Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refugewinapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/wilderness... · Cabeza Prieta...

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Cabeza Prieta National

Wildlife Refuge A Report on Wilderness Character Monitoring

Molly McCarter

October 2011

This document was created as part of the FWS National Wildlife Refuge System Wilderness Character

Monitoring Program of 2011. This pilot program is part of a national strategy for wilderness inventory and monitoring. Accompanying this report is a Wilderness Character Monitoring Database program with

entries specific to this refuge.

“Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning

to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wildness is a

necessity; that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as

fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life.”

- John Muir

Wilderness.net Webmaster

This document is part of the Wilderness Character Toolbox on http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/

US Fish and Wildlife Service Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge | 1

CONTENTS

Setting of the Refuge Wilderness ..............................................................................................2

Geographic setting ...................................................................................................................2

Ecological setting ....................................................................................................................3

History of establishing the wilderness ......................................................................................6

Refuge purposes ......................................................................................................................6

Documents Consulted ...............................................................................................................8

Staff Consulted ..........................................................................................................................8

Process used for identifying measures ......................................................................................9

Measures used ......................................................................................................................... 10

Untrammeled Quality ............................................................................................................ 11

Natural Quality ...................................................................................................................... 15

Undeveloped Quality ............................................................................................................. 22

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality ...................................................... 34

Measures not used ................................................................................................................... 40

Untrammeled Quality ............................................................................................................ 40

Natural Quality ...................................................................................................................... 43

Undeveloped Quality ............................................................................................................. 46

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality ...................................................... 47

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 51

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 53

Appendix A - Worksheet: Priority Ranking Of Potential Measures ....................................... 53

Appendix B - Spreadsheets: Effort Required For Wilderness Character Monitoring .............. 60

Appendix C - Table: Detailed Description of Data Sources and How Data Were Gathered ... 63


SETTING OF THE REFUGE WILDERNESS

Geographic setting

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge is located in the southwest corner of Arizona and

is approximately 177 kilometers (110 miles) south of Phoenix, Arizona and 201 kilometers (125

miles) west of Tucson, Arizona. It lies along 56 miles of the international border in the heart of

the Sonoran Desert and is bordered by Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument to the east (which

contains wilderness), and the Barry M. Goldwater Range to the west and north. Cabeza Prieta

NWR is the third largest wildlife refuge in the lower 48 states and contains the largest refuge

wilderness outside of Alaska at 803,418 acres. The Cabeza Prieta Wilderness encompasses 93

percent of the refuge.

Geographic setting of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)


Wilderness boundary of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)

Ecological setting

The Fish and Wildlife Service identified and mapped 53 ecosystem units throughout the

United States by grouping watersheds. Ecosystem Teams were established and directed to

develop plans for each unit that describe ecological resources, issues relevant to the resources,

and conservation strategies. The Cabeza Prieta NWR is located within the Gila/Salt/Verde

Ecosystem part of the Lower Colorado River Ecosystem, one of the nine ecosystem units within

the Southwest Region.

Cabeza Prieta means “Black Head” or “Dark Head” in Spanish. The name is inspired by

a lava topped granite peak found on the western side of the refuge. The refuge is remote,

immense, hot, and dry. The geology of the refuge is primarily basalts and granite, with deep

alluvial valleys between mountain ranges. Two types of mountains occur on the refuge: sierras

and mesas. The sierra mountain ranges are characterized by jagged crests that vary little in

height and rise steeply from valley floors. The mesas are gently inclined, or relatively flat,

massive blocks cut by young canyons. Separating the mountain ranges are broad, nearly level

alluvial valleys and basins. Runoff from the mountains drains northward into the Gila River,

westward to the Colorado River, and finally southward to the Gulf of California. Three desert


playas (“dry lakes”- broad basins that hold water temporarily) are present on the refuge. They

exist because of an absence of an outlet for the draining water and in wet years can be covered

with dense annuals.

Cabeza Prieta Peak, the “Black Head” (FWS)

Cabeza Prieta NWR is located within the Tropical-Subtropical Desertland climatic zone.

The mean annual precipitation on the refuge is less than 10 inches, varying from 9 inches on the

east side of the refuge to 3 inches on the west side. Rainfall increases with elevation. Most of

the precipitation occurs from July to September in the form of intense thundershowers and the

driest months on the refuge are May and June. The highest temperatures occur from mid-May to

mid-September and generally exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

Forty-two species of mammals are known to inhabit Cabeza Prieta. Only a few large

mammals occur in Cabeza Prieta including desert bighorn sheep, Sonoran pronghorn, bobcat,

mountain lion, and coyote. Other mammals include rabbits, burrowing rodents, and bats. Bird

diversity and abundance is low, consisting of arid adapted resident species and Neotropical

migrants moving through the refuge in the spring and fall. Reptiles, on the other hand, are well

represented by unique species. Rocky outcrops, bajadas, and washes all support varied reptiles,

including six species of rattlesnakes, desert tortoise, and numerous lizards including Gila

monster. A few species of amphibians also occur the throughout the refuge inhabiting water


catchments and natural ephemeral water sources following the summer rains and inhabiting

borrows during non-breeding periods.

Mojave rattlesnake, one of six rattlesnake species found on the Cabeza Prieta National

Wildlife Refuge (Molly McCarter)

The refuge supports 400 plant species. These are distributed over two general vegetation

zones: (1) Arizona Upland-Upper Bajadas and lower elevations support creosote, palo verde,

ironwood, mesquite, ocotillo, saguaro, small shrubs and grasses, and cacti; and (2) Lower

Colorado Valley with bajadas and inner mountain alluvial plains which support mostly open

stands of creosote and bursage. No endangered plant species have been identified on the refuge.

Foothill palo verde and saguaro dominate the landscape.


History of establishing the wilderness

The Cabeza Prieta NWR was originally established as a “Game Range” by Executive

Order 8038 signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 25, 1939. This Range was

established primarily to assist in the recovery of the desert bighorn sheep, and partially in

response to public demand generated by the Boy Scouts of America, Arizona Game Protective

Association, and the Audubon Society. With the onset of World War II, the bulk of the game

range was included in the Luke Air Force Gunnery Range. The military used the area for pilot

training, live fire exercises at towed targets, ground firing, and practice bombing.

The Public Land Order 5493 of March 21, 1975, amended the original Executive Order

and gave sole jurisdiction to the Fish and Wildlife Service, and changed the name of the Game

Range to Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. The Cabeza Prieta Wilderness was first

proposed as a Wilderness Study Area in 1968 and was designated by the Arizona Desert

Wilderness Act of 1990 (HR 2570 Title 3). This Act designated about 93 percent of the refuge,

or 325,133 hectares (803,418 acres) as wilderness. Special provisions for border law

enforcement agencies and the military were included in the act.

Saguaros on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)

Refuge purposes

The Cabeza Prieta NWR was established January 25, 1939 as Cabeza Prieta Game Range

by Executive Order 8038 “for the conservation and development of natural wildlife resources,

and for the protection and improvement of public grazing lands and natural forage

resources...(and) that all the forage resources in excess of that required to maintain a balanced

wildlife population within this range or preserve shall be available for livestock…”. This Range

was established primarily to assist in the recovery of the desert bighorn sheep. A strategy

involving water structure development and active management of the rocky, arid sierras and


intermittent drainage areas was implemented for species recovery throughout their historic range

in Arizona. Enactment of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 designated most of the

refuge wilderness and created the supplemental refuge purpose of wilderness protection, in

accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964. In addition to the original refuge purposes and the

additional wilderness purpose created by the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990, several

federal policies, regulations, and laws affect refuge management activities. Preeminent among

these is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which mandates protection and recovery of

threatened and endangered species. In 1988 Cabeza Prieta NWR was given the lead for recovery

of the Sonoran pronghorn, thus creating an additional refuge purpose.

