he Interior
88066594 ^ A/r 4-
Dureau oi i^and Management
Lake Havasu Field Office Record of Decision and
Approved
Resource Management Plan
Public Lands USA: Use, Share, Appreciate
May 2007 .
Havasu Field Office :
Abstract
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lake Havasu Field Office has prepared the Approved Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan (Approved RMP) to provide comprehensive current and future management of the more than 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered public land located within the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area. The planning area is comprised of portions of Mohave, La Paz, Yavapai, and Mari- copa Counties in Arizona and San Bernardino County in California. This plan represents years of ongoing, coordinated efforts on the part of BLM Lake Havasu Field Office staff, BLM Arizona State Office staff, representatives of communities located within the plan- ning area, cooperating and collaborating government agencies, special interest and user groups, and hundreds of concerned citizens. The decisions outlined in this document will enable the BLM to manage the resources and uses of BLM-administered public lands located within the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area as a comprehensive unit.
Front Cover Photo: Lake Havasu 2006 BLM Photo by Diane Williams
BLM/AZ/PL-07/002
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OP LAND MANAGEMENT
Lake havasu Pield Office 2610 Sweetwater Avenue Lake havasu City, AZ 86406-9071
In reply refer to;
16i6(330)
May 2007
Dear Reader:
I am pleased to announce that, after several years of collaborative effort, the Lake Havasu Field Office (LHFO) Resource Management Plan (RMP) is complete. This document will provide guidance for the management of more than 1.3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered lands within the LHFO planning area. These lands are on both sides of the Colorado River in California and Arizona.
The attached Record of Decision (ROD) and RMP have been prepared in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The document has been sent to members of the public who requested a copy and to pertinent local, State, Tribal and Federal government entities. The ROD links final land use plan decisions to the proposed decisions and analysis presented in the Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that was released on September 22, 2006, and subject to a 30-day protest period that ended on October 23, 2006. One protest letter was received. The protest was reviewed by the BLM Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning in Washington, D. C. After careful consideration of all points raised in the protest, the Assistant Director concluded the responsible planning team and decision makers followed all applicable laws, regulations, policies and pertinent resource considerations in developing the Proposed Plan in the FEIS. Minor adjustments or points of clarification incorporated into the RMP in response to issues raised in the protest process and final BLM review are discussed in the ROD under the sections titled Modifications and Clarifications. The protest review did not result in any significant changes to the Proposed Plan.
This ROD serves as the final decision for the land use planning decisions, described in the attached Approved RMP. Now that the ROD has been signed, we look forward to your participation as we implement the plan. One such action is the development of the Travel Management Plan (TMP). The TMP will be a detailed and public process in which the public and interested parties can assist BLM as we analyze and designate each route within the planning area. We will conduct the TMP in sections (or small areas) beginning with the Bullhead City area. Route designation will be completed within five years.
Additional hard copies and CD-ROM versions of the RMP/ROD may be obtained by contacting the LHFO at the address above. The document will also be available on the internet at http://www.blm.gov/az.
2
We are pleased to provide this copy of the LHFO RMP for your reference and extend our appreciation for your cooperation and assistance during this planning process. We look forward to your continued participation as the plan is implemented. For further information, please call (928) 505-1200.
Sincerely,
TirKotny Z. Smith Field Manager
I:
ID ■ -/
Record of Decision And
Lake Havasu Field Office Approved
Resource Management Plan
May 2007
Prepared by:
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Lake Havasu Field Office Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Cooperating Agencies: Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Game and Fish Department Bureau of Reclamation Federal Highways Administration
Approved by.
Contents Record of Decision/ Approved Resource Management Plan
Record of Decision 1
Introduction 1
Results of Protest Review 1
Decision 3
What the Decision/Approved RMP Provides 3
What the Decision/Approved RMP Does Not Provide 5
Implementation Decisions 6
Modifications 6
Clarifications 7
Overview of the Alternatives 8
Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) 8
Alternative 2 9
Alternative 3 9
Alternative 4 9
Proposed Plan, Alternative 5 9
Management Considerations in Selecting the Approved RMP 10
Mitigation Measures 12
Plan Monitoring 12
Implementation Monitoring 12
Effectiveness Monitoring 13
Validation Monitoring 13
Public Involvement 13
Availability of the Plan 14
Field Manager Recommendation 15
Approved Resource Management Plan 1
Introduction 1
Purpose and Need 1
Planning Area and Map 2
Scoping Issues 4
Issues Addressed 4
Issues Considered but not Further Analyzed 5
Planning Criteria 5
Planning Process. 6
Other Stakeholder Relationships 10
Related Plans 12
Policy 13
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
TOC-i
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Contents
Vision 13
Management Decisions 13
Biological Resources Management 15
Cultural Resource Management 26
Fire Management 30
Lands and Realty Program 34
Mineral Resources 41
Paleontological Resource Management 44
Rangeland Management/Grazing 45
Recreation Management 47
Special Designations 104
T ravel Management Ill
Visual Resource Management 118
Wild Burro Management 119
Wilderness Characteristics 123
Public Involvement 126
Management Plan Implementation 126
Immediate Decisions 126
One-Time Decisions 126
Long-Term Guidance/Life of Plan Direction 127
General Implementation Schedule of “One-Time” Actions 127
Implementation Updates ...127
Maintaining the Plan 127
Changing the Plan 128
Plan Evaluation and Adaptive Management 129
Plan Evaluation 129
Adaptive Management 129
Glossary 131
References Cited 1 63
Index 167
Acronyms and Abbreviations 181
List of Preparers 185
List of Tables in the Approved Resource Management Plan
Table 1. Surface Management within the Lake Havasu Planning Area 3
Table 2. Categories for Cultural Resource Allocation 26
Table 3. Desired Future Conditions and Land Use Allocations for
Vegetation Communities 31
Table 4. ROW Corridors Designations Summary 40
Table 5. Communication Sites: Designated, Renamed, and Undesignated 41
Table 6. Paleontological Resource Classifications 45
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan TOC-ii
Bureau of Land Management
Contents
Table 7a. Colorado River Nature Center SRMA 48
Table 7b. Lake Havasu SRMA 51
Table 7c. Parker Strip SRMA 68
Table 7d. Swansea SRMA 74
Table 7e. Gibraltar SRMA 76
Table 7f. Havasu Urban SRMA 85
Table 7g. Plomosa SRMA 91
Table 7h. Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) 96
Table 8. OHV Area Designations 113
Table 9. Acreages within Herd Management Areas 122
List of Figures in the Approved Resource Management Plan follows page
Figure 1. Monitoring Model Flow Diagram 130
Appendices
Appendix A. Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Planning Criteria Appendix B. Administrative Actions and Standard Operating Procedures Appendix C. Biological Resources
Appendix D. Water Resources: Springs/Wells/Reservoirs/Water Catchments
Appendix E. Cultural Resources
Appendix F. Vegetation Treatments (Including Fire)
Appendix G. Legal Descriptions of Lands Identified for Disposal
Appendix H. Grazing
Appendix I. Recreation
Appendix J. Parker Dam
Appendix K. Special Designations
Appendix L. Travel Management
Appendix M. Little Harquahala Herd Area Manageability Analysis Appendix N. Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities Appendix O. Plan Maintenance Roster Appendix P. Plan Monitoring Roster
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
TOC-iii
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Contents
List of Maps in the Approved Resource Management Plan follows page
Map 1 . Planning Area with Surface Management 2
Map 2. Previous RMP and MFP Boundaries 2
Map 3. Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawn and Acquired Lands 8
Map 4. Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area 1 0
Map 5. General Vegetation 16
Map 6. Wildlife Habitat Areas 16
Map 7. Riparian Zones Colorado River 1 6
Map 8. Riparian Zones Bill Williams River 16
Map 9. Wildlife Movement Corridors 18
Map 10. Bighorn Sheep Habitat 18
Map 1 1 . Desert Tortoise Habitats 22
Map 12. Special Cultural Resource Management Areas 28
Map 13. Vegetation Communities for Fire Management 32
Map 14. Disposal Lands 38
Map 15. Utility/Transportation Corridors and Communication Sites 38
Map 16. Saleable Minerals 44
Map 17. Leasable Minerals 44
Map 18. Locatable Minerals 44
Map 19. Grazing Management 46
Map 20. Prescribed Recreation Settings 48
Map 21. Lake Havasu Field Office Recreational Management Areas 48
Map 22. Lake Havasu - Special Recreation Management Area 52
Map 23. Gibraltar - Special Recreation Management Area 76
Map 24. Havasu Urban - Special Recreation Management Area 86
Map 25. Plomosa - Special Recreation Management Area 92
Map 26. Allocated Competitive Use Routes 100
Map 27. Existing Developed Recreation Sites and Potential Fishing Dock
Locations 102
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan TOC-iv
Bureau of Land Management
Contents
Map 28. Special Designations - ACECs and Back Country Byways 106
Map 29. Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Area, and Determined Suitable
Wild & Scenic River Segments 1 06
Map 30. Travel Management Areas and Route Inventory Index 112
Map 31 . Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations 114
Map 32. Existing Routes 1 14
Map 33. Visual Resource Management 118
Map 34. Wild Horse and Burro Herd Areas 120
Map 35. Wild Burro Herd Management Areas 120
Map 36. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 124
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
TOC-v
May 2007
::;i AS;.'.
u> -
• ■
'■■rr ..,.v,
’ Q5^ qsWl'
•^,;:rv- -. - gefit '■■"■•■ m if-
'' taif
>,, ^ /■•i ,. ■ • .1 »’«»ii.«r/»te-' JVf . ^ ■‘■' ' . .. ' ‘ ' v»- ' --^
4rr.
asT
^'; 'l ./..; ....
16
Record of Decision
Introduction
This Record of Decision (ROD) approves the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) proposal to manage the BLM-administered public lands within the Lake Havasu Field Office as presented in the attached Approved Resource Management Plan (Approved RMP). This Approved RMP was described as Alternative 5 in the September 2006 Proposed Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) (USDI-BLM 2006). The ROD provides the background on development of the plan and rationale for approving the proposed decisions contained in Alternative 5, and describes the clarifications made to resolve the protest received.
Results of Protest Review
The BLM received one protest letter during the 30-day protest period provided for the proposed land use plan decisions contained in the PRMP/FEIS in accordance with 43 CFR Part 1610.5-2. Protesting parties included in the one protest letter were: Arizona Wilderness Coalition, Natural Trails & Waters Coalition, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter, and Center for Biological Diversity.
Main protest points pertained to:
Issue 1. The Proposed Plan does not manage sufficient acreage for wilderness characteristics.
Issue 2. The Proposed Plan appears to overestimate the potential negative consequences to other resources or uses while failing to give sufficient weight to the likely benefits from managing these lands to protect wilderness character.
Issue 3. The Proposed Plan does not include management prescriptions that sufficiently protect wilderness characteristics and, therefore, does not comport with BLM’s guidance in Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2003-275, Change 1.
Issue 4. The FEIS contains prescriptions that are likely to damage and degrade the qualities of solitude, unconfmed recreation, and naturalness and do not comport with the BLM’s guidance.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
1
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
Issue 5. The Proposed Plan does not manage off-road vehicles or address travel management in accordance with the BLM’s legal obligations.
Issue 6. The BLM failed to disclose the environmental consequences resulting from implementation of its Proposed Plan.
Issue 7. The BLM’s Proposed Plan designates Standard Wash as an Open OHV (off- highway vehicle) Area for unrestricted ORV (OHV) use despite lack of a comprehensive survey for vegetation and wildlife.
Issue 8. The Proposed Plan for the Lake Havasu Field Office fails to take into account both ongoing and foreseeable impacts from ORV (OHV) use, thereby underestimating the cumulative impacts of the Preferred Alternative.
Issue 9. The BLM has failed to account for the cumulative impacts by ignoring the potentially significant impacts of the major public highways and county roads that have yet to be constructed but are proposed to cross through the planning area.
Issue 10. Contrary to the National Environmental Policy Act’s (NEPA’s) requirement, the Proposed Plan implements management strategies that are not adequately supported by scientific data or sufficient information. In addition, the Proposed Plan violates NEPA by failing to adequately disclose the extent to which “it is proceeding in the face of [substantial] scientific uncertainty” concerning the baseline conditions of numerous adversely impacted resources.
Issue 11. The BLM should develop and analyze a true range of management alternatives, specifically including more environmentally protective alternatives that comply with its obligations regarding management of ORVs (OHVs).
Issue 12. The mitigation measures for damage from ORVs (OHVs)in the Proposed Plan are not sufficiently detailed or analyzed to be relied upon by the BLM. The BLM is also required to consider mitigation measures that could avoid or lessen these environmental impacts.
Issue 13. The Proposed Plan also fails to acknowledge and describe future actions (e.g., monitoring, law enforcement, etc.) on which user compliance of a designated route system would be contingent.
Issue 14. The Proposed Plan’s “restoration actions,” as described in Chapter 2, are not enough to ensure the mitigation of impacts from superfluous vehicle routes. BLM should use more of the area designation of “limited to authorized users,” in areas allocated to protect wildlife such as WHA (Wildlife Habitat Area).
Issue 15. The BLM has not adequately responded to comments on the DEIS.
Issue 16. The current 2004 route inventory must be revised to eliminate those routes that cannot be verified as existing prior to adoption of the current RMPs and only those routes that were previously authorized should be carried over for analysis and potential designation for use in the forthcoming TMP (Travel Management Plan).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
2
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
The BLM Director resolved the protest without making significant changes to the Proposed Resource Management Plan, though minor modifications and clarifications were made and have been explained in the Modifications and Clarifications sections below.
Decision
The decision is hereby made to approve the attached plan as the Approved Resource Management Plan (Approved RMP) for BLM-administered public lands located in California and Arizona that are administered by the Lake Havasu Field Office (see Map 1 in the Approved RMP). The Approved RMP replaces relevant decisions in the Yuma District Resource Management Plan (YRMP) (1987) as amended; Kingman Resource Area Resource Management Plan (KRMP) (1995); Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (LGSRMP) (1988); Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (LGNMFP) (1983); and the Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and Decision Record {YGNSN) (2005).
