, although both citrus
(Citrus spp.) and cotton (Gossypium spp.) are also common. Small grain crops are typically not
allowed due to BASH concerns and many of the citrus groves are being phased out due to both BASH
concerns and disease (mistletoe [Phoradendron spp.]) issues.

All lessees must follow the stipulations outlined in the USMC Environmental Compliance and
Protection Manual (USMC 2013a). Additionally, lessees must submit an annual Pest Management
Plan outlining their expected use of pesticides and herbicides. The lessees are required to routinely
report actual chemical usage via the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Online Pesticide
Reporting System (NOPRS). Lease proceeds are used to pay for costs associated with the
administration of the agricultural outlease program and to support other MCAS Yuma natural
resources projects.

3.4

Integrated Pest Management Program

Executive Order (EO) 13751 (EO 13751 2016) requires federal agencies to identify actions that may
affect invasive species; use relevant programs to prevent introduction of invasive species; detect,
respond to, and control such species; monitor invasive species populations; provide for restoration
of native species; conduct research on invasive species; and promote public education. An invasive
species, as defined in EO 13751, is a “non-native organism whose introduction causes or is likely to
cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human, animal, or plant health.” In order to
comply with EO 13751, MCAS Yuma has implemented an Integrated Pest Management program that
uses a comprehensive approach to weed and pest control. This approach takes into account the
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

3-11

Chapter 3

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

various chemical-, physical-, and biological-suppression techniques available and analyzes the
invasive species’ habitat and interspecies relationships within the ecosystem.

The MCAS Yuma Integrated Pest Management program is guided by the MCAS Yuma Integrated Pest
Management Plan (IPMP) (MCAS Yuma 2016). This IPMP provides a comprehensive overview of pest
management and pesticide-related operations on the installation and can be used as a reference by
all installation personnel and external pesticide regulators. Specifically, the MCAS Yuma IPMP
provides or identifies
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

mission-related pest management objectives;
administrative and operational requirements for the application of pesticides by DoD and
commercial contract personnel on the Base;
personnel and departmental responsibilities for the program;
pests of medical, economic, and agricultural importance and surveillance and control
procedures for each;
pesticides approved for use on the installation through the web-based NOPRS;
administrative oversight on pest management operations conducted under contract;
pest management practices and aspects that may significantly impact human health and the
environment and ensures compliance with state and federal regulations;
facilities and resources for pest management;
coordination with other activity programs, such as environmental and facilities management,
with cross-reference to existing environmental management plans;
a plan to minimize human and environmental exposure to pesticides; and
a plan of action to control harmful pests in the event of a natural disaster or vector-borne
disease outbreak.

Pest and weed management records are retained within the Integrated Pest Management
Information System program. These records include management actions covering in-house,
contractor, and subcontractor applications. Adherence to the MCAS Yuma IPMP will ensure
compliance with all applicable DoD, USMC, Navy, federal, State of Arizona, and State of California laws
and regulations that follow.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

EO 13751 (2016)
EO 11987 (1977)
DoD Instruction 4150.07, with change 1 (DoD 2017a)
DoD Directive 4715.1E (DoD 2005)
DoD Instruction 4715.03, with CH 1 (DoD 2017b)
Marine Corps Order (MCO) P5090.2A (USMC 2013a)
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) Instruction 6250.4C (U.S. Department of the
Navy [DoN] 2012)
OPNAV Instruction 5090.1B (DoN 2003)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996 (7 U.S. Code § 136 et seq. 1996)

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

3-12

Chapter 3

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

DoD Instruction 4150.07, with CH1, provides policies and procedures to establish and maintain safe,
effective, and environmentally sound integrated pest management programs to prevent or control
pests and disease vectors that may adversely impact readiness or military operations by affecting the
health of personnel or damage structures, material, or property. It also ensures that pest
management programs achieve, maintain, and monitor compliance with all applicable EOs and
applicable federal, state, and local statutory and regulatory requirements. The pest management
programs incorporate sustainable philosophy, strategies, and techniques in all aspects of the DoD
and component vector control and pest management planning, training, and operations, including
installation pest management plans and other written guidance to reduce pesticide use.
Protection of the Public