Sonoran pronghorn (FWS)


DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

♦ Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (Public law 101-628).

♦ Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP),

Wilderness Stewardship Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. US Fish and Wildlife

Service. August 2006. Print.

♦ Annual Narratives (several years)

♦ Cultural Resources Overview and Assessment: Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. August 2001. Print.

♦ Ancient Desert Wanderers: An Archaeological Record of Archaic Sites in Turtle Valley.

Arizona Archeological Society, Ajo Chapter. 2005. Print.

♦ Lost City: A Shell Jewelry Manufacturing Village. Arizona Archeological Society, Ajo

Chapter. 2006. Print.

STAFF CONSULTED

♦ James Atkinson, Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team Leader

♦ Stephen Barclay, Assistant Refuge Manager

♦ Nick Burnard, Maintenance Mechanic

♦ Brian Krukoski, Supervisory Law Enforcement Officer

♦ Sid Slone, Refuge Manager

♦ Kim Veverka, Wildlife Biologist

♦ Mike West, Law Enforcement Officer


PROCESS USED FOR IDENTIFYING MEASURES

Reading the Comprehensive Conservation Plan provided the best overview of the status

of the refuge and wilderness, including management actions, border security issues, and species

of concern. This document allowed me to draft a list of potential monitoring measures which

was presented to refuge management (consisting of the refuge manager and the assistant refuge

manager).

The initial meeting with refuge management was very long, and provided me with

excellent information about what the priority concerns were at the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness.

After this meeting, I was able to edit my list of potential measures (redefine, eliminate, and add

measures).

I then immediately began inquiring to the appropriate refuge staff about data availability

and acquirement. Meetings were held with the wildlife biologist, the Sonoran pronghorn

recovery team leader, refuge law enforcement staff, and maintenance staff. These meetings

allowed me to gauge data availability and I subsequently redefined measures to align them with

data that is currently collected by refuge staff.

Several meetings occurred with refuge management to further refine and prioritize

measures. Additionally, meetings were held and inquiries were made to local experts not

employed by the refuge, including nongovernmental organizations, cultural resource assessment

volunteers, a border patrol agent, and neighboring National Park staff. These encounters

provided further insight and additional perspectives on wilderness areas adjacent to international

borders and wilderness areas with federally listed endangered species.


MEASURES USED

This section provides information on the measures selected for the Cabeza Prieta

wilderness character monitoring protocol. This section provides information on the context of

the measure within the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness, data sources, and data quality. Also included

is an assignment of the relevance of the measure within the indicator (high, medium, or low)

which was derived from importance assignments from priority ranking sheets and the weight of

the measures within the database, both of which were determined by refuge management.

Information on data condition (for 2011), data confidence, and trend are represented by colored

circles. The trend for all measures is stable (horizontal arrow) for the 2011 year because this is

the baseline year. The condition is represented by the color of the circle: red (poor), yellow

(caution), or green (good). The confidence in the data accuracy is represented by the line around

the circle: a thick solid line (high confidence), thin solid line (medium confidence), or a dashed

line (low confidence). This section does not provide any physical data; please refer to the

Wilderness Character Monitoring Database for this data.

Mule deer at sunrise on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)


Quality: Untrammeled

Indicator: Actions authorized by the federal land manager that manipulate the biophysical

environment

Measure: Natural fire suppressions in wilderness.

♦ Context: At present, Cabeza Prieta doesn’t have a fire management plan. Refuge

management understands the benefits of natural fires to ecosystems and hopes to develop

a fire management plan in the near future. It takes approximately six hours for fire

personnel to arrive on site, therefore very few fires are suppressed on the Cabeza Prieta

National Wildlife Refuge.

Relevance to Indicator

(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

Low Refuge

Management

Inquiry to

Refuge

Management

50 points High

1Significant Change:

(how it was determined)

A point system was created to monitor fire suppressions in

wilderness within different size categories. Refuge management

determined that based on these point categorizations, an increase or

decrease of fifty points would be significant enough to indicate a

trend in wilderness character. 2Data Adequacy: There is high confidence in the quality of the data for this year

because it is common refuge knowledge that no wildfires were

suppressed in wilderness within the last year.



Indicator: Actions authorized by the federal land manager that manipulate the biophysical

environment

Measure: Number of trips to haul water to wilderness.

♦ Context: Under present management 27 developed wildlife waters are maintained in

wilderness. The presence of these developments can be viewed as contrary to the

undeveloped and untrammeled character of wilderness. Eighteen of these developed

waters, however, were present and maintained on the refuge while the refuge wilderness

proposal was being developed. The refuge periodically hauls water to 20 of the

developed waters in wilderness, although during most years fewer than 20 developed

waters receive hauled supplemental water. Water is hauled to water developments in the

Cabeza Prieta wilderness via motor vehicle and helicopter. While the actual water

brought to the wilderness is a manipulation of the biophysical environment, the trips to

haul this water was determined to be more impactful to the wilderness’s character than

the amount of water brought on these trips.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data1

Significant

Change2

Confidence in

Data Quality3

High Maintenance

mechanic or

other staff that

conduct water

hauls

Inquiry to

maintenance

mechanic

50% High

1Process to Gather Data: Compiled gallons of water delivered to wilderness from

maintenance mechanic into Excel document. Maintenance

mechanic provided number of trips to each development so far for

2011, and a gallons per trip was estimated for all previous years.

This was used to estimate the number of wilderness water hauls for

previous years.



It was determined by refuge management that an increase or

decrease of 50% in the amount of trips to deliver water to

wilderness water developments would be significant enough to

indicate a trend in wilderness character. 3Data Adequacy: There is high confidence in the quality of this data because

beginning this year (2011), the number of trips to haul water will be

tracked.



Indicator: Actions not authorized by the Federal land manager that manipulate the

biophysical environment

Measure: Number of undocumented alien (UDAs) apprehensions in the refuge.

♦ Context: Impacts of UDA presence include ignition of rescue fires, ground disturbance

(including trampling of fragile cryptogammic soils), littering, and pose safety threats to

visitors all of which affect the character of the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness including the

biophysical environment.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

High US Border

Patrol

Inquiry to US

Border Patrol,

compilation of

data from

Yuma and

Tucson sectors

50% High



Refuge management determined this significant change.

2Data Adequacy: There is high confidence in the quality of this data because number

of apprehensions within the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge

is kept by the border patrol agency.

Typical items discarded by

cross border violators on

Cabeza Prieta National

Wildlife Refuge (Alex

Wong)



Indicator: Actions not authorized by the Federal land manager that manipulate the

biophysical environment

Measure: Acres of wilderness burned due to human-caused wildfires.

♦ Context: Many human ignited fires are signals from undocumented aliens traveling

north from Mexico through the refuge requesting rescue.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

Medium Refuge

Management,

Law

Enforcement

Staff

Inquiry to

Refuge

Management

and Law

Enforcement

Staff

50 points Medium



A point system was created to monitor unnaturally caused wildfires

in wilderness within different size categories. Refuge management

determined that based on these point categorizations, an increase or

decrease of fifty points would be significant enough to indicate a

trend in wilderness character. 2Data Adequacy: There is a medium level of confidence in the quality of the data for

this year because fires caused by undocumented aliens (UDAs)

often go unreported.


Quality: Natural

Indicator: Plant and animal species and communities

Measure: Population size of bighorn sheep, a species of concern.