The plan was prepared under the regulations of 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1600, which implements the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for this Approved RMP in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The plan is nearly identical to the one presented in the PRMP/FEIS published in September 2006. Management decisions and guidance for public lands under the jurisdiction of the Lake Havasu Field Office are presented in the Approved RMP attached to this ROD in the section titled Management Decisions.
All decisions covered by the ROD are land use planning decisions that were protestable under the land use planning regulations (43 CFR Part 1610).
What the Decision/Approved RMP Provides
Many land use plan decisions are implemented or become effective upon approval of the Approved RMP and may include Desired Future Conditions, Land Use Allocation or Designation decisions, and Special Designations. Management Actions that require additional site-specific project planning as funding becomes available will require further environmental analysis. Administrative Actions are not land use planning decisions, but are a key component of the overall Plan. The BLM will continue to involve and collaborate with the public during implementation of this plan. Brief descriptions of these decisions follow:
Desired Future Conditions
Land use plans express Desired Future Conditions or desired outcomes in terms of specific goals, standards, and objectives for resources and/or uses. They direct the BLM actions in most effectively meeting legal mandates; numerous regulatory responsibilities; national policy; state director (BLM) guidance; and other resource or social needs. The
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
3
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
Land Use Allocations, Special Designations, or Management Actions are the decisions that allow the BLM to work toward achieving the Desired Future Conditions.
Land Use Allocations (Allowable Uses)
Land use allocations specify locations within the planning area that are available or not for certain uses. These include decisions such as what lands are available for livestock grazing, mineral material use and locatable mineral development, disposal, and what lands are open, closed, or limited to motorized travel. It is common for specific resource or use allocations to overlap with other resource or use allocations.
Special Designations
Special designations include those that are designated by Congress for special protection, such as wilderness areas or national historic or scenic trails. Such designations are not land use plan decisions. However, recommendations for designation can be made to Congress at the land use plan level. Congress may then act on these recommendations at a later time.
Administrative designations made by the BLM (e.g., designating Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) or watchable wildlife viewing sites) are also considered special designations and can be made in the land use plan.
Management Actions
Management actions include those provisions that help in meeting the established goals and objectives and include measures that will be applied to guide day-to-day activities on public lands, including but not limited to stipulations, guidelines, best management practices, and design features.
Administrative Actions
Administrative actions are day-to-day activities conducted by the BLM, often required by FLPMA. BLM administrative actions do not require NEPA analysis or a written decision by a responsible official to be accomplished. Examples of administrative actions include mapping, surveying, inventorying, monitoring, and collecting information needed such as research and studies. See Appendix B in the Approved RMP.
Key Decisions
Listed below are the key management decisions in the Approved RMP.
■ Designate OHV management areas (see Map 31). Define existing roads and trails for limited use areas per inventory (see Map 32).
■ Designate Standard Wash and Osborne Wash “Open” areas only after compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
■ Nominate two new Back Country Byways once partnerships are established.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
4
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
■ Allocate six areas as Special Cultural Resource Management Areas.
■ Allocate 15 wildlife movement corridors.
■ Prohibit collection of dead and down wood except for wood collected within the vicinity (100 feet) of a dispersed campsite for campsite use only.
■ Make 50,616 acres of land available for sale, exchange, R&PP leasing, and disposal.
■ Designate a total of 15 utility corridors. This total includes three new corridors. One existing corridor was dropped.
■ Exclude the area north of Lake Havasu City (west of State Route 95 and east of the Colorado River) from the Havasu Herd Management Area (HMA).
■ Adjust the eastern boundary of the Alamo HMA in coordination with Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGED).
■ Make 1 . 1 million acres of the field office available for grazing.
■ Designate five ACECs.
■ Allocate seven Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs).
■ Identify 41,590 acres for management to maintain wilderness characteristics.
This ROD serves as the final decision establishing the land use plan decisions outlined in the Approved RMP and is effective on the date it is signed. No further administrative remedies are available for these land use plan decisions.
What the Decision/Approved RMP Does Not Provide
The Approved RMP does not contain decisions for actions outside the jurisdiction of the BLM. Comments asking for decisions that were beyond the scope of this plan were forwarded to the appropriate ageney. Additionally, to facilitate resolution of concerns that were received concerning activities on Lake Havasu, BLM identified the need for a multi-agency, multi-year coordinated effort. While the Lake Havasu/Lower Colorado River Regional Management Area is not a land use alloeation or a management action, the identification encourages a multi-agency, multi-year coordinated effort. The mission would be to define the issues, responsibilities, and actions required to maintain a quality lake recreation experience, properly functioning habitat (both terrestrial and aquatic), and common management relationships and goals among the jurisdictions.
In addition, many decisions are not appropriate at this level of planning and are not included in the ROD. Examples of these types of decisions include:
Statutory requirements. The decision will not change the BLM’s responsibility to comply with applicable laws and regulations.
National policy. The decision will not change the BLM’s obligation to conform with current or future national policy.
Funding levels and budget allocations. These are determined annually at the national level and are beyond the control of the field office.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
5
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
Monitoring strategies to determine the effectiveness of these decisions in achieving plan goals and objectives. These will be addressed in specific activity -based plans that will be completed to implement the Approved RMP, with the exception of the Lake Havasu Fisheries Partnership program that has monitored and will continue to monitor fish and habitat productivity and dynamics.
Implementation Decisions
The Approved RMP does not contain Implementation Decisions. Future activity-level plans will address the implementation of the Approved RMP.
Modifications
■ In response to Protest Issue 4, the BLM added text to a prescription for lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. The clarifying text is in italics. The decision coded WC-3 will read:
WC-3 Use of motor vehicles and mechanical transport, and the construction of temporary roads, structures, and installations will be allowed for emergency purposes. Any emergency actions will be conducted in a manner that creates the least disturbance and will be reclaimed as soon as possible after the situation has ended.
■ Also in response to Protest Issue 4, the BLM added text to an additional prescription for lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. The clarifying text is in italics. The decision coded WC-5 will read;
WC-5: The administrative use of motorized/mechanized equipment for natural and cultural resource management would be allowed. Administrative activities include, but are not limited to, water supplementation, collar retrieval, and capture/release of wildlife, maintenance/repair and reconstruction or construction of wildlife waters. Cross-country travel for administrative purposes will be permitted only with prior approval by the authorized officer. Any administrative actions will be conducted in a manner that creates the least disturbance and reclaimed as soon as possible after the administrative need has ended.
■ In response to Protest Issue 6, the BLM edited a Travel Management Action. The clarifying text is in italics. The decision coded TM-27 will read;
TM-27: Approximately 5,023 acres identified as protection sites in previous plans would be designated as “limited" and the specific concerns for these areas will be identified as evaluation criteria and addressed though the route evaluation and designation process.
■ In response to Protest Issue 7, the BLM added text to a Travel Management Action. The clarifying text is in italics. The decision coded TM-24 will read:
TM-24: Standard Wash and Shea Road/Osbome Wash RMZs [Recreation Management Zones] will be allocated “O'go.C following compliance with NHPA [National Historic Preservation Act], the ESA [Endangered Species Act] and the successful resolution of adverse effects to historic properties and threatened and
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
6
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
endangered species. Until these consultations are completed in these two RMZs, travel will remain restricted to existing roads and trails.
■ In response to Protest Issue 12, the BLM added examples of mitigation measures to Appendix L, Travel Management, in the Approved RMP.
Clarifications
As the result of continued internal review, the BLM made several clarifications between
the PRMP/FEIS and the Approved RMP.
■ To facilitate locating a resource, the BLM restructured the resource sections; the resources now appear in alphabetical order.
■ Some decisions presented in the PRMP/FEIS were placed in the incorrect decision category. These decisions were moved to their correct category. (This includes some Management Actions that were actually Administrative Actions. Administrative Actions were moved to Appendix B in the Approved RMP.)
■ SRMA acres were corrected and updated to only include BLM acres.
■ Mineral acres were corrected for surface occupancy.
■ Some decisions were clarified with additional text.
■ Some decisions presented in the PRMP/FEIS were repeated in two program areas. In the Approved RMP, these decisions are coded only once. The code reflects the program that is most affected.
■ Additional text was added to Appendix K, Special Designations, from Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative Environmental Impact Statement, December 1994.
Minor grammatical or editorial edits were not part of this discussion.
Also, some PRMP/FEIS appendices were not included in the Approved RMP.
■ Appendix A, Summary of Scoping, was deleted since this addressed the process prior to the DRMP/DEIS and the PRMP/FEIS.
■ Appendix C, Planning Process Overview, was deleted because it was a general planning overview intended to aid the reader to participate in the DRMP/DEIS and PRMP/FEIS process.
■ Appendix D, Existing Land Use Planning Decisions, was deleted. This appendix contained the decisions that constituted Alternative 1 .
■ Appendix O, Environmental Justice, Appendix P, Socioeconomic Conditions, and Appendix R, Minerals, were not included because they were not referenced in the Approved RMP.
■ Numerous resource appendices also have been revised to delete reference to alternatives other than the Approved RMP.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
7
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
Several new appendices were added to the Approved RMP:
■ Appendix B, Administrative Actions and Standard Operating Procedures. This appendix also includes Administrative Actions (by program area) from the PRMP/FEIS. Administrative Actions are not land use plan decisions. However, these are day-to-day, non-ground-disturbing activities and are an important component when considering program activities.
■ Appendix N, Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities.
■ Appendix O, Plan Maintenance Roster.
■ Appendix P, Plan Monitoring Roster.
Overview of the Alternatives
Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in detail in the Draft RMP/EIS and PRMP/FEIS (USDI-BLM 2006). The alternatives were developed to address major planning issues identified through the scoping process and to provide direction for resource programs influencing land management.
Each alternative is composed of a set of components (decisions) that can be identified as a general theme. Each theme represents a distinct concept for management using a variety of land use planning decision types (including Desired Future Conditions, Special Designations, Land Use Allocations, and Management Actions). These decisions provide management direction at a broad scale and guide future actions to govern management of BLM-administered public lands.
Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative)
Alternative 1 described the current management of BLM-administered lands in the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area. The current management identifies the management decisions contained within existing management plans that would have continued to occur if new decisions had not been made to alter them. Alternative 1 served as a baseline and an opportunity to compare the current management with the various strategies that were proposed for future management (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5).
Supplemental Rules are another category of decisions that affect the way the BLM manages the Lake Havasu Shoreline Program, the Parker Strip Recreation Area, and Craggy Wash. The Supplemental Rules are part of the implementation of ongoing management. These rules are revised periodically to reduce conflicts among a highly diverse group of resource users and notices have been published in the Federal Register. Current Supplementary Rules are listed in Appendix A. At the time of publication of the Approved RMP, the revised Supplementary Rules covering the decisions in the Approved RMP have not been finalized. When the rules become final, they will replace those listed in Appendix A.
Because their decisions affect the way the BLM manages public land today, decisions from implementation or activity-level plans written since the previous RMPs were completed were also included in Alternative 1. For example; OHV area designations
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
8
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
were changed from Limited to Existing Roads and Trails, to Limited to Designated Roads and Trails [italics added for emphasis] in Gibraltar Mountain Interdisciplinary Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (Bureau of Land Management 2001).
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 emphasized resource protection through a focus on natural processes and other discrete methods for resource management, minimal human use and influence, and enhanced protection of remoteness and primitive recreation. For example, more areas were restricted from mineral development; recreation management focused on more primitive and semi-primitive recreation activities within SRMAs; and there was designation of more public lands as ACECs than under any of the other alternatives.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 placed an emphasis on maximum resource use and a more permissive resource management approach. For example, there were very few restrictions on mineral development. There was a higher level of motorized recreation and the fewest number of ACECs would have been designated than under any of the other alternatives.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 sought to preserve the unique values of lands within the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area while accommodating reasonable levels of use. The “middle-of-the- road” approach to resource management proposed in Alternative 4 would have provided a moderate amount of mineral development. Recreation would have included a mix of motorized and primitive recreation opportunities, and a median number of ACECs would have been designated.
Alternative 5 (Approved RMP)
Alternative 5 was the BLM’s Proposed Plan in the PRMP/FEIS. Using the Preferred Alternative in the DRMP/DEIS, the BLM revised the alternative to incorporate comments received during the 90-day public comment period. The resultant alternative (updated in response to the protest) is the Approved RMP attached to this ROD. In the most comprehensive manner, the Proposed Plan is designed to respond to each of the issues and management concerns recognized during the planning process. The BLM has determined that the decisions presented under Alternative 5 will provide an optimal balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources within the planning area. As with Alternatives 1 through 4, Alternative 5 is the summation of its Desired Future Conditions, Land Use Allocations, and Management Actions, as well as the information m Administrative Actions and Standard Operating Procedures (see Appendix B in the Approved RMP).
Alternative 5, Proposed Plan (in the PRMP/FEIS) is considered the preferable alternative when taking into consideration the human (social and economic) environment as well as the natural environment. The U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has defined the preferable alternative as the alternative that will promote the national environmental
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
9
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
policy as expressed in Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This section lists six broad policy goals for all federal plans, programs, and policies;
1 . Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;
4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and
6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.
Based on these criteria, identification of the preferable alternative involved balancing current and potential resource uses with the need to protect resources, as well as consideration of the human environment. Alternative 3 could be viewed the least environmentally preferable alternative, as it offered the most intensive, active management for use of the area, which may have impacted other resource values the most or limited the rate of ecosystem recovery. However, this alternative could have provided the most economic benefit to the region in the short term. Alternative 4 would have been less environmentally preferable than Alternative 2, but more preferable than Alternatives 1 or 3. This alternative would have provided a balance between sustainable economic benefits and resource protection. Alternative 2 would have been more protective of natural and biological values than Alternatives 1, 3, or 4, but would have provided for fewer uses with more restrictions on those uses. The Proposed Plan provides a balanced approach with protection for the environment while also providing economic and recreational activities.
Management Considerations in Seiecting the Approved RMP
The BLM is tasked with the job of multiple use management and the sustained yield of renewable resources. These tasks are mandated under the FLPMA and numerous other laws and regulations that govern the management of public lands for various purposes and values. Key laws and regulations are summarized in a listing in Appendix A.