Precautions are taken during pesticide application to protect the personnel at MCAS Yuma. Signs are
used to indicate areas of where pesticides have been applied. These signs are left displayed until the
re-entry intervals listed on chemical labels have passed. Whenever pesticides are applied outdoors,
care is taken to ensure any spray drift is kept away from individuals, including the applicator and
non-targeted areas. As a rule, pesticides are not applied outdoors when wind speeds exceed 10 miles
per hour. At no time are personnel permitted into a treatment area during pesticide application
unless they have met the medical monitoring standards and are wearing proper personal protective
equipment. Sensitive areas, such as medical facilities and child care centers, require extra
precautions on where and how pesticides are applied around these locations.
Pesticide Spills and Remediation

The MCAS Yuma Spill Prevention, Countermeasure, and Control Plan includes a site-specific pesticide
spill response plan for Building 880 Pest Control Facility and a general response protocol for any area
a pesticide spill may occur on installation.

Animal Pests

The presence of feral animals, particularly feral cats, is a concern to the MCAS Yuma RMD because
they are common in the developed portions of MCAS Yuma and can have a substantial negative
impact on wildlife species, including migratory birds. The DoD urges pet owners to keep all cats
indoors for the cats’ safety and to prevent them from killing federally protected wildlife species on
federal lands. A feral cat killing a protected species would be a violation of the DoD’s Memorandum
of Understanding with the USFWS (U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2006), which requires installations to protect bird species covered under the MBTA. Feral animals
are handled either by local animal control or Provost Marshalls Office animal control. Rock pigeons
(Columba livia), which are not protected by the MBTA, are controlled by the pest control technicians
associated with MCAS Yuma. Management actions to control them may include removal and altering
the suitability of their habitats, in accordance with applicable permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the AGFD.
Insect Pests

Common insect pests at MCAS Yuma include bees, wasps, and hornets, which are occasionally
removed from the installation with management options that include spot treatment and nest

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

3-13

Chapter 3

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

removal. Other insect pests include subterranean termites. Termite inspections are performed as
needed and, when an active termite infestation is found, the area is spot treated by a pest-control
specialist.

3.5

Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH)

Bird and wildlife populations pose a hazard to safe flying operations in the vicinity of the airfield
(Table 3.1). MCAS Yuma lies within the Pacific flyway, which, at this location, is a minor flyway for
waterfowl and a major flyway for raptors and songbirds. Although the area is a minor flyway for
waterfowl, the presence of irrigation canals and golf course ponds surrounding MCAS Yuma attract a
small number of waterfowl. Bird-strike concerns at MCAS Yuma are greatest when aircraft fly at low
altitude during takeoff and landing. An assessment of bird strikes involving MCAS Yuma-assigned
aircraft indicates no exceptional hazard from any one particular bird species. Analyses of remains
from bird-strike incidents have shown that strikes typically involve swallows, doves, and a variety of
raptor species. In general, bird strikes are not limited to a particular time of day and have occurred
from early morning to late at night. There is typically an increase in bird strikes at MCAS Yuma during
the biannual Weapons and Tactics Instructor course, which occurs in April and October each year.

BASH reduction plans are developed for DoD military installations where elevated hazards exist and
can be controlled and mitigated, which is the case at MCAS Yuma. In response to this hazard, MCAS
Yuma has developed and implemented a BASH Reduction Plan for the air station (MCAS Yuma Station
Order 3750.1C). This plan was created to minimize aircraft exposure to potentially hazardous
bird/animal strikes while performing critical training and readiness missions. The plan reduces this
bird/animal strike potential through awareness, avoidance, monitoring, and actively controlling
bird/animal populations and movements. Specifically, this plan is designed to
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

establish a BASH Working Group;
establish procedures to identify and communicate high-level hazard situations to aircrews
and supervisors to determine whether altering flying operations are required;
provide aircraft and airfield operating procedures designed to avoid high-level hazard
situations;
provide for dissemination of information to all assigned aircrews and transient aircrews on
specific bird hazards and procedures for avoidance;
decrease the attractiveness of the airfield to birds by eliminating, controlling, and reducing
environmental factors that support birds and wildlife species;
establish an avian and wildlife harassment and depredation procedure designed to manage
and eliminate potential BASH threats at the MCAS Yuma airfield to be implemented by
qualified personnel; and
provide control and management guidelines for specific BASH threat species, including small
birds, raptors, waterfowl, and small and large mammals.