♦ Context: The protection and conservation of desert bighorn sheep were central to

refuge establishment; the original game range was established primarily to assist in the

recovery of the desert bighorn sheep. Throughout the earlier part of the 20th Century

desert bighorn sheep populations continued to dwindle, despite legal protection. In the

early and mid 1930s, staff of the several regional and national agencies conducted

surveys that recommended establishment of a game range or preserve to protect the

natural resources of the Cabeza Prieta area (and other areas in southwestern Arizona) for

protection of the desert bighorn sheep. At present, desert bighorn sheep are recognized as

a wilderness resource, as well as a species basic to the original purpose of the refuge.

Maximizing numbers of bighorn sheep is a refuge management goal.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

Medium CPNWR CCP

and Wildlife

Biologist

Inquiry to

Wildlife

Biologist

Any (based on

CCP target)

High



Based on the CPNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

population objective of 500 bighorn sheep. Any increase in

population size that approaches the target population size will be an

improving trend in wilderness character for this measure. It should

be noted that even healthy populations fluctuate in size, so

determining whether a change in data indicates an

improving/degrading/stable trend should be left to the wildlife

specialist. 2Data Adequacy: There is high confidence in the quality of the data because these

population estimates are based on aerial flights conducted by

wildlife specialists every three years.


Bighorn sheep on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)


Quality: Natural


Measure: Population size of Sonoran pronghorn, an endangered species of concern.

♦ Context: The refuge plays a critical role in the recovery and protection of rare and

sensitive species including the federally endangered Sonoran pronghorn. In 1988 Cabeza

Prieta NWR was given the lead for recovery of the Sonoran pronghorn. Pronghorn

recovery is one of the primary management goals of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife

Refuge. Since the population crash in 2002 when the population dropped to 21

individuals, refuge management practices, particularly the captive breeding program, has

enhanced the population to a current 100 individuals. The relevance of this measure to

this indicator is high because the Sonoran pronghorn is a highly vulnerable species


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

High CPNWR CCP

and Wildlife

Biologist

Inquiry to

Wildlife

Biologist

Any (based on

CCP target)

High



Based on the CPNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

population objective of 300 Sonoran pronghorn. Any increase in

population size that approaches the target population size will be an

improving trend in wilderness character for this measure. It should

be noted that even healthy populations fluctuate in size, so

determining whether a change in data indicates an

improving/degrading/stable trend should be left to the wildlife

specialist. 2Data Adequacy: There is high confidence in the quality of the data because these

population estimates are based on aerial flights conducted by

wildlife specialists.


Sonoran pronghorn (Alex Wong)


Quality: Natural


Measure: Frequency of non native plant species encounters based on vegetation plot

surveys.

♦ Context: Three non-native species: fountain grass, buffelgrass and Sahara mustard

occur sporadically on the refuge. These species have the potential to out-compete native

species for resources and reduce the density of native flora on the refuge. Sahara mustard

is of particular concern as it appears to be infesting the Pinta Sands area, which has

supported a native sand dune endemic community considered to be an important food

source for Sonoran pronghorn. Currently monitoring of invasive and non native plant

species is not conducted, but a monitoring protocol is to be established in the next two

years.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change

Confidence in

Data Quality

Medium TBD TBD TBD TBD

*Fields are to be determined when monitoring protocol is established/ implemented.


Quality: Natural

Indicator: Physical resources

Measure: Air Quality Data

♦ Context: This measure and data are to be entered by the I&M Program.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change

Confidence in

Data Quality

High TBD TBD TBD TBD

*Fields are to be determined when data is available.

Blonde tarantula in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)


Quality: Natural

Indicator: Biophysical processes

Measure: Change in frequency of desirable plants (due to changes in climate).

♦ Context: It is expected that desirable plants will be affected by climate change. This is

currently not monitored by refuge staff, but it is a high priority of concern. A monitoring

protocol is to be established in the near future.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change

Confidence in

Data Quality

High TBD TBD TBD TBD

Poppies blooming on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)


Quality: Undeveloped

Indicator: Non-recreational structures, installations, and developments

Measure: Number of man-made, developed wildlife water source structures and enhanced

natural water source areas in wilderness.

♦ Context: These water developments exist for the benefit of bighorn sheep and Sonoran

pronghorn. They are considered necessary for stabilization of these populations.

Types of water developments found on the refuge include: buried reservoirs with

collection points and drinking troughs, runoff tanks (modified tinajas), charcos, and

storage tanks with drinking troughs. Some of these waters are also used by cross border

travelers as rescue waters. While these developments are degrading to the “undeveloped”

quality of wilderness, it improves the “natural” quality of wilderness. Additional water

developments in wilderness are being considered.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

Medium CPNWR CCP,

Refuge

Management,

Wildlife

Biologist

Read CCP data Any High



I suggested this significant change, and refuge management

confirmed it. 2Data Adequacy: There is high confidence in the quality of the data because this is

common refuge knowledge. All water developments in wilderness

are known and monitored.


*Source: Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2006)


*Source: Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2006)

Papago Drinker, a wildlife water development in the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness

(Molly McCarter)




Measure: Number of sites with communications and security infrastructure(s).

♦ Context: Monitors the number of separate sites with structures in wilderness. The sites

affect the viewshed around them. A separate “site” is defined as anything at least 300

feet beyond a current site. Currently three such sites exist in the Cabeza Prieta

Wilderness: Growler Mountain, Granite Mountain, and Buck Peak. Seven additional

sites are currently proposed. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has proposed an

upgrade to the existing radio repeater site on Buck Peak, a new radio repeater adjacent to

the existing Air Force repeater on Granite Mountain, and a new repeater in the Tule Well

area. Another four to seven Innovative Fixed Towers are proposed either along the El

Camino and Christmas Pass roads (which are outside wilderness) or in the wilderness, or

a combination of both locations.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

High Refuge

Management,

Wildlife

Biologist

Inquiry to

Wildlife

Biologist

Any High



Any additional site 300 feet beyond a current site defines an

additional site and is significant enough to constitute a change in

trend for wilderness character. 2Data Adequacy: There is high confidence in the quality of the data because this is

common refuge knowledge. All water developments in wilderness

are known and monitored.




Measure: Total square footage of radio/communications sites (footprint).

♦ Context: This measure monitors the total footprint of sites with structures, and

therefore captures the on-the-ground impact including ground disturbance, habitat loss,

etc.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality

High TBD TBD 25% TBD



This significant change was determined by the refuge manager.

*Fields are to be determined when data is available.




Measure: Number of tow darts in wilderness (abandoned military structures).

♦ Context: Past military use has left a scattering of debris throughout the refuge. These

materials range from numerous .50 caliber machine gun shell casings to larger items such

tow darts. The darts are wood and aluminum winged structures approximately 4 meters

(13 feet) in length that were towed behind aircraft and used as targets in air-to-air

gunnery targets. Analysis of aerial photographs conducted by the Air Force in 1998

yielded an estimate of more than 1,600 darts within the refuge.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

Medium CPNWR CCP,

Refuge

Management

Read CCP data 10% Medium




2Data Adequacy: There is medium level of confidence in this data for the baseline

year because it is based on an estimate as documented in Cabeza

Prieta National Wildlife Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation

Plan.




Measure: Number of abandoned vehicles in wilderness.

♦ Context: Past illegal vehicle use for drug smuggling has resulted in an accumulation of

abandoned vehicles that break down or become stuck while crossing the refuge

wilderness. Refuge staff report that between 26 and 30 vehicles remain in refuge

wilderness.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

Medium CPNWR CCP,

Refuge

Management

Inquiry to the

Refuge

Manager, Read

CCP data

50% High




2Data Adequacy: There is high confidence in this data for the baseline year because

the known 26 abandoned vehicles have been identified with GPS

coordinates.



Indicator: Inholdings

Measure: Acres of inholdings in wilderness.