Due to the diversity of community needs and stakeholders affected by management of BLM-administered lands, there has been both support and opposition to certain components of the Proposed Plan (as presented in the PRMP/FEIS). The BLM’s objective in choosing Alternative 5 as the Proposed Plan was to address these diverse needs and concerns in a fair manner and provide a practical and workable framework for management of BLM-administered public lands. The BLM is ultimately responsible for
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
10
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
preparing a plan consistent with its legal mandates that reflects its collective professional judgment, incorporating the best from competing viewpoints and ideas. The Approved RMP (Alternative 5 as modified in consideration of public and agency comments and internal review) provides a balance between those reasonable measures necessary to protect the existing resource values and the continued public need for use of the BLM- administered public lands within the planning area.
The Approved RMP proposes management that will improve and sustain properly functioning resource conditions while considering needs and demands for existing or potential resource commodities and values. In the end, resource use is managed by integrating ecological, economic, and social principles in a manner that safeguards the long-temi sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the land. Additional key concerns are addressed below.
The Approved RMP responds to issues related to managing for healthy rangelands and riparian and upland vegetation while still providing for livestock grazing and fish and wildlife habitat. The Approved RMP achieves this end by making most of the planning area available for livestock grazing, as long as Standards for Rangeland Health continue to be met, and by restricting grazing where it is incompatible with resource values.
The Approved RMP specifies conditions for permitted activities such as communication uses, and other commercial uses as appropriate at the land use plan level to resolve concerns regarding impacts of commercial uses. Impacts on uses as a result of protective management were disclosed in the PRMP/FEIS, and considered in conjunction with impacts to resource values. The Approved RMP provides the best balance in allowing for uses to occur while providing for protection of resource values and public health and safety. The Approved RMP responds to issues regarding noxious weeds and invasive species by maintaining the BLM’s integrated management approach as well as emphasizing the reestablishment and restoration of native plants during project activities and as a part of the watershed assessment process.
Concerns about specific resource values are addressed throughout the Approved RMP. Since standard management contained in the Approved RMP protects many of the relevant and important values in the planning area, only five areas were designated as ACECs where additional special management is necessary.
The Approved RMP responds to increasing demands for recreation on BLM-administered public lands while adhering to the FLPMA’s mandate for multiple use management and the sustained yield of renewable resources.
The Approved RMP responds to travel management and access issues by providing a mechanism for route designation under the Travel Management Plan, to be completed in 5 years. Pending completion of route designation, travel is restricted to existing routes of travel with a network of transportation routes that tie into roads administered by the counties, the States of Arizona and California, and federal agencies. Users who value non-motorized areas for hunting, hiking, solitude, etc., are accommodated by areas that are closed to motorized or mechanized travel, as in designated Wilderness.
Consistency of the Approved RMP with other local, state. Tribal, and federal plans and policies (which sometimes conflict among themselves) was also considered as a factor in alternative selection. The Approved RMP is consistent with plans and policies of the
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
11
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management, other federal agencies, state government, and local governments to the extent that the guidance and local plans are also consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of federal law and regulation applicable to public lands.
Neither the Arizona nor the California Governor’s Office identified any inconsistencies between the PRMP/FEIS and state or local plans, policies, and programs following the 60-day Governor's Consistency Review of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (initiated August 23, 2006, in accordance with planning regulations at 43 CFR Part 1610.3- 2(e)).
Mitigation Measures
Measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm were built into the Approved RMP where practicable and appropriate. Many of the standard management provisions will minimize impacts when applied to activities proposed in the planning area. The Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (Standards and Guidelines) will be used as the base standards to assess the health of BLM lands in the planning area. Standards and Guidelines will be applied as appropriate. Best management practices will be used (when applicable) for a number of uses including livestock grazing, mineral development, recreation management, and realty actions. Additional measures to mitigate environmental impacts may also be developed during subsequent NEPA analysis at the activity-level planning and project stages, or through legally mandated consultations covering those same proposed actions.
Plan Monitoring
Monitoring is the repeated measurement of activities and conditions over time with the implied purpose to use this information to adjust management if need be, to achieve or maintain resource objectives. The BLM planning regulations (43 CFR Part 1610.4-9) call for monitoring resource management plans on a continual basis and establishing intervals and standards based on the sensitivity of the resource to the decisions involved. CEQ regulations implementing NEPA state that agencies may provide for monitoring to assure that their decisions are carried out and should do so in important cases (40 CFR Part 1505.2(c)).
There are three types of monitoring. These include implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring, described below.
Implementation Monitoring
Implementation monitoring is the most basic type of monitoring and simply determines whether planned activities have been implemented in the manner prescribed by the plan. Some agencies call this compliance monitoring. This monitoring documents the BLM’s progress toward full implementation of the land use plan decision. There are no specific thresholds or indicators required for this type of monitoring, but progress towards plan compliance will be evaluated and reported at a 5 -year interval from the date of plan
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
12
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
approval. Aspects of the following two monitoring types may also be addressed in this report.
Effectiveness Monitoring
Effectiveness monitoring is aimed at determining if the implementation of activities has achieved the Desired Future Conditions (or goals and objectives). Effectiveness monitoring asks the question: Was the specified activity successful in achieving the objective? This requires knowledge of the objectives established in the Approved RMP as well as indicators that can be measured. Indicators are established by technical specialists in order to address specific questions, and thus avoid collection of unnecessary data. Success is measured against the benchmark of achieving the objectives (Desired Future Conditions) established by the plan, which may include regulated standards for resources such as endangered species, air, and water. The interval between these efforts will vary by subject and expected rate of change, but effectiveness monitoring progress will generally be reported to the Field Office Manager on an annual basis with trends and conclusions when appropriate and also incorporated in 5-year evaluation reports.
Validation Monitoring
Validation monitoring is intended to ascertain whether a cause-and-effect relationship exists among management activities or resources being managed. It confirms whether the predicted results occurred and if assumptions and models used to develop the plan are correct. This type of monitoring can also be done by partner, contract with other agencies, academic institutions, or other entities.
Since land use plan monitoring is the process of (1) tracking the implementation of land use planning decisions and (2) collecting and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning decisions, monitoring related to the Approved RMP will consist of implementation and effectiveness monitoring.
The BLM will monitor the Approved RMP to determine whether the objectives set forth in this document are being met and if applying the land use plan direction is effective.
(see Appendix P in the Approved RMP for a Plan Monitoring Roster). Monitoring for each program area is outlined in the Management Decision section of the Approved RMP. If monitoring shows land use plan actions or best management practices are not effective, the BLM may modify or adjust management without amending or revising the plan as long as assumptions and impacts disclosed in the analysis remain valid and broad- scale goals and objectives are not changed (see the discussion entitled Maintaining the Plan in the Approved RMP). Where the BLM considers taking or approving actions that will alter or not conform to overall direction of the plan, the BLM will prepare a plan amendment or revision and environmental analysis of appropriate scope (see the discussion entitled Changing the Plan in the Approved RMP).
Public Involvement
One of the BLM’s primary objectives during development of the Lake Havasu Approved RMP was to understand the views of various publics by providing opportunities for
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
13
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
meaningful participation in the resource management planning process. The BLM interdisciplinary planning team used the scoping process to identify issues relevant to the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area. Through communication media such as meetings, newsletters, and news releases, the public was provided opportunities to identify issues that needed to be addressed in the PRMP/FEIS. The goal was for this process to result in an increased sense of the planning process, the decisions that result from it, and the importance of collaborative stewardship as a strategy for implementation.
Additionally, CEQ regulations mandate that federal agencies responsible for preparing NEPA analysis and documentation do so “in cooperation with state and local governments” and other agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise. In support of this mandate, the BLM invited a broad range of local, state. Tribal, and federal agencies to establish cooperating agency status with the BLM. Cooperating agency status offers the opportunity to assume additional roles and responsibilities beyond the collaborative planning processes of attending public meetings and reviewing and commenting on plan documents. Four agencies requested Cooperating Agency status for the Lake Havasu Field Office Approved RMP; the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), AGFD, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and the Federal Highway Administration.
Specifically, the process began when the BLM published the Notice of Intent to prepare an RMP with EIS in the Federal Register on August 3, 2001. The Notice of Availability of the DRMP/DEIS was published on September 30, 2005. The BLM facilitated public involvement through a series of open houses in 2001 and 2003, and another series of meetings was held to announce and discuss the DEIS in 2005. The Notice of Availability of the PRMP/FEIS was published on September 22, 2006.
Neither the Arizona nor the California Governor’s Office identified any inconsistencies between the PRMP/FEIS and state or local plans, policies, and programs following the 60-day Governor's Consistency Review of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (initiated August 23, 2006, in accordance with planning regulations at 43 CFR Part 1610.3-2(e)).
Lake Havasu Field Office also maintained a national mailing list of approximately 1,500 individuals, agencies, interest groups, and Tribes who expressed interest in the planning process. The BLM mailed planning bulletins to those on the mailing list to keep them informed of project status. Additionally, public meetings were announced at least 15 days prior to the event in local news media. The BLM also participated in numerous meetings with cooperating agencies, other federal agencies, American Indian Tribes, and state and local governments. Additional details concerning the coordination process are included in the Approved RMP in the section entitled Planning Process, and in the PRMP/FEIS.
Availability of the Plan
Copies of the Record of Decision and the Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan are available by request from the following locations: The BLM Lake Havasu Field Office, 2610 Sweetwater Avenue, Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86406 (928) 505-1200, and on the Lake Havasu Field Office website at www.blm.gov/az.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
14
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Record of Decision
Field Manager Recommendation
Having considered a full range of reasonable alternatives, associated effects, and public input, I recommend adoption and implementation of the attached Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan
:r.c>c>-7
~Dafe
Lake Havasu Field Office
District Manager Concurrence
I concur with adoption and implementation of the attached Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan
Rebecca Heick, District Manager Colorado River District
State Director Approval
In consideration of the foregoing, I approve the Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan
'I'i -y
Elaine Y. Zi Arizona Stai
/S, ^06 7
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
15
May 2007
r
f
<■
A
A
j
‘ I
Approved Resource Management Plan
Introduction
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lake Havasu Field Office has prepared the Approved Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan (Approved RMP) to provide comprehensive current and future management of the more than 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered public land located within the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area. The planning area is comprised of portions of Mohave, La Paz, Yavapai, and Maricopa Counties in Arizona and San Bernardino County in California (Map 1). This plan represents years of ongoing, coordinated efforts on the part of BLM Lake Havasu Field Office staff, BLM Arizona State Office staff, representatives of communities located within the planning area, cooperating and collaborating government agencies, special interest and user groups, and hundreds of concerned citizens. The decisions outlined in this document will enable the BLM to manage the resources and uses of BLM-administered public lands located within the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area as a comprehensive unit.
Purpose and Need
The current planning area was formerly known as the Havasu Resource Area of the Yuma District. The BLM restructured management responsibility for public lands a few times starting on December 15, 1991. Asa result, portions of four other planning areas within Arizona were transferred into the Havasu Resource Area. The Havasu Resource Area became the Lake Havasu Field Office in 1997. In June 2004, the Colorado River District was established. The District is composed of the Lake Havasu, Yuma, and Kingman Field Offices.
Lake Havasu Field Office managed resources under five different land use plans: the Yuma District Resource Management Plan (YRMP) (1987) as amended, Kingman Resource Area Resource Management Plan (KRMP) (1995), Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (LGSRMP) (1988a), Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (LGNMFP) (1983), and the Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and Decision Record (LGNSA) (2005). The Approved RMP combines the relevant portions of those documents and updates the plan with issues and concerns identified during the scoping process (Map 2).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
1
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Sections 102 and 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) require the Secretary of the Interior to develop land use plans for all public lands. This Approved RMP conforms to FLPMA and BLM planning regulations as set forth in Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1600.
The FLPMA directs the BLM to manage the public lands and their various resource values for multiple use and sustained yield to ensure they are utilized in a manner that will best meet the present and future needs of the public. As required by these Acts of Congress and current BLM policy, the BLM prepared this Approved RMP to establish management directions for the balanced use of such renewable and non-renewable resources as rangeland, wildlife, wilderness, recreation, cultural resources, and other natural, scenic, scientific, and historical values within the planning area.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on major federal actions. Since the Approved RMP is a major federal action, the BLM distributed the Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS) in September 2005 and the Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) in September 2006. The FEIS documented the potential environmental impacts of implementing the Preferred Alternative from the DRMP/DEIS as well as other alternatives and conforms to U.S. Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500).
Planning Area and Map
The planning area boundary includes the Colorado River from Davis Dam in the north, (bordering Nevada/ Arizona) to south of Parker Dam. On the California side, the planning area varies in width from less than one-quarter mile to approximately 6 miles west of the Colorado River. The planning area also trends east to Alamo Dam and the Harcuvar Mountains, which are located near the community of Wenden, Arizona. The planning area includes two incorporated cities (Lake Havasu City and Bullhead City), and the town of Parker, Arizona, along with more than a dozen smaller communities, and encompasses more than 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered public land, resources, and uses (Map 1).
Located within the planning area are the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge, five designated BLM wilderness areas, and other critical fisheries, migratory waterfowl, and desert plant and wildlife habitats. Seven Native American Indian tribes (Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, and Colorado River Indian Tribes) either currently reside within boundaries of the planning area or have recognized cultural ties to these lands.
The area is widely known as a recreation destination. Seasonal population changes significantly influence water and land-dependant outdoor recreation use within the planning area. The Lake Havasu Convention and Visitor Center estimates that recreational visitation during both the winter and summer tourist seasons increases the area’s base population of approximately 55,000 people by another 15,000 to 20,000 persons (Cunning pers. comm.). Visitation thus plays a substantial role in the
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
2
May 2007
Map 1 Planning Area with Surface Management
UJ
T*-
CNJ
QC
Uj
o
CVJ
CC
p^couey\j
Map 2 Previous RMP and MFP Boundaries
R20E R21E
T11N
T09N
T08N
Previous RMP/MFP Areas CD Kingman Resource Area RMP CZJ Lower Gila North MFP O Lower Gila South Resource Area RMP ED Yuma District Office RMP
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid Interstate Highways US and State Highways
Rivers and Canals
E *'l Lakes
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
WIN
W1S
W2S
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
I I I |l I — I 1 The Bureau of Land Management makes
no warranties, implied or expressed,
0 5 10 20 Kilometers with respect to information shown on
this map,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR mm
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
regional economy, in land uses within the planning area, and potentially in natural resource conditions.