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

3-14

Chapter 3

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Table 3.1: MCAS Yuma BASH strike summary from 2012 to 2017.

MCAS Yuma Bird/Wildlife Air Strike Hazard Strike Summary (2012–2017)

Year

BASH Strikes Per
Year

Remains Collected
Per Year

2013

5

2

2012
2014
2015
2016
2017

1
1
5
8
8

Species Identified

0

Unknown species

1

Burrowing owl

5
5
5

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), redtailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and multiple
unknown species
White-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica), tree
swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), multiple
unknown species
Eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) and
multiple unknown species

Tree swallow, western kingbird (Tyrannus
verticalis), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica),
and multiple unknown species

The MCAS Yuma BASH Working Group governs the BASH program at MCAS Yuma. The working group
meets quarterly to assess the status of the BASH Reduction Program and provides recommendations
and guidance for improving the program delivery. These meetings are held in conjunction with the
Commanding Officer’s Safety Council meetings and are coordinated by the MCAS Yuma Installation
Aviation Safety Officer. The MCAS Yuma BASH Working Group includes the personnel as follows.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Commanding Officer (Chairperson)
Airfield Operations Officer
Air Traffic Control Facility Officer
Range Director
Aviation Safety Officer
Natural Resources Specialist
Pest Management Officer
Tenant Unit Representatives including:
• Marine Aircraft Group 13
• Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 1
• Marine Fighter Training Squadron 401

The MCAS Yuma BASH Reduction Plan outlines the BASH management requirements and
coordination procedures for all BASH Working Group personnel and staff. The Range Management
Conservation Manager maintains all required federal and state permits (Depredation, Special
Purpose-Relocate) to successfully manage BASH operations. The Range Management Conservation
Manager also maintains all harassment and depredation equipment, retains all BASH records, and

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

3-15

Chapter 3

NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

ensures that personnel are properly trained and available for all required BASH management actions.
The RMD monitors migratory, seasonal, and local bird activities and sends all remains from BASH
strike incidents to the Smithsonian Institute for official review, identification, and cataloging.

MCAS Yuma uses the Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS), a comprehensive method of remote
sensing for tracking birds. The AHAS system evaluates weather and radar data and provides realtime alerts to aviators when concentrations of large birds are in the airspace. The AHAS is available
online and its coverage includes the entire continental U.S. Additionally, as part of the prevention
program, AHAS provides pilots and flight schedules with a near real-time tool when selecting flight
routes. Other environmental management guidelines, as identified in the BASH Reduction Plan for
MCAS Yuma, include controlling vegetation (e.g., maintaining vegetation height, removing dead
vegetation and perches), controlling water (e.g., modifying ditches, eliminating standing water),
controlling waste (e.g., collecting and disposing of waste rapidly), and controlling birds through
chemical and physical alterations (e.g., installing bird-proof structures, controlling insects and
rodents). Priority BASH management actions under this plan include vigilant threat monitoring and
reporting, management of the environment at the MCAS Yuma airfield, carrion removal around the
airfield to reduce the abundance of large avian scavengers (e.g., turkey vultures [Cathartes aura]),
and bird/wildlife harassment and depredation, as required.

3.6

Public Outreach

The Office of Communication at MCAS Yuma has several missions that include providing internal
information, community relations, and media operations. Information is available to the public either
through the news section on the MCAS Yuma website (www.mcasyuma.marines.mil) or through the
MCAS Yuma Facebook page. The Office of Communication also coordinates with local media to
provide a civilian media outlet on activities within MCAS Yuma.