♦ Context: Three potential inholdings are located in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife

Refuge. One exists in the Cabeza Prieta Refuge, but it is not adjacent to or near the

wilderness boundary. The other two are within the wilderness boundary, but are believed

by refuge management to no longer have any private use rights. One appears to be an old

mining claim (“Papago Mine”) between 20-40 acres. This private land near Papago Well

is identified on the Bureau of Land Management’s (1:100,000 scale) land status maps.

Little else is known about this land. Another potential inholding is a portion of land

identified on the Bureau of Land Management’s (1:100,000 scale) land status map as

state land and is the northern boundary of the refuge adjacent to Christmas Pass Road (in

wilderness). Because both of these parcels are believed to be inactive, neither of these

potential inholdings was included in the wilderness character monitoring database. A

follow up needs to be conducted to confirm the status of these lands; if the parcels are

private the refuge will work towards their acquisition.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

High Refuge

Management,

Refuge Maps

Inquiry to the

Refuge

Manager,

Referenced

Refuge Maps

Any Medium




confirmed it. 2Data Adequacy: There is a medium level of confidence in the quality of this data

because of the potential of inholdings to exist within the wilderness

boundary. A follow up needs to be conducted to confirm the status

of these lands.



Indicator: Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Measure: Off road vehicle tracks according to east-west transect surveys.

♦ Context: This data will capture off road vehicle (ORV) tracks made by (1) border

security activities, (2) illegal border traffic, and (3) illegal use of ORVs by visitors.

Refuge management is optimistic that border patrol will better comply with only

necessary off road use and incursion report filing when off road use does occur. A

monitoring protocol is to be established in the next two years. With the installation of

new infrastructure, the refuge believes that within the next four to five years illegal

border activity will be drastically reduces and thus border patrol will have less need to

drive off road. However, illegal border activity is expected to increase on the refuge over

the next four years as border patrol achieve success in the east (this will drive traffic to

the west, to Cabeza Prieta NWR).


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality

High TBD TBD 25% TBD







Indicator: Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

Measure: Number of vehicle days of authorized internal motorized/mechanized use in

wilderness (vehicles X days).

♦ Context: This measure would capture authorized use of vehicle in wilderness on

administrative trails. It will include a sum of: (1) Law enforcement vehicle use, (2)

Water hauls, (3) Other uses of administrative trails by refuge staff. Management use of

vehicles in wilderness may be done for purposes including but not limited to: surveys,

sign installation, abandoned vehicle removal, military debris removal.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

Medium TBD TBD TBD TBD




Indicator: Loss of statutorily protected cultural resources

Measure: Percent of cultural resource sites that have been surveyed in wilderness.

♦ Context: To date, no assessment of the extent of disturbance to cultural resource sites

in wilderness has been conducted. Therefore, a measure was selected that monitors the

extent of surveying of cultural resource sites in wilderness. When damage assessments

are conducted in the future, this measure should be changed. Severity of disturbances to

cultural resources should be documented with photos/status reports.

El Camino del Diablo trail district, an ancient trail that passed through the southern part

of the refuge, was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978 and is listed by the

State Historic Preservation Office as an Arizona historic trail. This original trail system, more a

braided corridor of multiple paths than a single trail, is distinct from the modern refuge access

road that shares its name and general location. The National Historic District is a 1.6-kilometer

(1-mile) wide corridor centered on the original trail used by travelers in the region since the pre-

European contact era. The name El Camino del Diablo - “the Devil’s Highway” - first appears in

historical records from the 1850s, and was likely coined by prospectors on their way to the

California gold fields and other travelers from Caborca, Mexico to Yuma, Arizona. Thousands of

prospectors braved this arid route. It has earned its name as the most deadly immigrant trail

where over 400 travelers perished over the years.

Several other archeological sites have been identified as eligible for listing. Within the refuge, 45 prehistoric and historic sites have been recorded by a statewide survey. In

addition, there are numerous site “leads” and site locations that are known but have not been

formally recorded. Disturbances to cultural resources in the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness

include damage from vehicles and erosion. Other damage can include vandalism

(carving letters beside petroglyphs), trampling, etc.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

High CPNWR

Cultural

Resource

Volunteers

Inquiry to

CPNWR

Cultural

Resource

Volunteers

Any Medium




confirmed it. 2Data Adequacy: There is a medium level of confidence in the quality of this data

because it was estimated by the CPNWR cultural resource

volunteers.


Petroglyphs pictured at a possible cultural resource site on the Cabeza Prieta National

Wildlife Refuge (FWS)


Quality: Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness

Measure: Miles of roads open to border patrol use in wilderness.

♦ Context: A special provision to the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 allows use

of trails in wilderness for border security purposes. This measure is a sum of

Administrative Trails and Border Patrol Operational Trails. Administrative trails are

used for hauling water to water developments when necessary and for other refuge or

wilderness management purposes (per a Minimum Requirements Analysis).


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

High Refuge Maps

in GIS with

appropriate

layers

Calculated

road length

using GIS and

appropriate

road layers

20% High



The refuge manager determined this significant change.

2Data Adequacy: There is high confidence in the quality of this data because it was

calculated using official refuge maps in a GIS program.

Administrative

trail open for

use by border

patrol agents

(Molly

McCarter)



Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness

Measure: Miles of unauthorized routes in wilderness.

♦ Context: The Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge shares 56 miles of border with

Mexico. Over the past decade, the refuge has experienced significant impacts associated

with illegal border crossings and subsequent interdiction efforts by law enforcement.

These illegal crossings include the smuggling of undocumented aliens (UDAs) of various

nationalities and drugs. These activities concern refuge management because of their

impacts to wilderness character and other trust resources such as the federally endangered

Sonoran pronghorn. CPNWR conducted an inventory of off-road vehicular travel within

the refuge. Using high resolution aerial photography from 2008, 12,455 km (7,739) miles

of vehicular trails were found in the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness. Refuge management is

unsure about the ability to get data of this high quality in the future, but certainly hopes

to.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

High Vehicle Trails

Associated

with Illegal

Border

Activities on

CPNWR

Report

Read roads

report for data

10% High



The refuge manager determined this significant change.

2Data Adequacy: There is high confidence in the quality of this data because it was

calculated using high resolution aerial photography.


Digitized off road tracks showing distribution and classification from 2008 CPNWR Roads

Report (FWS)



Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people outside the wilderness

Measure: Miles of wilderness border adjacent to development.

♦ Context: Currently there is no development directly adjacent to the Cabeza Prieta

Wilderness border. But, since the border is along Mexico, this is a highly vulnerable

measure because development along this border is far outside refuge management’s

control.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

High Refuge

Management

Inquiry to

Refuge

Manager

Any High




confirmed it. 2Data Adequacy: There is high confidence in the quality of this data because it is

common refuge knowledge.



Indicator: Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation

Measure: Number of agency-provided recreation facilities.

♦ Context: There are three campsites for visitors to use in the Cabeza Prieta National

Wildlife Refuge: (1) Papago Well, (2) Tule Well, and (3) Christmas Pass. While these

campsites are partially within wilderness, most of these parcels are within the 100ft non-

wilderness corridor around public roads. They are not intended for the wilderness

backpacker, they exist for the vehicle camper. They are adjacent to public access roads

and only extend partially into wilderness, and therefore, according to refuge management,

have no effect on wilderness character.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

High Refuge

Management,

Wildlife

Biologist

Inquiry to

Wildlife

Biologist,

Visits to

campsites

Any High






Tule Well Campsite including fire ring, picnic table, and grill (Molly McCarter)



Indicator: Management restrictions on visitor behavior

Measure: Number of months in a calendar year that visitors are restricted from wilderness

access.