Decisions in the Approved RMP apply to more than 1 .3 million acres of BLM- administered public land within the 2.1 -million-acre planning area (Table 1, Map 1). This area includes approximately 70,992 acres of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) acquired and withdrawn land.
|
Table 1. Surface Management within the Lake Havasu Planning Area |
||
|
Land Status |
Acreage |
Percentage |
|
Federal |
||
|
Bureau of Land Management |
1,359,103 |
64.82 |
|
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
45,835 |
2.18 |
|
National Park Service |
1,626 |
0.08 |
|
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
11,932 |
0.57 |
|
Bureau of Reclamation |
216 |
0.01 |
|
Subtotal |
1,418,712 |
67.66 |
|
Tribal Lands |
177,356 |
8.46 |
|
Subtotal |
177,356 |
8.46 |
|
State |
||
|
Arizona Game and Fish Department |
464 |
0.02 |
|
State Tmst Lands |
245,812 |
11.72 |
|
Arizona State Parks |
3,545 |
0.17 |
|
Subtotal |
249,821 |
11.91 |
|
Private |
||
|
County and City Parks |
614 |
0.03 |
|
Private |
250,355 |
11.94 |
|
Subtotal |
250,969 |
11.97 |
|
Total |
2,096,858 |
100.00 |
Generally, public lands within the planning area consist of large, contiguous blocks containing scattered state and private land holdings, known as “inholdings.” In a few locations, public lands are isolated or “checkerboarded” between state and private lands. Most of the state and private lands are located in populated areas associated with the Colorado River and along the highways that transect the area. While the planning area encompasses more than BLM-administered public lands, all actions and decisions created by the Approved RMP will be limited to public lands administered by the BLM.
However, it is important to recognize that population growth could impact public land natural resources, in which case coordinated monitoring efforts would guide management
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
3
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
direction. Federal agencies, Tribes, private landowners, and state and local municipal entities within the planning area have been and will continue to be consulted throughout the Approved RMP’s implementation.
Development of this Approved RMP was formally initiated with publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on August 3, 2001. Over the next 5 years, the BLM conducted extensive public outreach, and initiated a number of collaborative efforts involving diverse interests as part of plan development. (These opportunities are summarized in the Public Involvement section below and fiilly described on pages 1 -4 through 1-10 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS). The BLM also provided standard public comment periods and an opportunity to protest the proposed decisions to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management prior to approval of this ROD as required by the BLM planning regulations.
Scoping Issues
Resource Management Plans are prepared to resolve significant issues and management concerns associated with the management of the public lands in the planning area. The issues drive the RMP in that the Approved Plan is primarily designed to resolve the identified planning issues.
The BLM interdisciplinary planning team used the scoping process to identify issues relevant to the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area. Through communication media such as meetings, newsletters, and news releases, the public was provided opportunities to identify issues that needed to be addressed in the Approved RMP. The planning team then analyzed the public’s comments and identified the major planning issues to be resolved. The specific criteria by which changes in current resource management practices were considered are:
■ Management of one resource significantly constrains or curtails use of another resource.
■ Existing land use allocations conflict with agency resource management policies or guidance.
■ Existing resource management practices conflict with management plans, policies, and guidance of another federal or state surface management agency.
■ Documented public controversy regarding management of a specific resource value indicates a management issue.
Issues Addressed
In August 2002, the BLM published the Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Scoping Report. This document summarized the procedures, issues, and management concerns that were identified over 2 years as the result of public meetings, comments received through the mail, and via email. Following the publication of the scoping report, the BLM continued to solicit input from the public, agencies, and staff members. Those additional comments all fell within the issues identified in the scoping report (Bureau of Land Management 2002a).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
4
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
After the publication of the DRMP/DEIS in September 2005, the BLM received more than 200 comment letters during the public comment period. These letters contained more than 800 comments. Of these comments, 23% concerned recreation issues; 19% concerned the alternatives (i.e., readers voicing a preference); 11% concerned travel management issues; 8% concerned fish and wildlife issues; 8% concerned Special Designation; 8% concerned administrative issues; and 6% concerned disposal or retention of public lands. The remaining comments were divided between other resources. Most (73%) of the comments were from Arizona residents; 6% were from California residents; and 21% of the comments were from residents of miscellaneous other states. The issues remained consistent with those outlined in the scoping report.
Issues Considered but not Further Analyzed
During the planning process, the BLM received comments concerning issues that were beyond the scope of this plan (e.g., safety issues on Lake Havasu). When applicable, the BLM forwarded comments received to agencies that have authority over the issues that were beyond the scope of this plan. Other issues that were not included could be addressed through administrative or policy action (e.g., use of an area for educational purpose).
Planning Criteria
Planning criteria are the constraints or ground rules that guide and direct the development of the plan. Criteria are taken from laws and regulations, BLM guidance, and input from state, county, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and the public. These criteria were developed by the BLM to assure that the planning process and decision-making are focused on the pertinent issues, and to ensure that the BLM avoids unnecessary data collection and analyses. The criteria were used at four stages of the planning process (resource inventory, assessment of the current situation [which includes a description of current BLM guidance, discussion of existing problems, and opportunities to resolve them], formulation of alternatives, and selection of the Preferred Alternative).
The basic planning criteria are identified in Section 202 of the LLPMA:
■ follow the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.
■ Use a systematic interdisciplinary approach, fully considering physical, biological, economic, and social aspects of public land management.
■ Identify, designate, protect, and specially manage Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs).
■ Consider the relative significance of public land products, services, and use to local economies.
■ Rely on the inventory of public lands, their resources, and other values to the extent such information is available.
■ Consider present and potential uses of public lands.
■ Consider the impact of federally approved actions on adjacent or nearby non-federal lands and on private land surface over federally owned subsurface minerals.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
5
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
■ Consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and alternative means and sites for realization of those values.
■ Weigh the long-term benefits and consequences of proposed actions against short- term benefits and consequences.
■ Comply with applicable pollution control laws, including state and federal air, water, noise, and other pollution standards and plans.
■ Coordinate, to the extent consistent with public laws, resource planning and management programs of other federal departments and agencies, states, local governments, and Indian tribes.
■ Provide the public with early notices and frequent opportunities to participate in the preparation of plans.
■ Manage the public lands to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.
Planning Process
Collaboration/Partnership Relationship
The BLM’s Lake Havasu Field Office conducts many activities that require coordination with tribes, state, other federal agencies, and interested public. Coordination has been ongoing throughout this planning effort. Coordination is accomplished as a matter of course when implementing land use plan decisions through project development and site- specific activities. Key coordination efforts include those described below.
Intergovernmental, Inter-Agency, and Tribal Relationships
In developing this plan, the BLM coordinated with Reclamation; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Federal Highway Administration; Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD); Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT); Arizona State Parks; California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the cities of Lake Havasu City, Bullhead City, and Needles; Mohave County; La Paz County; San Bernardino County; the town of Parker; and with Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Program partners, including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and Anglers United.
The BLM initiated consultation with American Indian Tribes who have oral traditions or cultural concerns relating to the planning area, or who are documented as having occupied or used portions of the planning area during prehistoric or historic times. These tribes include the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community. Four tribes (the Chemehuevi, Fort Mojave, Hopi, and Colorado River Indian Tribes) requested follow-up meetings.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
6
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Cooperating Agencies
In the first sentence of NEPA, Congress declares that,
It is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations ...to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. (Sec. 101(a))
Additionally, U.S. Council on Environmental Quality regulations, contained in 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5, mandate that federal agencies responsible for preparing NEPA analysis and documentation do so “in cooperation with state and local governments” and other agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise (42 United States Code [USC] 4331(a), 4332(2)).
In support of this mandate, the BUM invited a broad range of local, state, tribal, and federal agencies to attend a series of meetings with the aim of developing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would establish cooperating agency status with the BLM. Cooperating agency status offers the opportunity for interested agencies to assume additional roles and responsibilities beyond the collaborative planning processes of attending public meetings and reviewing and commenting on plan documents. MOUs are time-limited documents that describe the roles and responsibilities of the BLM and the cooperating agency during the planning process for a particular RMP.
Four agencies requested Cooperating Agency Status for the Lake Havasu Field Office Approved RMP: ADOT, AGFD, Reclamation, and the Federal Highway Administration. Reclamation is considered a Cooperating Agency because a valid MOU, dated July 15, 1991, exists between the BLM and Reclamation, in which Reclamation agreed to be “a cooperating agency on land use plans, including amendments, affecting resources on project lands administered by the BLM.”
Transportation Agencies
Both ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration requested cooperating agency status on the plan. In addition to working with cooperating agencies, BLM coordinated with city and county transportation departments. When these agencies plan and develop roadways that cross public lands, the BLM is involved in their design and contributes to environmental impact analysis. In that process, the BLM would coordinate with the responsible agency to develop design features that minimize the fragmenting effect of the planned roadway. The BLM would work with the responsible agency to evaluate and incorporate safe and effective wildlife crossings to ensure long-term species viability and maintaining habitat connectivity. Where planned roadways potentially fragment other resources, such as (but not limited to) recreation routes or trails, grazing allotments, or mining operations, the BLM would work with the responsible agency to provide continued connectivity for those purposes as well. The BLM would also work with the agency to provide continued safe access to public lands from any developed roadway for recreation and other public land users.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
7
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Arizona Game and Fish Department and California Department of Fish and Game
AGFD, CDFG, and the BLM work cooperatively to manage resources within the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area. The BLM is responsible for management of wildlife habitats on BLM-administered lands, while AGFD and CDFG are responsible for managing fish and wildlife. Continued efforts will be made to coordinate with AGFD and CDFG for opportunities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat, species diversity, and riparian health.
In 2003, the BLM and AGFD signed a MOU giving AGFD cooperating agency status on the BLM planning efforts in Arizona. Throughout the planning process for this plan, the close, cooperative nature of the relationship is cited. At the writing of this document, AGFD and the BLM are revising the current Master MOU. The MOU establishes protocols that direct the cooperative working relationship between the agencies. The MOU will provide context to better enable both agencies to work in partnership and to make decisions in a consistent manner across the state. The guidelines established in the MOU apply to implementation of this Approved RMP.
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Reclamation Project Lands
Several hundred thousand acres of Reclamation land, both acquired and withdrawn, accommodate the Boulder Canyon and related projects from Davis Dam to Mexico, including lands within the planning area. Under a unique provision of the Department of the Interior Departmental Manual (DM) (613 DM 1.1), the Secretary assigned management responsibilities for certain resources on these withdrawn lands to the BLM, in coordination with Reclamation (Map 3).
These lands constitute a corridor along the Lower Colorado River in Arizona and California, and are managed by the BLM for multiple uses. However, they remain Reclamation lands, and their use is dedicated primarily to support various Reclamation projects. 613 DM 1.1 was added in 1972, following completion of the Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan in 1964 by the Office of the Secretary of Interior.
The BLM and Reclamation work and coordinate closely on the management of these lands. The BLM exercises primary day-to-day management for non-Reclamation project uses. However, Reclamation retains certain management responsibilities to maintain the projects.
Management of Bureau of Reclamation Project Lands
The BLM has a unique responsibility for management of Reclamation project lands pursuant to the Departmental Manual at 613 DM 1. About 71,000 acres of land within the planning area are Reclamation lands that have been withdrawn from the public lands or acquired from non-federal owners to accommodate Reclamation projects along the Lower Colorado River. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through Reclamation, retains the role of Watermaster for the Lower Colorado River, and for operation of the various dams, river works, and irrigation project facilities authorized by Congress.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
8
May 2007
opn.iojo^
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
To maximize opportunities for multiple-use management, the BLM has the responsibility of managing these lands, in coordination with Reclamation. Reclamation relies on the BLM to take the lead role in non-Reclamation project management of the Reclamation lands along the Lower Colorado River. The BLM may not dispose of any of these lands without written approval of Reclamation.
It is important for the reader to understand that on these lands. Reclamation retains the responsibility for Reclamation project operation and maintenance, and certain environmental mitigation and enhancement activities associated with its mission. Every effort has been made by the BLM and Reclamation to ensure that this plan does not conflict with existing and planned Reclamation project activities. In addition. Reclamation will make every effort to assist the BLM in implementation of this plan. However, on Reclamation lands included in this plan, project operational situations may arise that would preclude full implementation of certain prescriptions, or may cause curtailment, modification, or delay of portions of certain decisions affecting Reclamation lands. DM 613 and the above mentioned MOU provides guidance to cover this issue. Reclamation has the final authority over DM 613 lands.
Bureau of Reclamation Non-Project Lands
Reclamation also has a right-of-way (ROW) for the Central Arizona Project (CAP), which delivers Colorado River water to central Arizona. A portion of the ROW occurs within the boundaries of the Lake Havasu Field Office, which coordinates with Reclamation to ensure that other projects adjacent to their ROW do not adversely affect the CAP. Reclamation has established a national CAP recreation trail in other areas outside of the Lake Havasu Field Office. However, Reclamation has not proposed any recreation routes with the field office boundaries.
The BLM and Reclamation work and coordinate closely on the management of these lands. While the BLM exercises primary day-to-day management for non- Reclamation project uses. Reclamation retains certain management responsibilities to maintain the projects.
Lower Colorado River Multiple-Species Conservation Plan
Reclamation and other cooperators completed the Lower Colorado River Multiple Species Conservation Program (LCRMSCP) that was signed by the Secretary of Interior in 2005. This program represents a 50-year-long comprehensive native species conservation approach to both federal actions and nonfederal activities on the Lower Colorado River management. All participating Department of Interior officials are directed to cooperate and implement such agreements to achieve the important species conservation actions identified within the plan.
As a partner to the LCPIMSCP, the BLM coordinates with Reclamation (the implementing agency) to achieve LCRMSCP goals and objectives. In the LCRMSCP ROD published in April 2005, the Secretary of the Interior directed that “all participating agencies within the Department of the Interior [will] utilize their authorities in furtherance of this conservation program to the fullest extent allowed by law.”