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

3-16

CITED REFERENCES

7 U.S. Code § 136 et seq., Summary of the Insecticide, Fungicide, and Redenticide Act. 1996. Available
at
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-federal-insecticide-fungicide-androdenticide-act.
16 U.S. Code § 670a et seq., The Sikes Act Improvement Act, 2004. Available at
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/2004SikesAct%20NMFWA.pdf.
Arizona Department of Agriculture. 1994. Highly Safeguarded Protected Native Plants. Plant Services
Division. Dec. 20.

Brown, D.E. and C.H. Lowe. 1980. Biotic Communities of the Southwest. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-78. Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Executive Order. 1977. Presidential Executive Order 11987 of 24 May 1977, Exotic organisms.
Available at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/1198
7.html.

Executive Order. 2016. Presidential Executive Order 13751 of 5 December 2016, safeguarding the
nation from the impacts of invasive species. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov
/documents/2016/12/08/2016-29519/safeguarding-the-nation-from-the-impacts-ofinvasive-species. Viewed 31 August 2017.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, C.B. Johnson, and D.S. Turner. 2014. Ecoregions of Arizona (poster): U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1141, with map, scale 1:1,325,000. Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141141.
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma (MCAS Yuma). 2010. MCAS Yuma Station Order P6280.3H. MCAS
Yuma Environmental Compliance and Protection Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma (MCAS Yuma). 2014. MCAS Yuma Station Order 3750.1C. MCAS Yuma
Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazard Reduction Plan.
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma (MCAS Yuma). 2016. Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Integrated Pest
Management Plan.
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma (MCAS Yuma). 2017. Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Environmental
Management Systems Policy.

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma (MCAS Yuma). 2018. Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Installation
History. Available at http://www.mcasyuma.marines.mil/Welcome/.

McAuliffe, J.R. 2018. A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert - Desert Soils, Arizona-Sonora Desert
Museum.
Olmsted, F.H., O.J. Loeltz, and B. Irelan. 1973, Geohydrology of the Yuma Area, Arizona and California
United States Geological Survey Professional Paper.

Turner, R.M., and D.E. Brown. 1982. Sonoran Desertscrub. Pp. 181-221 in D.E. Brown (ed). Biotic
Communities of the American Southwest-United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4).

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2005. Department of Defencse Direction 4715.1E, Environment,
Safety, and Occupational Health. Available at http://www.campbell.army.mil/Installation
/Safety/Documents/Army%20Regulations/dod_drctv_4715.1e.pdf.

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

17

CITED REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2017a. DoD Instruction 4150.07 with CH 1, DoD Pest Management
Program. Available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi
/415007p.pdf.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2017b. DoD Instruction 4715.03 with CH 1, Natural Resources
Conservation Program. Available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD
/issuances/dodi/471503p.pdf.

U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Memorandum of Understanding
between the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the
Conservation of Migratory Birds. July. Retrieved 13 April 2012 from U.S. Fish and Wildlife:
www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/Interorganizational_Documents/doi_mou_bi
rds2006.pdf.
U.S. Department of the Navy. 2003. OPVAV 5090.1B, with CH 4, Environmental and Natural Resource
Program Manual.
U.S. Department of the Navy. 2012. OPVAV 6250.4C, Navy Pest Management Programs.

U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). 2013a. Marine Corps Order (MCO) P5090.2A, Chapter 11, Natural
Resources Management, in Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual. U.S.
Department
of
the
Navy,
Marine
Corps
Headquarters.
Available
at
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/MCO%20P5090.2A%20W%20CH%201-3.pdf.
U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). 2013b. Station Order 3710.6J, MCAS Yuma Range and Training Areas
Standard Operating Procedures. Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona.

Western Regional Climate Center 2018. Yuma International Airport, Arizona (029660). Period of
Record Monthly Climate Summary.

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
Installation Overview
2018–2023

R-18