♦ Context: There is a seasonal restriction for visitor entry into roughly two thirds of the

Cabeza Prieta Wilderness from March 15 to July 15. This is part of the Sonoran

pronghorn recovery efforts; this time of year is when pronghorn are fawning.


(High/Medium/Low)

Data

Source(s)

Process to

Gather Data

Significant

Change1

Confidence in

Data Quality2

High Refuge

Management,

Wildlife

Biologist

Inquiry to

Wildlife

Biologist

Any High






Construction of sign describing visitor restrictions for the seasonal closing of the Cabeza

Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)


MEASURES NOT USED

► [Untrammeled – Auth Actions] Actions to trammel species in wilderness.

Many management actions to trammel species in wilderness were suggested for monitoring.

Ultimately refuge management decided to not include the following trammeling in

wilderness. Should these actions be regarded as impactful to wilderness character in the

future, they should be reconsidered for inclusion in the monitoring protocol.

(1) Pronghorn captures from wilderness.

♦ Context/Why not used: This has been practice has only occurred a few times in

wilderness in the past, the most recent being in 2008. Refuge management determined

this was not an action that should be monitored due to its infrequency and very low

number captured. If management perceives this as an issue needing monitoring in the

future, and/or if the effects of this action on wilderness character are great, it is

recommended that this measure be reconsidered for inclusion into the wilderness

character monitoring protocol since data for this measure should be easily obtained.

♦ Priority: Medium

(2) Predator control in wilderness.

♦ Context/Why not used: While this action is not currently practiced in designated

wilderness, the refuge has proposed a very limited predator control program as part of the

Sonoran pronghorn recovery efforts. A predator control program will probably involve

the trapping of coyotes within five miles of the pronghorn breeding recovery pen. As the

pen is outside wilderness, only a portion of the five mile trapping radius will overlap

wilderness. The proposal has not yet gone out for public comment so the outcome of a

final decision is not yet known. If implemented, less than 0.03% of designated

wilderness will be directly affected by this action, therefore a predator control program as

anticipated will have little effect on wild fauna populations except for the benefit of

pronghorn fawn recruitment. If management perceives this as an issue needing

monitoring in the future, and/or if the effects of this action on wilderness character are

great, it is recommended that this measure be reconsidered for inclusion into the

wilderness character monitoring protocol since data for this measure should be easily

obtained.


(3) Bighorn sheep capture/transplanting.

♦ Context/Why not used: This action is not occurring in wilderness at this time and is not

anticipated to occur anytime in the future on the refuge. Therefore this measure was

eliminated from monitoring. If management perceives this as an issue needing

monitoring in the future, and/or if the effects of this action on wilderness character are


great, it is recommended that this measure be reconsidered for inclusion into the

wilderness character monitoring protocol since data for this measure should be easily

obtained.

♦ Priority: Low

(4) Pesticide use to control undesirable plant species.

♦ Context/Why not used: With the changing climate, current and new invasives may be

able to expand their range, and therefore actions to squelch these species may be

practiced in the future. Refuge management determined this was not an action that

should be monitored at this time as there is no pesticide use program on the refuge. If

management perceives this as an issue needing monitoring in the future, and/or if the

effects of this action on wilderness character are great, it is recommended that this

measure be reconsidered for inclusion into the wilderness character monitoring protocol

since data for this measure should be easily obtained.

♦ Priority: Low

(5) Mist netting actions (bats).

♦ Context/Why not used: This has been practiced in the past, but refuge management

believed this was not a “true” trammeling of the biophysical environment and therefore

was eliminated from monitoring. Refuge management determined this was not an action

that should be monitored.

♦ Priority: Low

(6) Number of actions to supplement food to animals in wilderness.

♦ Context: This action is part of the recovery of the endangered Sonoran pronghorn.

This has been practiced on refuge (the latest being in 2009), but never in the wilderness.

It is expected that this will be practiced in the wilderness in the future, possibly as soon as

May 2012 (an EA for food supplementation in wilderness is currently in progress). If

fawns are detected in the vicinity of a water source, this is where food will be supplied.

Research shows that there is a higher fawn success rate when food supplementation is

practiced. Currently there is very low wild pronghorn recruitment, therefore

supplemental feed is considered the minimum tool necessary to enhance wild

recruitment. Concerns with food supplementation include the spread of an exotic species

(alfalfa) and spread of weeds from alfalfa. Protein blocks are also being considered.



Alfalfa being

supplemented to

pronghorn on Barry

M. Goldwater

Marine Corps

Range which

neighbors the

Cabeza Prieta

Wilderness (Alex

Wong)

► [Untrammeled – Auth Actions] Number of new man-made devices (collars, radios, or

other transmitting equipment) put on animals.

♦ Context/Why not used: Sonoran pronghorn collaring takes places annually. The

purpose of these collars is for pronghorn movement tracking and to evaluate possible

impacts of human use (including border patrol activity) on pronghorn recovery. This data

is considered essential to pronghorn recovery. Wilderness character impacts of collars

include the visual impact of these collars to refuge visitors and the possibility of these

collars to drop off the animal and be left in wilderness. By monitoring the number of

new collars put on animals each year, both of these impacts are monitored: both the

potential visual impact to visitors and the potential of collars to be left in wilderness (both

possibilities increase/decrease with an increase/decrease in the number of new collars put

on animals each year). Refuge management determined this was not an action that

should be monitored. If management perceives this as an issue needing monitoring in the






Two Sonoran pronghorn with visible ear tags (FWS)

► [Untrammeled – Auth Actions] Gallons of water brought to wilderness

♦ Context/Why not used: Data is kept on the gallons of water hauled on each trip to

every water development (see “Wilderness Water Deliveries” Excel spreadsheet). This

measure was not used because refuge management believed that the trips to haul water

caused a more significant impact than the amount of water delivered. Therefore this

measure was replaced with “Number of trips to haul water to wilderness” [Untrammeled

– Auth Actions].

♦ Priority: Low

► [Natural – Plant and animal communities] Non native animal detections within the last

five years.

♦ Context/Why not used: This measure was not used because it is of low concern to

refuge management. The main species of concern for this measure would be the burro,

which occasionally entered the refuge in the past year. Refuge management determined

this was not an action that should be monitored because the refuge intends to trap and

remove these burros this winter. Trapping operations will occur outside wilderness and

will occur on adjacent BLM lands as necessary to keep them off the refuge. There are

no other known exotic fauna species on the refuge, therefore there is no need to monitor

this. If management perceives non native species as an issue needing monitoring in the




♦ Priority: Low


Burros on BLM land neighboring the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Burros in this

group escaped from the neighboring Tohono O'odham reservation and have been sighted on

refuge lands. (Rachel Wilson)

► [Natural – Plant and animal communities] Trespass livestock.

♦ Context/Why not used: Trespass livestock include cattle and horses abandoned by

cross border violators. This measure was eliminated from monitoring because it is of low

concern for refuge management. According to management, almost no trespass livestock

make it to the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness, and when they do they do not survive long in

the harsh desert environment. Abandoned horses are taken into custody by border patrol

when feasible and turned over to the state for disposition. If management perceives this

as an issue needing monitoring in the future, and/or if the effects of this action on

wilderness character are great, it is recommended that this measure be reconsidered for

inclusion into the wilderness character monitoring protocol.

♦ Priority: Low

► [Natural – Biophysical processes] Number of known wildlife diseases.