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
9
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Compliance
Consultation with the Arizona and California SHPOs and all potentially affected Tribes is also conducted, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). BLM actions will also comply with existing programmatic environmental analyses, land use plans, and other federal environmental legislation, such as the Clear Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, and with state and local government regulations (applicable laws, regulations, policies, and planning can be seen in Appendix A).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
As a part of this planning effort and in implementing on-the-ground activities, the BLM executed Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. In 2001, the BLM and USFWS finalized a consultation agreement to establish an effective and cooperative ESA, Section 7 consultation process. A biological assessment (BA) was prepared and submitted to determine the effect of the Proposed Plan on all relevant listed, proposed, and candidate species, and associated critical habitat. All anticipated environmental effects, conservation actions, mitigation, and monitoring were disclosed in the BA, including analysis of all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Plan/FEIS. The USFWS provided the BLM with a Biological Opinion of proposed actions on June 15, 2006 (USFWS 2006). As this plan’s decisions are implemented, actions determined through environmental analysis to potentially affect species listed or candidate species for listing under ESA would trigger additional site-specific consultation on those actions.
Sikes Act
The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) authorizes the Department of the Interior, in cooperation with state agencies responsible for administering fish and game laws, to plan, develop, maintain, and coordinate programs for conserving and rehabilitating wildlife, fish, and game on public lands within its jurisdiction. The plans must conform to overall land use and management plans for the lands involved. The plans could include habitat improvement projects and related activities and adequate protection for species of fish, wildlife, and plants considered endangered or threatened. The BLM must also coordinate with suitable state agencies in managing state-listed plant and animal species when the state has formally made such designations.
other Stakeholder Relationships
Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area
Because of the multi-jurisdictional nature of the issues and the complexity of management on Lake Havasu, the BLM recognized the need for collaboration. However, many issues are beyond the scope of this plan. To facilitate regional collaboration, BLM identified the Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area (see Map 4). Identification could give rise to efforts focused on such over-arching issues as public safety, recreation opportunities, conservation of natural resources, and regional economic development.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
10
May 2007
|
-ii |
|
|
LAKE HAVASU/ |
|
|
COLORADO RIVER |
|
|
REGIONAL |
|
|
MANAGEMENT |
|
|
AREA |
|
|
/ Lake Havasu |
|
|
^ Field Office \ 1 1 |
|
|
— ^ |
Map 4 Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area
Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Managementt Area
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
Township Grid
Interstate Highways
US and State Highways
Rivers and Canals
Lakes
Land Status
Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation Indian Lands National Park Service Private Stale
City, County, & State Park State Wildlife Area US Fish & Wildlife Service Concession Lease
T2:N
T19N
T18N
T09N
T08N
T17N
T16.5N
T07N
T16N
T06N
T15N
T05N
TUN
T04N
T13N
T03N
T12N
Lake Havasu
R21E R22E R23E R24E R25E R26E R27E R18W R17W R16W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Manage,, lent
May 2007
T02N
T11N
No 5 10 Miles
A — '
0 5 10 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
A coordinated Lake Management Plan should be completed for the Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area that would engage all of the involved jurisdictions and stakeholders on a voluntary basis. This plan would be a multi- year, multi-agency coordinated effort with the mission of defining the issues, responsibilities, and action items required to maintain a quality lake recreation experience, properly functioning habitat (both terrestrial and aquatic), and common management relationships and goals among the jurisdictions.
While BLM has limited authority on the lake surface, BLM could participate as a cooperating agency and provide data and information. A steering eommittee for the Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area is warranted to better focus all of the involved jurisdictions on common issues and opportunities that assure multiple uses and sustained yields for future generations. Because identification is not a land use plan decision, the management area is described in Appendix B.
Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Partnership
The Lake Havasu Fisheries Partnership has been a suceessful and accomplished BLM-led cooperative since 1992. Official partners include AGFD, CFGD, Reclamation, USFWS, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Anglers United, but many others have helped, from local governments and the military, to private parties and business interests. To date accomplishments include:
■ Building and installation of 875 acres of fish habitat improvements in 42 coves.
■ Rearing and release of two endangered fish species totaling over 30,000 individuals of each species.
■ Construction of five independent, barrier-free, public shoreline fishing facilities.
Results of this achievement have rippled through the regional community with multiple economic, social, and environmental benefits too numerous to mention in this text. In 2006, these same partners signed a new MOU charting a future course of action that includes:
■ Development of at least one more shoreline fishing faeility.
■ Coordinated monitoring of endangered fish survival and preferred habitat.
■ Long-term fish habitat results in terms of longevity, and fish use.
■ Coordinated maintenance of all fish habitat installations and recreational fishing areas.
■ Collaboration through leverage of partner authorities to assure the long term health and vitality of the Lake Havasu Fishery renewable resources.
Bill Williams River Corridor Steering Committee
A direct tributary to Lake Havasu is the Bill Williams River that fonns at the confluence of the Big Sandy and the Santa Maria Rivers just above Alamo Lake. This remotely rugged desert watershed of 5,000 square miles is home to very few people, several BLM
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
11
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
wilderness areas, and a unique assemblage of natural resource managers known as the Bill Williams River Corridor Steering Committee. This group has been active since the late 1980s and is composed of AGFD, Arizona State Parks Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Nature Conservancy, USFWS, Reclamation, and the BLM. The committee recently authorized an MOU to cooperate toward the study and management of the watershed. The group’s objective is to optimize environmental vitality within this river system. An initial effort toward this objective has been cooperative river flow releases from Alamo Dam. Approximately 2 1 miles of the 40 river miles between Alamo Dam and Lake Havasu is administered by the BLM.
Water Quality
The BLM works cooperatively through separate MOUs under the Clean Water Act authorities of both Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the California State Water Resources Control Board to manage public lands in a way that minimizes non-point source pollution.
The objective of this cooperation within this plan is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Colorado River and tributaries for all users, with emphasis on non-consumptive water uses of productive fish and wildlife habitat, and safe water recreation.
Related Plans
Title II, Section 202 of the FLPMA provides guidance for the land use planning process of the BLM to coordinate planning efforts with Native American Indian tribes, other federal departments, and agencies of state and local governments. To accomplish this directive, the BLM is instructed to keep informed of state, local, and tribal plans; assure that consideration is given to such plans; and to assist in resolving inconsistencies between such plans and federal planning. The section goes on to state in Subsection (c)(9) that “Land use plans of the Secretary [of the Interior] under this section shall be consistent with state and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.” The provisions of this section of the FLPMA are echoed in Section 1610.3 of BLM Resource Management Planning regulations.
In keeping with the provision of this section, state, local, and tribal officials were made aware of the planning process through the previously described mailings and meetings. The following is a list of plans reviewed during the Lake Havasu Field Office Approved RMP planning effort:
■ Mohave County General Plan (1995)
■ La Paz County Comprehensive Plan (March 2005 Revised Draft)
■ San Bernardino County Plan (200 1 )
■ Lake Havasu City General Plan (2001)
■ Bullhead City General Plan (2002)
■ Town of Parker General Plan (June 1996)
■ Lower Colorado River Multiple Species Conservation Program (April 2005)
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
12
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
■ Lake Havasu Coordinated Fisheries Management Plan (January 2005)
■ California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, as amended
Policy
This plan is consistent with and incorporates requirements identified in various laws, regulation and policy. These include Executive Orders, legislative designations, and court settlements/rulings. The policies and decisions that existed prior to this plan being written are outside the scope of the plan but have influenced the decisions, constrained the alternatives, and are needed to understand management of the area.
Refer to Appendix A for a summary of laws, regulations, policy, and planning criteria.
Vision
The BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. In keeping with its mandate for developing multiple-use plans, the BLM developed a vision to provide overall direction for the public lands administered by the BLM’s Lake Havasu Field Office to support a rich variety of public experiences while simultaneously providing for long-term protection of the area’s natural resources. The vision states:
Within the capability of the resources:
■ Provide opportunities for environmentally responsible recreation and commercial activities and address community expansion needs along the Colorado River.
■ Manage resources wisely, while promoting citizen-based partnerships through public awareness and education.
Management Decisions
This section of the Approved RMP presents the Desired Future Conditions, Land Use Allocations, and Management Actions established for public lands managed by the BLM’s Lake Havasu Field Office. Most of the Desired Future Conditions are long-range in nature and will not be achieved immediately, but rather are assumed to require a period of time to achieve. These management decisions are presented by program area. Not all types of decisions were identified for each program.
Implementation or activity level decisions are decisions that take action to implement land use plan decisions. These types of decisions require appropriate site-specific planning and NEPA analysis. Implementation decisions generally constitute BLM’s final approval allowing on-the-ground actions to proceed and are generally appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) under 43 CFR 4.410. This Approved RMP does not identify Implementation Decisions. However, some decisions listed within this section (e.g., WF-12 and TE-23) will be incorporated into future implementation (activity- or project-level) plans. These implementation plans will provide the required additional site-specific planning and NEPA analysis. At that time, the decisions will
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
13
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
become appealable. The appeal process will be listed in the future individual implementation (activity- or project-level) plans.
A monitoring section is also included for each program to describe how the program decisions will be tracked to ensure implementation. Through Adaptive Management, a monitoring plan ensures that Land Use Allocations and Management Actions achieve Desired Future Conditions. The content of the decisions remains as contained in the Proposed RMP, except as described in the Modifications and Clarifications sections of the ROD.
Data used in development of the Approved RMP are dynamic. The data and maps used throughout the Approved RMP are for land use planning purposes and will be refined as site-specific planning and on-the-ground implementation occur. Updating data is considered plan maintenance that will occur over time as the Approved RMP is implemented (see Plan Implementation). Please note that all acreages presented in the Approved RMP are estimations, even when presented to the nearest acre.
Complete consideration of the Approved RMP also includes Administrative Actions and Standard Operating Procedures (which are presented in Appendix B). These actions and procedures outline the objectives, basic management policy, and program direction. Administrative Actions are not land use plan decisions. However, these are day-to-day non-ground-disturbing activities and are an important component when considering program activities.
This section is organized alphabetically by program area. The decisions for each program are coded to reflect the primary resource that is affected. The codes are presented below. Because the discussion for the Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area does not contain land use planning decisions, the section was moved to Appendix B.
■ Biological Resources Management
□ Riparian (RP)
□ Soil, Water, Air (Watershed) (WS)
□ Special Status Species (TE)
□ Vegetation (VM)
□ Wildlife and Fisheries (WF)
■ Cultural Resource Management (CL)
■ Fire Management (FM)
■ Lands and Realty Program (LR)
■ Mineral Resources (MI)
■ Paleontological Resource Management (GL)
■ Rangeland Management/Grazing (GM)
■ Recreation Management (RR)
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
14
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
■ Special Designations
□ Area of Critical Environmental Concern (AC)
□ Back County Byway (BB)
□ Wilderness (WM)
□ Wild and Scenic Rivers (WR)
■ Travel Management (TM)
■ Visual Resource Management (VR)
■ Wild Burro Management (HB)
■ Wilderness Characteristics (WC)
Biological Resources Management
The areas of consideration are: vegetation and riparian management, fish and wildlife habitat management, special status species management, invasive or noxious species management, and watershed management.
Conservation measures applicable to the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area were derived from all applicable Recovery Plans, Conservation Plans, and Management Plans available for species with in the LHFO planning area.
Vegetation and Riparian Management Desired Future Conditions
VM-l. Native plant communities (Appendix C, Table C-1) will be maintained appropriate to climate and landform to:
□ Provide watershed stability.
□ Provide adequate forage for native wildlife species.
□ Improve or restore riparian-wetland functions.
□ Enhance groundwater recharge.
□ Satisfy state water quality standards.
VM-2. Establishment of invasive and noxious species will diminish throughout the
planning area and many will begin to decline in aerial extent, density, and cover.
RP- 1 . Riparian areas will be maintained in sufficient quality and quantity to provide roosting and potential nesting trees and adequate prey base for riparian obligate species such as bald eagle, willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, etc.
Land Use Allocations
For additional Land Use Allocations, refer to the Mineral Resources section and to the Land Health Standards in Appendix A.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
15
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
See the Special Designations section for proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers. See the
Lands and Realty Program section for Management Actions related to utility corridors
and telecommunication sites.
RP-2. New facilities and campgrounds will be located away from riparian wetland areas if they are incompatible with achieving or maintaining riparian wetland function.
VM-3. Lake Havasu Field Office will protect all woodlands, including mesquite bosques, by limiting wood collection to authorized users (see Map 5).
Management Actions
The following Management Actions were designed to incorporate the needs expressed by
related plans including:
■ Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186, Executive Order 12962 of June 7, 1995, Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Latta, Beardmore, and Corman 1999), Partners in Flight Desert and Riparian Conservation Plan (California Partners in Flight 2006), USFWS North American Waterfowl Management Plan (USFWS et al. 1998), other bird Conservation Plans (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture 2004) and LCRMSCP (Reclamation, USFWS, and MWD 2004).
■ Conservation measures found in the Sonoran Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on the Public Lands: A Rangewide Plan (November 1988) and subsequent plans.
■ Conservation tasks for the Western yellow-billed cuckoo.
■ Recovery tasks found in the Recovery Plans and subsequent plans for: Mojave Desert Tortoise, Bonytail Chub, Razorback Sucker, Yuma Clapper Rail (YCR), Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Southwestern Bald Eagle. When recovery plans are revised and updated, new conservation measures applicable to the Lake Havasu Field Office will be incorporated into the Lake Havasu Field Office Approved RMP.
RP-3. The BLM will manage for proper functioning condition within riparian areas and springs, but where hydrological modifications and soil conditions prohibit proper functioning condition, a desired plant community will be defined and managed appropriately (see Maps 6, 7, and 8).
RP-4. No-wake zones will be recommended as needed, to protect the shore from
erosion, prevent damage to riparian growth, and reduce noise to nesting wildlife and fish habitat.
RP-5. Monkey Head, the Needles Revegetation Site, Beale Slough, Standard Wash, and the Colorado River Nature Center Riparian Areas will continue to be restored to proper functioning condition (see Map 7).
VM-4. The BLM will require the use of certified weed-free forage for all stock in
Wilderness Areas (WAs), Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), lands managed for wilderness characteristics, and WHAs. Domestic-sheep-free forage will be required for any permitted activity within or adjacent to bighorn sheep habitat.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
16
May 2007
Map 5 General Vegetation
T;1N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
(No Vegetation Data)
Lake*
Mohave'
Vegetation Communities within LHFO
Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub Hm Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub Mohave Desert Scrub
Nevada
KINGMAN
m Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Interior Chaparral jjllllll Riparian
jjllllllll Mesquite/Ephemeral Wash Woodland Agriculture Urban
Vegetation Communities only outside of LHFO
Semidesert Grassland
BULLHEAI
CITY
Plains and Great Basin Grassland
Great Basin Desert Scrub
Montane Conifer Forest
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid
Interstate Highways
US and State Highways
Rivers and Canals
Lakes
LAKE HAVASU -CITY
lavasu
PARKER
^Pfer«nardlho Coudy Riverside County
AGUILA
weSden
|
1 ■ [721 |
r |
||
|
\ |
|||
|
.Ml |
lii ■ 1 |
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
A I I 'i ii I ' — I
r \ 0 5 10 20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
PLANNING
AREA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Lake \ Mohave
I I Wildlife Habitat Areas
■■■•Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid ; . Interstate Highways
US and State Highways """ '' Rivers and Canals r ] Lakes
Nevada
KINGMAN
BULLHEAD CITY pJ-'
LAKE HAVASU CITY \
Lakey%
Havasu
Alamo
LakeJ
Mohave CouQty
Paz County
PARKER
SanBprnarclino County Riverside Copnty U
AGUILA
WENDEN
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R20E R21E
Map 6 Wildlife Habitat Areas
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
20 Miles
20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
Map 7 Riparian Zones - Colorado River
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
Nevada
BULLHEAD
CITY
Coloracl[(|sRivcr
Sills
LAKE HAVASU CITY
Partners
Lake
:Q-
Havasu
Monkey Head (Arizona side)
" i
PARKER
Lake ^
Riparian Vegetation Riparian Revegetation Sites A Riparian Revegetation Sites - Smaii (<50 acres) ■i*iLake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid
: I interstate Highways
US and State Highways
Rivers and Canais
I I Lakes
Land Status
Bureau of Land Management
I I Bureau of Reciamation
indian Lands Nationai Park Service I Private State
|[|||[| City, County, & State Park State Wildiife Area HH US Fish & Wildiife Service
Three Mile Lake'^
Needles ^ RevegetatioriL-
iMi'}.’ ’ V L r"S
M
Beale ,Slou
Point
\Standard ^ Wash
San Bernardino County,
oo.,. D' R21E : R22E
L':
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
R22W
R21W
R20W
R19W R18W
R17W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0
A
10 Miles
J
10 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
R16W R15W
Map 8 Riparian Zones - Bill Williams River
Land Status
Riparian Vegetation
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid
US and State Highways
Rivers and Canals
iBSB Bureau of Land Management SMS: Corps of Engineers I I Private
City, County, & State Park US Fish & Wildlife Service
I I Lakes
I
f \\i H 7;? ’ It
lZT'
t Mohave Coi
Alamo
Bill Williams River Lake
La Paz County
aasr
'Lhrssr*j§:fp!f
israStSififtK
‘"*^’1“
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
R18W R17W R16W
R15W R14W
R13W R12W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0
A
1
10 Kilometers
10 Miles
J
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
VM-5. Only native vegetation will be utilized in all landscaping designs that will incorporate a Desired Plant Community (DPC) concept. Exceptions to this requirement could be made in high-traffic public recreation areas or soil stabilization/reclamation efforts where native species will have a poor likelihood of success due to existing site characteristics. Acceptable non-native plants used for this purpose will consist of genetic variations of natives that will not become invasive and or noxious species (e.g., Chilean mesquite trees).
VM-6. BLM vegetation/seed collection permits will be required for all collection (expect for cultural resources privileges as stipulated in Cultural Resources). Areas for collection will be identified on each individual permit.
VM-7. Protection will be provided for the scaly sandplant {Pholisma areuarium) and fringe-toed lizard {Uma scoparia), which exists on sandy soil and edges of washes within the low dunes (325 to 820 feet) southeast of Parker, Arizona, by requiring all vehicles to remain on existing roads and trails within the range of this rare plant.
Monitoring
Upland
Land Health Assessments will determine upland conditions and trend as a part of all grazing allotment assessments and Travel Management Plans (TMPs). These will serve as a baseline measure for any further monitoring required to measure management success in that area. This will include route restoration efforts to assure achievement of desired plant communities, and revegetation prescriptions associated with utility and transportation corridor work.
Riparian
Proper Functioning Condition Assessments will be performed in combination with plan implementation on at least a 1 0-year revolving schedule, with all riparian resources receiving an initial assessment by 2012. More detailed measures will occur in cooperation with partners and in association with restoration projects. A desired plant community will be prescribed and monitored for implementation success in all waterside recreation or concession leases with condition reports to the Field Office Manager included with all 5-year implementation plan reports.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Desired Future Conditions
WF-l . Wildlife movement corridors will be maintained for biotic diversity, to
minimize fragmentation of habitat and to minimize barriers to movement.
WF-2. The BLM will manage all wildlife habitats with the objective to conserve native species for sustainable public benefits.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
17
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
|
WF-3. |
Integrity of roost sites, lek sites and maternity sites within caves and |
|
abandoned mine lands for bat species will be maintained. Food and water sources will be conserved and protected. |
|
|
WF-4. |
Ensure that important habitats for migratory birds are managed, maintained, increased and improved to attain the vegetation structure plant species diversity and density to provide diverse habitat of quality and quantity (see Maps 6, 7, and 8). |
|
WF-5. |
Recognize the importance of the tortoise as a keystone species, which via its burrowing systems provides habitats for many other species. |
Land Use Allocations
|
WF-6. |
Within WHAs, the route designation process will determine route closures |
|
and/or limitation to meet habitat objectives (see Travel Management). |
|
|
WF-7. |
A total of 1 5 wildlife movement corridors will be allocated as identified on Map 9. Corridors overlap the draft Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages workgroup map. |
|
WF-8. |
Previous lambing grounds are now identified as sensitive sheep habitat (Map 10) and existing seasonal closures (43 CFR 8365.1-6 Part II) will remain for wildlife habitat and scenic values and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) recreation settings until evaluation by TMP. The TMP may change this limitation by individual routes; limitation may also change as a result of scientific studies. |
|
WF-9. |
Domestic or feral sheep or goats will not be allowed on public lands within 9 miles of desert bighorn habitat. |
|
WF-10. |
791,885 acres in the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area will be cooperatively managed as WHAs with state and federal wildlife agencies. See Map 6. This land is comprised of (some of these areas overlap leading to the smaller total acreage); |
|
WF-11. |
□ Riparian Habitat, Springs and Seeps (6,126 acres) □ Bighorn Sheep Habitat (562,022 acres) □ Mojave and Sonoran Desert Tortoise Habitat (I,II) (440,599 acres) □ Wildlife Corridors (288,206 acres) □ Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species Habitat New developments on WHAs will be compatible with wildlife habitat to the extent possible to preserve, maintain, and/or enhance plant and wildlife diversity. |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan -|8
Map 9 Wildlife Movement Corridors
|
z |
z |
z |
~z. |
2 |
z LO |
z |
|
o |
O) |
00 |
h- |
CD |
CD |
|
|
CNJ |
CN |
— |
^ — |
|||
|
(- |
1- |
I- |
1- |
1— |
I— |
b
b
O
Q
|
c |
||
|
-2 |
||
|
cu |
||
|
c |
(/) 0) |
|
|
(U £ |
ii |
|
|
<u |
o |
|
|
OX) |
CM |
|
|
c3 |
||
|
C |
||
|
cd |
||
|
S |
||
|
c _o |
o |
O _ |
|
C/0 |
;3 o |
|
|
'o |
Ti |
|
|
(D |
0> |
|
|
Q |
IT) - |
|
|
<+-i |
"O |
|
|
o |
<u |
R20E R21E
Map 10 Bighorn Sheep Habitat
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Lake i Mohave
Bighorn Sheep Habitat
I I General Yearlong Habitat
Sensitive Bighorn Sheep Habitat ^^^•Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid EEZZj Interstate Highways
US and State Highways Rivers and Canals
Nevada
KINGMAN
BULLHEAD
CITY
I I Lakes
LAKE HAVASU -CITY
Lake
Havasu
WHIPPLE I MOUNTAINS
uam
Alamo
LakeJ
R21E
Morove Coaqty
^ \V'^o yif£7r-^ ^
PARKER
San Bernardino County Riverside County t
AGUILA
WENDEN
LITTL^
HARQuAhala
mjns
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
r03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
I I I The Bureau of Land Management makes
I no warranties, implied or expressed,
20 Kilometers respect to information shown on
this map.
PLANNING
AREA,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
WF- 1 2. An area of 7 acres of Lake Havasu bottom will receive organic brush
maintenance each year to replace woody habitat improvements that have decomposed over the previous 10-year period. This process will occur only in areas that already contain fish habitat improvements.
Management Actions
|
WF-13. |
Conduct research to identify important migratory bird habitat and restore/enhance that identified habitat. |
|
WF-14. |
To the extent practicable, avoid, minimize impacts and/or take of migratory birds and their habitat. |
|
WF-15. |
During construction and tree pruning associated with plan implementation, identify and avoid all migratory bird nests. |
|
WF-16. |
Recognize that Category III habitats may serve as important buffer and dispersal zones and provide genetic linkage to core population areas. Incorporate these areas into long-temi and ecosystem management and planning. |
|
WF-17. |
Wildlife habitat improvement projects will be implemented where necessary to stabilize or improve degraded or declining wildlife habitat conditions. |
|
WF-18. |
Reintroductions, transplants, release of rehabilitated native species, and supplemental stockings of wildlife populations will be carried out in collaboration with federal and state wildlife agencies within suitable habitat to: 1) restore, enhance, maintain current populations, distributions, and/or genetic diversity; 2) conserve or recover species that are in danger of becoming listed; and/or 3) restore or enhance native wildlife diversity and distribution and 4) release rehabilitated wildlife. Species that could be reintroduced, transplanted, or augmented include, but are not limited to rehabilitated wildlife, threatened and endangered species (see Table 3-3 in the PRMP/FEIS), special status species (see Table 3-4 in the PRMP/FEIS) pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, mountain lions, burrowing owls, other raptors, reptiles, mule deer, other game species, fish, and frogs. |
|
WF-19. |
All new and existing range improvements on public lands will allow for wildlife passage or escape, in compliance with the BLM standards. Wildlife escape devices will be installed on all new and existing water tanks and/or troughs. |
|
WF-20. |
Construction sites for wind turbines, power lines, telecommunication, towers, solar power sites, and any other new technology, etc., will conforai with guidelines developed by USFWS to minimize impacts to wildlife species, particularly migratory birds and bats. |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 19
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
WF-21.
WF-22.
WF-23.
WF-24.
WF-25.
WF-26.
WF-27.
WF-28.
Abandoned mines will be examined to determine species utilization prior to deciding on the method of mine closure. Bat-friendly mine closures will be an intermediate measure for protecting bat maternity roosts, lek sites, and year- round use by bat colonies. Management and protection of the quantity and quality of foraging habitat surrounding important bat colonies will be achieved to the fullest extent possible.
The natural existing quality and quantity of vegetation will be maintained within a wash to the extent possible where there is an established bat species colony.
□ The Bat Cave north of Lake Havasu City will be protected and managed to minimize disturbance within the cave to the extent possible.
Distribution/density of wildlife waters throughout the planning area will be maintained, improved, and/or increased to sustain and enhance wildlife populations across their range. All existing wildlife waters will be maintained or improved as necessary to maintain the presence of perennial water for wildlife. New wildlife waters, including in new locations, may be constructed if necessary to replace old wildlife waters, restore, or enhance native wildlife populations and for improving wildlife distributions. All wildlife water projects will be evaluated through the NEPA analysis to determine necessity and effects.
Water developments for purposes other than wildlife will include design features that ensure safe and continued access to water by wildlife on year- round basis. If it is not feasible to provide water on a year-round basis, a determination will be made whether to design the feature for wildlife access.
Within wildlife corridors construction of overpasses, underpasses, culverts, and all fences on public lands will be built to allow for wildlife passage, unless the fence is specifically constructed for directing or excluding wildlife from locations for the protection of the wildlife (e.g., desert tortoise fence along a highway, directing wildlife to a corridor for safe highway crossing, etc.). Any existing fences not specifically constructed for directing wildlife that obstructs wildlife movements should be brought into compliance with the BLM fence standards.
Identified wildlife corridors will be used to help the BLM make decisions on land tenure (retention, acquisition, disposal), land use authorizations, or permits to address and avoid habitat fragmentation.
Fish habitat improvements in Lake Havasu will be maintained to sustain fish productivity by providing permanent escape cover and rearing habitat for young. Damaged artificial reef structures will be repaired if needed and replaced in the original location. This work will be accomplished cooperatively by the Lake Havasu Fisheries Partnership program.
Approximately 875 acres in 42 separate locations in Lake Havasu will be designated as Fish Habitat Areas (FHAs).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
20
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
WF-29. Vehicular access within the Lake Havasu Aubrey Hills to retrieve game will not be allowed.
WF-30. The BLM will coordinate with appropriate interests, the Multi-Species
Conservation Program (MSCP), and jurisdictions to create backwaters along the Colorado River and tributaries to increase native aquatic species habitat availability and diversity.
□ The BLM will coordinate with Parker Strip interests and other agencies to enhance the sport fishery below Parker Dam through the development of both aquatic and bank habitat improvements.
Monitoring
Fish Habitat
Artificial reef installations in Lake Havasu will be monitored for longevity and performance in cooperation with program partners according to procedures established by the partnership. AGFD protocols will be used when appropriate. Results and trends will be reported to partner organization executives on an annual basis.
Wildlife Management
Lake Havasu Field Office will support and assist AGFD and CDFG in monitoring wildlife habitat and population goals through Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy and the California Fish and Game Code. Changes in habitat distribution, canopy, composition, and condition will be assessed on a landscape and watershed basis during the development of the TMP.