♦ Context/Why not used: Known wildlife diseases present on the Cabeza Prieta

Wilderness include: (1) bot fly larvae parasite which parasitize desert bighorn sheep; (2)

epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) whose likely avenue of transmission to pronghorn

is by biting midges (Culicoides spp.); and (3) bluetongue disease (BTD) which affects

Sonoran pronghorn. Refuge management determined this was not an action that should

be monitored because it is not of high concern. If management perceives this as an issue


needing monitoring in the future, and/or if the effects of this action on wilderness

character are great (for example, if a disease decimates wildlife populations, such as the

Sonoran pronghorn), it is recommended that this measure be reconsidered for inclusion

into the wilderness character monitoring protocol.


► [Natural – Biophysical processes] Alteration to hydrology due to roads and off road

tracks.

♦ Context/Why not used: While this is a great concern to the Cabeza Prieta refuge staff,

monitoring the alteration to hydrology from off road tracks is too difficult to accomplish.

A monitoring protocol could not be imagined, and if one were to be created it is likely

that it would require too much additional refuge effort to be implemented. If such a

monitoring is conducted in the future, this measure should be included into the wilderness

character monitoring protocol.

♦ Priority: High

Example of hydrology alteration in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. The road

here has become a wash that diverts water flow in the vicinity. (Molly McCarter)


► [Natural – Biophysical processes] Fragmentation of wilderness due to roads.

♦ Context/Why not used: While this is a concern to the Cabeza Prieta refuge staff,

monitoring the effect of this fragmentation is too difficult to accomplish. A monitoring

protocol could not be imagined, and if one were to be created it is likely that it would

require too much additional refuge effort. If such a monitoring is conducted in the future,

this measure should be included into the wilderness character monitoring protocol.


► [Natural – Biophysical processes] Damage to cryptogammic soils.

♦ Context/Why not used: While this is a great concern to the Cabeza Prieta refuge staff,

monitoring the impact on the fragile cryptogammic soils in the wilderness is too difficult

to accomplish. A monitoring protocol could not be imagined, and if one were to be

created it is likely that it would require too much additional refuge effort. If such a

monitoring is conducted in the future, this measure should be included into the wilderness

character monitoring protocol.


► [Undeveloped – Motor/Mech use] Number of authorized motorized/mechanized uses in

wilderness for survey purposes.

♦ Context/Why not used: Aerial surveys do not occur “in” wilderness (only over

wilderness) and are conducted for the benefit of the “natural” quality of wilderness

character, therefore this was perceived as a low priority for monitoring by refuge

management. Telemetry flights for pronghorn locating are conducted every week;

general pronghorn aerial surveys are conducted biannually; bighorn sheep aerial survey

are conducted every three years.

♦ Priority: Low

Typical helicopter used for aerial wildlife surveys (FWS)


► [Solitude – remote inside] Radius of surveillance around border patrol security

infrastructures.

♦ Context/Why not used: Monitoring by border security agencies occurs throughout the

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Innovative fixed towers (IFTs) are planned for

construction on the refuge in the near future, but none exist presently in the Cabeza Prieta

Wilderness. These towers include radar and a camera, with the purpose of monitoring

illegal cross-border activity. On Organ Pipe National Monument, where these towers

currently do exist, legal wilderness visitors are also monitored by these towers.

Therefore a visitor’s sense of privacy and of being alone is absent. It was the refuge

manager’s opinion that while a visitor’s privacy is indeed interrupted, these structures

exist for the benefit of the wilderness visitor and national security. Visitors to the

wilderness are also monitored by cross border violators, so if border patrol monitoring

stations are removed a false sense of improvement would occur.


► [Solitude – remote outside] Difference in customary military above ground level (AGL-

in feet) and AGL feet allowed over wilderness.

♦ Context/Why not used: Military aircrafts are permitted to fly much lower over parts of

the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness than the customary above ground level limit by a special

provision to the Cabeza Prieta wilderness designation legislation. Refuge management

was unable to conclude whether or not lower level flights were more or less impactful to

the wildlife below them than higher level flights. The point was made that while lower

level flights are louder than higher level flights, they intrude on the natural soundscape of

the area below them for a shorter time. Therefore, this measure was considered to be of

too little priority for monitoring by refuge staff.

♦ Priority: Low


► [Solitude – remote outside] Developments visible from wilderness.

♦ Context/Why not used: While structures outside of wilderness that are visible within

wilderness certainly do affect the solitude quality of wilderness, refuge management

eliminated this measure from monitoring because is de-incentivizes putting structures

outside of wilderness.


Fence of the Sonoran pronghorn

captive breeding pen, one of fourteen

identified developments outside of

wilderness that are visible from

wilderness. Mountain range in

background is in the Cabeza Prieta

Wilderness. (Molly McCarter)

► [Solitude – remote outside] Noise from vehicles on non-wilderness public refuge roads

♦ Context/Why not used: This was a concern to some refuge staff, but monitoring of the

vehicle noise intrusion into wilderness from vehicles on public non-wilderness roads

would require significant additional refuge effort. There was consideration of monitoring

this in the future. If such monitoring does occur in the future, it is suggested that this

measure be reintroduced and the data be used as a way to monitor wilderness character

impacts.



► [Solitude – remote outside] Number of known violations to above-ground-level

restriction for military flyovers.

♦ Context/Why not used: These incidents are not documented, although some refuge

staff expressed interest in knowing such data. If these incidents are documented in the

future, it is suggested that this measure be reintroduced. It is likely that monitoring of

this data would require too much addition refuge effort. Cabeza Prieta’s wilderness

designating legislation also allows these military flyovers; the Act states that the Cabeza

Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and Cabeza Prieta Wilderness shall manage these lands

“to support current and future military aviation training needs consistent with

[memorandums of understanding, or MOUs].”


► [Solitude – remote outside] Miles of international border fence along the wilderness.

♦ Context/Why not used: This data was not included as a stand-alone measure because

this mileage will likely never change as it is a matter of border security. It was proposed

that this structure be documented in the measure “Number of developments visible from

wilderness,” but this measure was also eliminated from monitoring per refuge

management’s request. The border fence is located within a 60 feet area adjacent to the

international boundary. This area is part of a 60-foot federal easement adjacent to the

international boundary called the “Roosevelt easement,” which was established for

purposes related to border security, including the erection of barriers. Customs and

Border Patrol has control of this 60-foot easement.

♦ Priority: Low

International border

fence along Cabeza

Prieta Wilderness

(Molly McCarter)


► [Solitude – mgmt restrictions] Camping restriction around wildlife waters.

♦ Context/Why not used: According to title 17 “Game and Fish” Ch. 3 Art. 1. 17-308, “It

is unlawful for a person to camp within one-fourth mile of a natural water hole containing

water or a man-made watering facility.” Since this is a state law, it was not considered a

“management” restriction on visitor behavior.

♦ Priority: Low


CONCLUSIONS

The Cabeza Prieta Wilderness is in an optimal location for wilderness designation. The

Sonoran Desert is a truly unique ecosystem that deserves maximum protection. But, as is

evident from the measures selected and not selected for monitoring, the character Cabeza Prieta

Wilderness is under threat. It will be difficult for a visitor to the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness to

gain an experience of true solitude, void of the influences of modern man, while the international

border remains in need of security. The biological integrity of the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness is

also threatened by these issues. The presence of border patrol to even a short-term visitor is

obvious. Vehicle tracks dominate the landscape and visitors are often tracked and encountered

by border patrol inquiring about their citizenship. It is impossible to predict what the future

holds for the character of the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness as it is highly affected by this security

and political issue.

A special provision in the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 states that Department

of Homeland Security bureaus (U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP] and CBP Office of

Border Patrol [CBP-BP]), may drive in the wilderness to accomplish their missions, in

accordance with any interagency agreements.