Lake Havasu Field Office will also participate in Sonoran Joint Venture and Arizona Bird Conservation Initiative and will continue to support and participate in achieving the conservation goals identified within the MSCP, the Comprehensive Conservation Plans of National Wildlife Refuges, Conservation Goals and Objectives for the Lower Colorado River Watershed, and ecoregional plans of the Nature Conservancy.
A long-term monitoring program appropriate for the habitat and species identified within each activity level plan (ACECs, Special Recreation Management Areas [SRMAs]) will be developed.
This information will be included in the annual planning update, along with a summary of areas monitored for changes in species composition and structure, and the number/type of baseline inventories completed.
Special Status Species Management Desired Future Conditions
TE-l. Conserve and protect Migratory Bird species (see Appendix C Table C-7) and their habitats. Lake Havasu Field Office will follow the guidance provided within the Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186, Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Latta, Beardmore, and Corman 1999), Partners in
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
21
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Flight Desert and Riparian Bird Conservation Plan (California Partners in Flight 2006), USFWS North American Waterfowl Management Plan (USFWS et al. 1998), and LCRMSCP (Reclamation, USFWS, and MWD 2004).
TE-2. No net loss of quantity or quality of priority species and/or priority habitats will occur on the Lake Havasu Field Office. (See Table 3-4 in the PRMP/FEIS.)
TE-3. Conserve habitat and work toward the recovery of T&E species, as well as reduce the likelihood of additional species listings under the ESA and California ESA.
TE-4. Sustainable populations of native species currently absent from the area, and those species whose genetic pools require augmentation, will be achieved.
TE-5. Wildlife habitat projects will be designed to maintain, restore, and improve species biodiversity.
TE-6. Ecosystems will be restored and supported in conjunction with vegetation, aquatic, and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements.
TE-7. Management will seek instream flows suitable to sustain aquatic and terrestrial T&E species habitat on public lands in the Bill Williams River.
Land Use Allocations
TE-8. Approximately 1,017,759 acres of public lands will be allocated for
management as Category I, II, or III Sonoran Desert tortoise and Mojave Desert tortoise habitat. See Map 1 1 .
□ Category I - 108,499 acres
□ Category II - 286,388 acres
□ Category III - 573,767 acres
□ Mojave - 49,105 acres
TE-9. In Category I and II Sonoran Desert tortoise habitat, only range improvements that will not conflict with tortoise populations will be allowed.
TE-10 Within Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs), uses that are in conflict with
restoration and/or maintenance of T&E habitats will be restricted as determined by NEPA process (see Map 6).
TE-1 1 . The BLM, in cooperation with other authorities, will allocate 75 acres at the
Colorado River Nature Center, Three Mile Lake, and Beale Slough to be used for spawning and rearing habitat for special status fish species (see Map 7).
TE-1 2. Spawning, nesting, brood rearing, or larval fish rearing habitat used by special
status species will be identified as FHAs. Incompatible uses or development, modification, and/or negative impacts where practicable will not be allowed.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
22
May 2007
R20E R21E
Map 11 Desert Tortoise Habitats
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Lake\
Mohave
Nevada
KINGMAN
bullhead]
CITY
LAKE HA\/)ASU -City;
Alamo
Lake/f
Mohave County
PARKEl
AGUILA
;nden
Desert Tortoise Habitats Sonoran Desert Tortoise Habitat Categories mm Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Mojave Desert Tortoise Habitat Category 3
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid Interstate Highways
US and State Highways
Rivers and Canals
Lakes
R21E R22.
SanBernardino County Riverside County
|
IL. |
||||||
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0
A
10
L
1 —
20 Miles
_l
0 5 10
20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
R13W R12W R11W R10W
I «
: eiiu*(i ’ H. ■ w,Kft''Ol t M- 'f
■i‘“ »■, '^.
m
■ 4-" ■ =».^
^ t f
■ t'’ \ *
r ,' .• '
.i
i ‘i
tf
•;,;Vl«Jw»l!!,v{..'»i '. .• . ».l. j
■Sf-fc. 1
Ms*^ !Wt- k‘ \
In
i^a)
•ft'r< ■
Vf<’
::^::t-'-: ;:v
ii> V
■>.v'P
i.r ' V,. -
"'tvI
‘W*
■■■ :|,P^
>-■%'-
S*v-V
a-
, u. 'i'= yi<
«':*l
''-tf i ,,
;•• -V^i'-'r-''^ i..'vv ■■:• .
im,;.
%
*%
'Hf-
a.
l^.-- -•
Ifil-;
.m
V -U', “.
li’p
••• ;
,V}5?'V =' - - .
t '
i^i
1^ ..■■ ':'
*ii^;:- /'-"I
k-ck-
I'P ■"
fel
I’i ' %
: - ■■'A>f.
Siit'w
1;^^ •■ .. •l-.-.-'X-*'
mw
WP^-
,pi»}
,i^
'm\
^f££jiv .
j3G
.iW# IB:-
&i'.’
■ /' g[
■ (Vi M Plttia.
■*'•1(0^ *^iA
m
m
*J--' Alif-I
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Management Actions
|
TE-13. |
Complete and maintain a continuing inventory and monitoring program for tortoise populations and habitats to assist in making management decisions, including habitat categorization. |
|
TE-14. |
Include monitoring provisions specific to decisions affecting the desert tortoise. Maintain a log of Environmental Assessments containing stipulations pertaining to the desert tortoise, for express purpose of tracking compliance and effectiveness of the stipulations. The monitoring of these stipulations and recommendations for improvement will be documented in the log. |
|
TE-15. |
Develop and maintain a monitoring program specifically for land-use activities that adversely affect tortoise habitats for use in analyzing and responding to the cumulative impacts of land-use decisions on tortoise habitats. |
|
TE-16. |
Quantify suitable habitat on BLM lands within Lake Havasu Field Office planning area for all T&E species. |
|
TE-17. |
Carry out a program of public conservation, education, and planning directed towards preservation of Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. |
|
TE-18. |
Riparian areas that could physically support Southwestern willow flycatcher habitats will be managed, maintained, increased, and improved to attain the vegetation structure plant species diversity, density, and canopy cover to constitute suitable habitat (see Maps 7 and 8 in the Approved RMP for habitat). |
|
TE-19. |
Increase enforcement of access into restricted areas occupied by T&E species. |
|
TE-20. |
Establish areas near existing occupied Western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat for restoration, before focusing on areas further away. |
|
TE-21 |
The BLM will participate in a coordinated effort to develop a scientific based inventory and evaluation process to periodically identify species density and to possibly reevaluate desert tortoise categories following the criteria as set forth in Management Plan for the Sonoran Desert Population of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona 1996 or future updates. |
|
TE-22 |
Areas classified as Category 1, II, or III tortoise habitat will be reevaluated periodically by extensive scientific survey and the category could be updated by RMP amendment based on changes in species density. |
|
TE-23. |
Develop roosting habitat (artificial structures) in managed backwaters to facilitate foraging habitat for wintering bald eagle along the Lower Colorado River. |
|
TE-24. |
At a minimum, the BLM will follow the management guidelines in the Bald Eagle Conservation Assessment Strategy. |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 23
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
The following restriction in three buffer zones around all known nests will protect breeding attempts from adverse impacts:
Buffer Zone 1 : 500 foot radius around the nest.
During breeding season - December 1 to June 30: No activity occurs around all known nests.
During non-breeding season - July 1 to November 30: No activity will be permitted that will permanently change the landscape.
Buffer Zone 2: 500- to 1,000 foot radius around the nest.
During breeding season - December 1 to June 30: Limited human activity.
During non-breeding season - July 1 to November 30: No activity should permanently change the landscape.
Buffer Zone 3: 1,000- to 2,500 foot radius around the nest.
During breeding season - December 1 to June 30: No activity should permanently change the landscape.
During non-breeding season - July 1 to November 30: Maintenance activities such as upkeep of existing buildings and roads can occur, but no activity should permanently change the landscape.
TE-25. Collection of federally listed T&E species will not be authorized.
Monitoring
TE-26. Participate with other agencies in the recovery, conservation, research, management, and monitoring activities for bonytail chub and razorback suckers.
TE-27. Sample every 5 years all known regions where YCR populations are found using standardized techniques and develop and implement a plan of local population surveys every year.
TE-28. Continue to survey, monitor, and conduct research to improve the recovery of the Southwestern willow flycatcher.
Fish
The BLM will coordinate the Lake Havasu Fisheries Partnership and cooperate with MSCP authorities to monitor critical habitat for, and survival of, two endangered fish in the Colorado River. Monitoring Standards and protocol will be consistent with state requirements and maintain BLM compliance with terms of the Biological Opinion for this Approved RMP that calls for monitoring all T&E fish habitat. Information gathered will support future BLM river decisions and aid completion of Section 7 Consultation on any future BLM projects or actions involving the Colorado River. The BLM will support interagency monitoring efforts on Lake Havasu as a priority, and other river reaches and tributaries as resources permit. Reports and recommendations will be submitted annually
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
24
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
to the seven-member Lake Havasu Fisheries Executive Committee as well as MSCP officials.
Wildlife
The BLM will continue to monitor known populations of special status species in conjunction with federal, state, and private agencies or organizations (Southwestern willow flycatcher, desert tortoise, marsh birds and bald eagle). Monitoring may use intensive research projects or periodic population/habitat inventories to determine habitat extent or population status. This monitoring may be accomplished through contracts and/or with the aid of partnership funding sources in support of individual species conservation strategies.
Watershed Management
Desired Future Conditions
WS-l. Management objectives will seek to meet land health standards for soil resources on all BLM lands.
WS-2. Water resources and natural communities associated with springs, wetlands, seeps, and streams will be conserved, enhanced, and restored, with water supplies protected by state law (see Appendix D).
Land Use Allocations
WS-3. Domestic and commercial collection or sales of fuel wood for home heating purposes will not be authorized.
WS-4. For the protection of habitat and other natural values, no motorized vehicles will be allowed within the Lake Havasu Aubrey Hills Area. This restriction does not include authorized vehicles for administrative purposes, authorized ROWs, lands under Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) lease/patent, and ownership access to private land.
Invasive or Noxious Species Management Monitoring
Monitoring of noxious weeds and invasive species will focus on two tasks: prevention and control. Identifying and protecting land that is not presently infested is the single most important management goal. Examples of monitoring for prevention include compliance monitoring to insure that weeds, forages, and bilge contents are not being introduced on to public lands and waters.
When a noxious weed or invasive species is detected in association with public lands, the BLM will coordinate stakeholders to produce an Integrated Pest Management plan incorporating the best-suited mechanical, cultural, biological, and/or chemiical strategies presenting the greatest likelihood of environmental success. The acres of public land infestation will be reported in the annual planning update to track plan implementation.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
25
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
The update will include acreage inventoried, acreage evaluated to determine treatment effectiveness, and acreage treated.
Cultural Resource Management
Cultural resources can be allocated to one or more of the categories listed in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Categories for Cultural Resource Allocation
|
Land Use Allocation^ |
Desired Future Condition |
Management Actions |
|
a. Scientific Use |
Preserved until research potential is realized |
Pemiit appropriate research, including data recovery |
|
b. Conservation for Future Use |
Preserved until conditions for use are met |
Propose protective measures or designations |
|
c. Traditional Use |
Long-term preservation |
Consult with tribes; determine limitations*’ |
|
d. Public Use |
Long-term preservation, on-site interpretation |
Determine limitations, permitted uses^ |
|
e. Experimental Use |
Protected until used |
Determine nature of experiment |
|
f Discharged from Management |
No use after recordation; not preserved |
Remove protective measures |
|
Notes; |
^ These categories are defined in Appendix E. The majority of the cultural properties in a given geographic area will fall into categories “a” and “f ” The less common properties in categories “b” through “e” are likely to be associated with particular settings that can be delineated geographically in the planning process. Properties in categories “b” through “d” will require the most attention to balance their proactive uses with other land and resource uses.
Safeguards against incompatible land and resource uses may be imposed through withdrawals, stipulations on land use authorizations, such as leases, permits, and ROWs, design requirements, and similar measures that are developed and recommended by an appropriately staffed interdisciplinary team.
Desired Future Conditions
CL-l. Preserve and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations.
CL-2. The BLM will identify sacred sites in consultation with Indian tribes,
accommodate tribal access to sacred sites, and prevent physical damage or intrusions that might impede their use by religious practitioners. The locations of sacred sites and other places of traditional or religious importance to Indian tribes will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law.
Land Use Allocations
CL-3. Conservation for Future Use — Some sites currently managed under
Conservation for Future Use will be allocated to the Traditional Use category.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
26
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Additional sites may be shifted to Traditional Use category if Indian tribes identify them in the future.
Traditional Use - Sites allocated to Traditional Use will be limited to those identified by Indian tribes as important for maintaining their cultural identity, heritage, or wellbeing.
Significant sites (or features) will be stabilized, fenced, or otherwise managed to protect the values ascribed to these sites by Indian tribes.
Public Use - Sites allocated to Public Use will be limited to those considered suitable as an interpretive exhibit-in-place, a subject of supervised participation in scientific or historical study, or related educational and recreational uses by members of the general public.
Scientific Use - Sites allocated to Scientific Use are those with the potential to yield important information where current archaeological and historical investigative techniques can adequately extract that information. These sites will be preserved in place until their scientific values are recovered.
Experimental Use - Sites allocated to Experimental Use will generally be drawn from properties that are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) but may include eligible properties if the experimental uses will not adversely affect the characteristics that make them eligible.
Discharged from Management - Only sites determined ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP will be placed in the Discharged from Management category.
CL-4. The BLM will allocate 28 sites to Conservation for Future Use, seven sites to Traditional Use, and eight sites to Public Use.
CL-5. Public Use - Swansea is managed as a Public Use site. A 1995 Federal Register Notice, 60 FR 53194-53195, details specific allocations and management prescriptions for Swansea, effectively changing Swansea from Conservation for Future Use to Public Use.
CL-6. Manage Schwanbeck’s Store as a Public Use site and maintain existing interpretive panels.
CF-7. Allocate the following sites to Conservation for Future Use -
Three intaglios/intaglio complexes, 10 petroglyph/pictograph sites,
13 habitation/site complex areas, and two historic mining areas will be allocated to the Conservation for Future Use category and preserved in place. Sites are listed in the cultural resource appendix (Appendix E).