According to the Vehicle Trails Associated with Illegal Border Activities on Cabeza

Prieta National Wildlife Refuge report (FWS 2011),

“Over the last 10 years, the illegal movement of people and

narcotics into the United States has significantly affected the

CPNWR Wilderness Area. The very qualities that made the refuge

worthy of designation as a unit of the National Wilderness

Preservation System have made this an ideal location for the

smuggling of people and contraband into the United States.

CPNWR is located in one of the most remote sections of the

Sonoran Desert. Due to the great distance from paved roads,

rugged conditions, and lack of development, the refuge wilderness

area has been used as a travel corridor for illegal border crossing

and drug smuggling activities. These events, and the resulting

interdiction efforts by the USBP [border patrol], have resulted in

significant impacts associated with a proliferation of trails driven

by both smugglers and U.S. law enforcement agency personnel.”

As the international border is secured and border impacts are resolved, it is

expected that the character of the Cabeza Prieta will greatly improve.

The measures described here for monitoring of the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness

capture some of the most impactful acts occurring in the wilderness. I believe that many


measures that were excluded from monitoring (see “Measures Not Used” section) would

improve the thoroughness of this monitoring protocol. I suggest that they be reevaluated

for inclusion in the future.

Sunset at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)


APPENDICES

Appendix A - Worksheet: Priority ranking of potential measures

Instructions

A. Level of importance (the measure is highly relevant to the quality and indicator of wilderness

character, and is highly useful for managing the wilderness):

High = 3 points, Medium = 2 points, Low = 1 point

B. Level of vulnerability (measures an attribute of wilderness character that currently is at risk,

or might likely be at risk over 10-15 years):


C. Degree of reliability (the measure can be monitored accurately with a high degree of

confidence, and would yield the same result if measured by different people at different times):


D. Degree of reasonableness (the measure is related to an existing effort or could be monitored

without significant additional effort):

High = 1 point, Low = 0 point

Untrammeled Quality

Criteria for Prioritizing Potential Measures

Potential Measure

A. Importance B. Vulnerability C. Reliability D.

Reasonableness

OVERALL

SCORE

Indicator: Actions

authorized by the

federal land

manager that

manipulate the

biophysical

environment

Measure: Number

of new man-made

devices (collars,

radios, or other

transmitting

equipment) put on

animals (in each

1

2

3

1

7



Potential Measure


Reasonableness

OVERALL

SCORE

year) (within the

last 5 years).

Indicator: Actions

authorized by the

federal land

manager that

manipulate the

biophysical

environment

Measure: Natural

fire suppressions in

wilderness

2

2

2

1

7

Indicator: Actions

authorized by the

federal land

manager that

manipulate the

biophysical

environment

Measure: Gallons of

water brought to

wilderness

3

3

3

1

10

Indicator: Actions

authorized by the

federal land

manager that

manipulate the

biophysical

environment

Measure: Number

of actions to

supplement food to

animals in

wilderness.

1

2

3

1

7

Indicator: Actions

not authorized by



Potential Measure


Reasonableness

OVERALL

SCORE

the Federal land

manager that

manipulate the

biophysical

environment

Measure: Acres of

wilderness burned

due to human-

caused wildfires

2

2

2

1

7

Natural Quality


Potential Measure


Reasonableness

OVERALL

SCORE

Indicator: Plant and

animal species and

communities

Measure:

Population size of

bighorn sheep, a

species of concern.

3

3

3

1

10


animal species and

communities

Measure:

Population size of

Sonoran pronghorn,

an endangered

species of concern.

3

3

3

1

10


animal species and

communities

STOP!

If A + B ≤

STOP!

If A + B ≤



Potential Measure


Reasonableness

OVERALL

SCORE

Measure: Frequency

of non native

species encounters

based on vegetation

plot surveys.

3 3 2 0 8

Indicator: Physical

resources

Measure: Air

Quality Data

3

3

3

1

10

Indicator:

Biophysical

processes

Measure: Number

of known wildlife

diseases

1

2

3

1

7

Undeveloped Quality


Potential Measure


Reasonableness

OVERALL

SCORE

Indicator: Non-

recreational

structures,

installations, and

developments

Measure: Number

of man-made,

developed wildlife

water source

structures and

enhanced natural

water source areas

3

3

3

1

10



Potential Measure


Reasonableness

OVERALL

SCORE

in wilderness.

Indicator: Non-

recreational

structures,

installations, and

developments

Measure:

Developments in

wilderness

1

2

3

1

7

Indicator: Inholdings

Measure: Acres of

inholdings in

wilderness

3

1

3

1

8

Indicator: Use of

motor vehicles,

motorized

equipment, or

mechanical

transport

Measure: Off road

vehicle tracks

according to east-

west transect

surveys

3

3

2

0

8

Indicator: Use of

motor vehicles,

motorized

equipment, or

mechanical

transport

Measure: Number

of days of

authorized internal

motorized/mechani

zed use in

3

3

2

1

9

STOP!

If A + B ≤



Potential Measure


Reasonableness

OVERALL

SCORE

wilderness.

Indicator: Loss of

statutorily protected

cultural resources

Measure:

Disturbance/damag

e assessment of

cultural resources

3

2

2

1

8

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality


Potential Measure


Reasonableness

OVERALL

SCORE

Indicator:

Remoteness from

sights and sounds of

people inside the

wilderness

Measure: Miles of

roads open to

border patrol use in

wilderness.

3

3

3

1

10

Indicator:

Remoteness from

sights and sounds of

people inside the

wilderness

Measure: Miles of

unauthorized routes

3

3

3

1

10

Indicator:

Remoteness from



Potential Measure


Reasonableness

OVERALL

SCORE

occupied and

modified areas

outside the

wilderness

Measure:

Developments

visible from

wilderness

3

3

2

1

9

Indicator: Facilities

that decrease self-

reliant recreation

Measure: Number

of agency-provided

recreation facilities

3

2

3

1

9

Indicator:

Management

restrictions on

visitor behavior

Measure: Number

of months in a

calendar year that

visitors are

restricted from

wilderness access

3

2

3

1

9

Names of team members filling out these worksheets:

► Molly McCarter, Wilderness Fellow

► Sid Slone, CPNWR Refuge Manager

► Stephen Barclay, CPNWR Assistant Refuge Manager

STOP!

If A + B ≤


Appendix B - Spreadsheets: Effort Required For Wilderness Character

Monitoring Refuge: Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Date: October 2011

Prepared by: Molly McCarter

Effort per Measure

Quality Indicator Measure

Were data

gathered from

office paper files,

computer files,

or field work

(professional

judgment is an

option)?

Time you

spent

gathering

data for

each

measure (in

whole

hours) Comments

Untrammeled Actions authorized

Natural fire suppressions in

wilderness.

Professional

Judgment (LE and

Refuge Mgmt) <1

Untrammeled Actions authorized Number of trips to haul water.

Maintenance files (see also

"Wilderness

Water Deliveries"

Excel

spreadsheet) 2

Untrammeled Actions authorized

Number of actions to

supplement food to animals in

wilderness

Pronghorn

Recovery Team

Leader <1

Untrammeled

Actions not

authorized

Number of undocumented

aliens (UDAs) travelling

through the refuge.

US Border Patrol

Agent 2

Inquiry to US Border Patrol,

compilation of data from

Yuma and Tucson sectors.

Initial meeting and follow up

emails.

Untrammeled

Actions not

authorized

Acres of wilderness burned

due to human-ignited

wildfires.

Professional

Judgment (LE and

Refuge Mgmt) 1

Natural

Plant and animal

species and

communities

Population size of bighorn

sheep, a species of concern.

Wildlife Biologist,

CCP <1

Data is collected via aerial

surveys which take time, but

physically gathering this data

takes little time.

Natural

Plant and animal

species and

communities

Population size of Sonoran

pronghorn, an endangered

species of concern.

Pronghorn

Recovery Team

Leader & Wildlife

Biologist, CCP <1

Data is collected via aerial

surveys which take time, but


takes little time.

Natural

Plant and animal species and

communities

Frequency of non native plant species encounters based on

vegetation plot surveys. TBD TBD

Natural Physical Resources Air Quality Data TBD TBD


Natural

Biophysical

Processes

Change in frequency of desirable plants (due to

changes in climate). TBD TBD

Undeveloped

Non-recreational

developments

Number of man-made,

developed wildlife water

source structures and

enhanced natural water source

areas in wilderness.

Wildlife Biologist,

Refuge

Management,

CCP <1

This number was compiled in

the CCP. Reading the CCP

took much time, but

extracting this particular data

took little time.

Undeveloped

Non-recreational

developments

Number of sites with

communications and security

infrastructure(s).

Refuge

Management <1 Common refuge knowledge

Undeveloped

Non-recreational

developments

Total square footage of radio/communications sites

(footprint). TBD TBD

Undeveloped

Non-recreational

developments

Number of tow darts in

wilderness (abandoned

military structures). CCP (estimate) <1


the CCP. Reading the CCP took much time, but


took little time.

Undeveloped

Non-recreational

developments

Number of abandoned

vehicles in wilderness.

CCP (estimate) &

Refuge

Management <1



took much time, but


took little time.

Undeveloped Inholdings

Acres of inholdings within

wilderness.

Refuge


Undeveloped

Use of motorized or

mechanical

Off road vehicle tracks

according to east-west transect

surveys. TBD TBD

Undeveloped

Use of motorized or

mechanical

Number of vehicle days of

authorized internal

motorized/mechanized use in

wilderness (vehicles*days). TBD TBD

Undeveloped

Loss of cultural

resources

Percent of cultural resource

sites that have been surveyed

in wilderness.

Professional

Judgment

(CPNWR Cultural

Resource

Volunteers) 2 Emails

Solitude + Remoteness inside

Miles of roads open to border

patrol use in wilderness

Refuge Maps, GIS

Layers 2

Finding the appropriate GIS

layers took quite some time,

but GIS calculations took

relatively little time.

Solitude + Remoteness inside Miles of unauthorized routes

Roads Reports,

Refuge

Management <1

These roads reports take quite some time to compile.

Data collection is also very

time consuming. But


from the report takes little

time.

Solitude + Remoteness outside

Miles of wilderness border

adjacent to development.

Refuge



Solitude +

Facilities that

decrease self-reliant

recreation

Number of agency-provided

recreation facilities.

Refuge Maps,

Refuge


Solitude +

Management

restrictions on

visitor behavior

Number of months in a

calendar year that visitors are

restricted from wilderness

access

Refuge

Management,

CCP <1



took much time, but


took little time.

*For all of the measures, it took much time to define the measure properly, coordinate meetings,

etc. Once this was completed, actual data collection often took little time.

Refuge Staff Effort

Title of staff involved in identifying,

prioritizing, and selecting measures

Staff time to identify,

prioritize, and select

measures (in whole hrs) Comments

Refuge Manager 20 Measure selection/defining, data collection.

Assistant Refuge Manager 15 Measure selection/defining, data collection.

Wildlife Biologist 10 Measure selection/defining, data collection.

Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team

Leader 5 Measure selection/defining, data collection.

Law Enforcement Team 2 Data collection, emails.

Chief of Maintenance 2 Data collection, emails.

Local Border Patrol Agent 1 Data collection.

Cultural Resource Experts (CPNWR

Volunteers) 2 Measure defining, emails.

Wilderness Fellow Effort

Time you spent

to identify,

prioritize, and

select all the

measures (in

whole hours)

Time you spent to

learn how to enter

data into the WCM

database

application (in

whole hours)

Time you spent to

enter all data into

the WCM database

application (in

whole hours)

Time you spent on other

tasks directly related to

WCM (e.g., reading CCP,

giving presentations,

talking with staff) (in

whole hours)

Time you

spent doing

other

Refuge tasks

not directly

related to

WCM (in

whole

hours)

140 0 (n/a) 40 140 40


Appendix C - Table: Detailed Description of Data Sources and How the Data

Were Gathered

FWS National Wildlife Refuge System Wilderness Fellows

Keeping Track of Wilderness Character Monitoring Measures

Refuge: Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Date: October 2011

Prepared by: Molly McCarter

Measure

Priority

(H, M,

L)

Detailed Description of the Data Source(s)

and How the Data Were Gathered

Untrammeled Quality 1. Natural fire

suppressions in

wilderness.

L Inquiry to Refuge Management. Calculation of fire

suppression points based on assigned points per

suppression size.

2. Number of trips to haul water.

H Inquiry to maintenance mechanic. Compiled gallons of

water delivered to wilderness from maintenance mechanic

into Excel document. Maintenance mechanic provided

number of trips to each development so far for 2011, and a

trips per gallon was estimated. This was used to estimate

the number of wilderness water hauls for previous years. 3. Number of undocumented aliens

(UDAs) travelling

through the refuge.

H

Inquiry to local border patrol officer, Robert Gumtow.

Compilation of data from Yuma and Tucson sectors.

4. Acres of wilderness burned due to human-

ignited wildfires.

M Inquiry to Refuge Management and Law Enforcement

Staff. Calculation of fire points based on assigned points

per unnatural fire size.

Natural Quality 5. Population size of

bighorn sheep, a species

of concern.

M Inquiry to Wildlife Biologist. Population estimates are

based on aerial flights conducted by wildlife specialists.

6. Population size of Sonoran pronghorn, an

endangered species of

concern.

H Inquiry to Wildlife Biologist. Population estimates are

based on aerial flights conducted by wildlife specialists.

7. Frequency of non native plant species

encounters based on

vegetation plot surveys.

M TBD when monitoring protocol is established/

implemented.


8. Air Quality Data H TBD when data is available. 9. Change in frequency of desirable plants (due to

changes in climate).

H TBD when monitoring protocol is established/

implemented.

Undeveloped Quality 10. Number of man-

made, developed wildlife

water source structures and enhanced natural

water source areas in

wilderness.

M Read CCP data.

11. Number of sites with

communications and

security infrastructure(s).

H Inquiry to Wildlife Biologist

12. Total square footage of radio/communications

sites (footprint).

H TBD when data is available.

13. Number of tow darts in wilderness (abandoned

military structures).

M Read CCP data estimate.

14. Number of abandoned

vehicles in wilderness.

M Inquiry to the Refuge Manager, read CCP data estimate

15. Acres of inholdings

within wilderness.

H Inquiry to the Refuge Manager, Referenced Refuge Maps

16. Off road vehicle

tracks according to east-

west transect surveys.

H TBD when monitoring protocol is established/

implemented.

17. Number of vehicle days of authorized

internal

motorized/mechanized use in wilderness

(vehicles*days).

M TBD when monitoring protocol is established/

implemented.

18. Percent of cultural

resource sites that have

been surveyed in

wilderness

H Inquiry to CPNWR Cultural Resource Volunteers

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Quality 19. Miles of roads open to

border patrol use in

wilderness.

M Calculated road length using GIS and appropriate road

layers

20. Miles of unauthorized

routes.

H Read roads report for data

21. Miles of wilderness

border adjacent to

H Inquiry to Refuge Manager


development.

22. Number of agency-

provided recreation facilities.

H Inquiry to Wildlife Biologist, Visits to campsites

23. Number of months in

a calendar year that visitors are restricted

from wilderness access

H Inquiry to Wildlife Biologist

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refugewinapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/wilderness... · Cabeza Prieta...

Documents

Transcript of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refugewinapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/wilderness... · Cabeza Prieta...