CL-8. Allocate the following sites to Traditional Use - Five intaglios, one petroglyph site, and one site complex (trail, intaglio and rock art) will be allocated to the Traditional Use category. Sites are listed in the cultural resource appendix (Appendix E).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
27
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
CL-9. Allocate the following sites to Public Use - Manage Atlantic & Pacific (A&P) Railroad, Culling ’s Well and Hardy Toll Road, McGuffie Cabin, Camp Bouse, Swansea, Schwanbeck’s and Hargus Cabin for public visitation and preserve them for future generations.
CL- 10. Under Special Designations, Crossman Peak will be managed as an ACEC, in part due to associated Native American values.
CL- 1 1 . Allocate the following areas as Special Cultural Resource Management Areas (SCRMAs);
Bullhead Bajada, 4,387 acres (Conservation for Future Use and Traditional Use); Harcuvar Mountain East, 17,048 acres (Conservation for Future Use); Harcuvar Mountain West, 10,249 acres (Conservation for Future Use and Publie Use); Topock-Needles, 1,127 acres (Conservation for Future Use and Traditional Use); Black Peak, 768 acres (Traditional Use); Swansea,
6,839 acres (Conservation for Future Use and Public Use) (see Map 12).
Management Actions
CL- 12. The following apply to sites managed for Conservation for Future Use, Traditional Use, and Public Use:
Motorized use on cultural resource sites and site complexes managed for Conservation for Future Use, Traditional Use, and Public Use will be restricted to designated open roads and trails. Prior to completion of the Transportation Management Plan, motorized use will be restricted to existing roads and trails except for the Swansea Townsite and Plomosa Mountains where route designation has already occurred (see TM-20).
Allowable uses on the cultural resource sites and site complexes managed for Conservation for Future Use, Traditional Use, and Public Use include activities that are compatible with the objective of preserving these resources for future use.
Improvements on cultural resource sites and site complexes managed for Conservation for Future Use, Traditional Use, and Public Use will be restricted to those that are compatible with the cultural resources or those required for mining. Some of the cultural resource sites and areas are under Reclamation withdrawal and are therefore segregated from mineral entry and development. The BLM will pursue a mineral withdrawal for Swansea Townsite, a portion of the Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural ACEC, and the Incline Railway. Mining activity on the remaining sites and areas will be managed to avoid disruption or, where avoidance is not possible, to minimize damage to cultural values using regulatory standards contained in 43 CFR 3800.
Surface occupancy for oil and gas leases, mineral material disposals, and ROWs will not be authorized on the eultural resource sites and site complexes managed for Conservation for Future Use, Traditional Use, and Publie Use (see MI-2, MI- 12, LR-7).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
28
May 2007
Map 12 Special Cultural Resource Management Areas
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0
A
10
I
10
I
20 Kilometers
20 Miles
_J
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
T21N
T20N
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
|
LR-36. |
Management for sites allocated to Public Use may include but is not limited to signs, educational displays, picnic tables, ramadas, parking areas, and protective fencing. All communication facilities on Black Peak will be phased out and relocated at a suitable site through negotiation with the Colorado River Indian Tribes and the site lessees. |
|
CL-13. |
Management prescriptions for SCRMAs will reflect and support the primary values for which the areas are allocated. Management prescriptions in SCRMAs allocated primarily to conserve sites for the future will protect selected sites within the SCRMA that are scarce, that are of singular importance, and that should not be subjected to invasive studies or other uses that will threaten their present condition. Management prescriptions for SCRMAs allocated primarily for Traditional Use will seek to accommodate the traditional cultural practices of Indian tribes or other cultural groups that ascribe religious or other heritage values to specific places within the SCRMA. Management prescriptions for SCRMAs allocated primarily for public use will focus on developing and interpreting selected sites for public visitation, including heritage tourism. |
|
CL-14. |
Acquire properties from owners who are willing to sell or exchange or donate adjacent to public lands that contain significant cultural resources including, but not limited to, those properties eligible for inclusion on NRHP. Priority acquisitions will be for lands that contain portions of eligible sites also located on public lands. |
|
CL-15. |
The BLM will work and coordinate with Native Americans to select harvesting areas and noncommercial (personal or tribal use) collection of medicinal or ceremonial herbs and necessary vegetation with specific annual authorization as appropriate. |
|
CL-16. |
The BLM will work and coordinate with Native Americans to select harvesting areas and allow noncommercial (personal use) collection of minerals (e.g., quartz, clay) for traditional or ceremonial use without specific authorization or sale as appropriate. |
|
TE-25. |
Collection of federally listed T&E species will not be authorized. |
|
CL-17. |
The BLM will review requests for vehicular access to sacred areas not normally open to vehicles and consider authorizing such use on a case-by-case basis if Indian tribes identify such areas. |
|
Monitoring |
All previously recorded cultural resource properties that are listed on the NRHP or determined eligible for listing, and allocated to the Conservation for Future Use, Traditional Use, or Public Use categories will be monitored on an annual basis at a minimum. Analysis and documentation of the monitoring will include updating of the site form to current professional standards, if necessary, and assessment of the cun-ent condition and trend of significant resource values.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
29
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Visitation of the previously recorded cultural properties or designated ACECs will be made by the cultural resource specialist or designated representative. The purpose of the visits will be to monitor the condition of the site(s) and document any disturbance or deterioration.
A long-term monitoring program will be established for the designated ACECs containing cultural resource values. The program will also include the visitation of a representative sample of cultural resource values within each of the designated ACECs to establish baseline information on the current condition of cultural resources values. Once the baseline condition assessment information has been compiled, ACECs will be monitored on an annual basis to identify any potential adverse impacts.
A periodic review of the cultural resource program will be conducted to ensure that the program is meeting established parameters for proactive cultural resources inventory under Section 1 10 of the NHPA.
The number of acres inventoried by the BLM under Section 110 will be reported annually in the Annual Planning Update Report and Summary to the Field Office Manager.
Fire Management
Lake Havasu Field Office coordinates with other agencies to manage fire in accordance with the nationwide BLM fire policy. In 2003, the BLM Arizona State Office prepared the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management (AZLUP), which incorporates new management direction coming from the National Fire Plan and the 2001 Federal Fire Policy. Fire and fuels management are integrated with other management activities to benefit both natural resources and multiple uses on lands administered by BLM within Arizona and the portion of California that falls within Lake Havasu Field Office and Yuma Field Office boundaries. The Approved RMP carries forward the decisions in the AZLUP.
Desired Future Conditions
FM-l . Fire is recognized as a natural process in fire-adapted ecosystems and is used to achieve objectives for other resources.
FM-2. Fuels in Wildland-Urban Interface areas are maintained at non-hazardous levels to provide for public and firefighter safety.
FM-3. Prescribed fire activities comply with federal and state air quality regulations.
FM-4. Each vegetation community is maintained within its natural range of variation in plant composition, structure, and function. Fuel loads are maintained below levels that are considered to be hazardous. Desired future conditions for vegetation communities are listed in Table 3.
Land Use Allocations
As authorized in the AZLUP, BLM-administered public lands will be assigned to one of two Land Use Allocations for fire management. Within the Lake Havasu Field Office
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
30
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
area, the Harciivar and Mohave mountain ranges fall into Allocation 1 . The remainder of the Lake Havasu Field Office falls within Allocation 2. Table 3 below details these allocations.
Table 3. Desired Future Conditions and Land Use Allocations for Vegetation Communities (see Map 13)
|
Fire Specific Vegetation Community Type |
Approximate Acreage |
Desired Future Conditions |
Land Use Allocation Category |
|
Desertscmb 3,500-4,500-ft elevation |
4,603 |
Adequate cover and a mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In terms of fire management and fire ecology, the desired future conditions are for fire to control or reduce exotic annual weeds such as red brome and to limit woody vegetation to non-hazardous levels. |
2 |
|
Desertscmb below 3,500 ft elevation |
1,264,562 |
Adequate cover and a mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In terms of fire management and fire ecology, the desired future conditions are for fire to control or reduce exotic annual weeds such as red brome and to limit woody vegetation to non-hazardous levels. |
2 |
|
Interior Chaparral |
35,424 |
Fire naturally maintains shmb cover while reducing annual grass cover, the invasion of woody plants such as juniper and pinon pine are controlled, and the average age of chaparral stands is reduced through controlled fire or mechanical treatment. |
1 |
|
Riparian/ Mesquite |
41,963 |
Adequate cover and a mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In terms of fire management and fire ecology, the desired future conditions are for fire to control or reduce exotic annual weeds such as red brome and to limit woody vegetation to non-hazardous levels. |
2 |
Management Actions
FM-5. The following decision was derived from the 1987 YRMP and will be
applicable to the entire planning area: Fires on or threatening public lands will be suppressed and fuels will be managed in accordance with BLM fire policy, agreements with other government agencies, approved modified fire suppression plans, relevant resource management plans, and the AZLUP. The structure of the fire management organization and fire management implementation guidance can be found in the Yuma-Lake Havasu Zone Fire Management Plan (Bureau of Land Management 2004).
FM-6. In areas suitable for fire where fuel loading is high and current conditions
constrain fire use, the BLM will emphasize prevention and mitigation programs to reduce unwanted fire ignitions, and use mechanical, biological, or chemical treatments to mitigate the fuel loadings and meet resource objectives.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
31
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
FM-7.
FM-8.
FM-9.
FM-10.
FM-11.
FM-12.
In areas suitable for fire and where conditions allow, the BLM will allow naturally ignited wildland fire, use prescribed fire, and employ a combination of biological, mechanical, and chemical treatments to maintain non-hazardous levels of fuels, reduce the hazardous effects of unplanned wildland fires, and meet resource objectives.
In areas suitable for fire, the BLM will monitor existing air quality levels and weather conditions to determine which prescribed fires can be ignited and which, if any, must be delayed to ensure that air quality meets federal and state standards. If air quality approaches unhealthy levels, the BLM will delay igniting prescribed fires.
The BLM will implement conservation measures during fire suppression and all fire management activities as required, to minimize or eliminate adverse effects to federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate federally protected species and habitats, unless firefighter, public safety, protection of property, improvements or natural resources render them infeasible during a particular operation (Bureau of Land Management 2004). Conservation measures noted as recommended in Appendix F are not mandatory for implementation to help minimize effects to federally protected species and to provided consistency. Procedures within the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations 2002, including future updates, relevant to fire operations that may affect federally protected species or their habitat are incorporated here by reference.
The BLM will undertake education, enforcement and administrative fire prevention mitigation measures to reduce human-caused fires. Education measures will include various media information including a signing program, information as to the natural role of fire within local ecosystems, participation in fairs, parades, and public contacts. Enforcement will be accomplished by providing training opportunities for employees interested in fire cause determination. Administration includes expanded prevention and education programs with other cooperating agencies.
Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity. Setting priorities among protecting human communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources must be based on the values to be protected, human health and safety, and costs of protection (National Interagency Fire Center 2001).
During fire suppression actions, resource advisors may be designated to coordinate concerns regarding federally protected species, and to serve as a liaison between the field office manager and the incident commander/incident management team. They will also serve as a field contact representative responsible for coordination with USFWS. The resource advisors will have the necessary information on federally protected species and habitats in the area and the available conservation measures for the species. They will be briefed on the intended suppression actions for the fire, and will provide input on which conservation measures are appropriate, within the standard constraints of safety and operational procedures. The incident commander has the final
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
32
May 2007
Map 13 Vegetation Communities for Fire Management
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
(No Vegetation Data)
Lake'
Mohave
Desertscrub 3,500-4,500 ft elevation
Nevada
Desertscrub below 3,500 ft elevation
KINGMAN
Interior Chaparral mm Riparian/Mesquite I I Agriculture
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid r -• i Interstate Highways ■■■"" US and State Highways Rivers and Canals
t HAVASU £ITY
Alani^m^Ksanta Lake /' M
La Paz Cbtihty
PARKER
San gg-mardino Cout^ity Riverside County &
AGUILA
WENDEI
|
Lake >4 Havasu |
y . L> |
|
|
R23E |
R24E |
R25E |
|
BULLHEAD CITY |
||
|
[I |
d 1 |
|
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
I I I I I The Bureau of Land Management makes
' ' ' no warranties, implied or expressed,
0 5 10 20 Kilometers with respect to information shown on
this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
R13W R12W R11W R10W
J. !
I ■■ ■"' . '■■
'? ^ } i^y)' 'rut^mr-‘y ■ " V
' ,W
.>• t
i*» . A
■■"■i
..I, in'.
i'' •
fej^'.i.' ' ': .Lu--
p-l-'tf:
.** . , ' Ti,, :' , '.'■ I-*-...;
^ ;'V
V# -yfm ''
I , .l|i"
I'. '' ■
■'^V'
.:J~"
^ tf ~T,T—W-C»w^pn |(
i r '■
'"H\,
i v:.:. '..ir../:
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
|
decision-making authority on implementation of conservation measures during fire suppression operations. |
|
|
FM-13. |
Because of the number of species located within the action area for the Approved RMP, combined with a variety of fire suppression and proposed fire management activities, conflicts may occur in attempting to implement all conservation measures for every species potentially affected by a particular activity. Implementing these conservation measures effectively will depend on the number of federally protected species and their individual life history or habitat requirements within a particular location that is being affected by either fire suppression or a proposed fire management activity. This will be particularly true for timing restrictions on fuels treatment activities if the ranges of several species with differing restrictions overlap, making effective implementation of the activity unachievable. Resource advisors (in coordination with USFWS), fire management officers or incident commanders, and other resource specialists will need to coordinate to determine which conservation measures will be implemented during a partieular activity. If conservation measures for a species cannot be implemented, the BLM will be required to initiate Section 7 consultation with USFWS for that particular activity. |
|
FM-14. |
In WAs, WSAs, and areas with wilderness characteristics according to wilderness plans or the Approved RMP, when suppression actions are required, minimum impact suppression tactics (Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations 2003) will be applied and coordinated with WA management objectives and guidelines. In all cases, determining appropriate attack strategies and tactics, including the use of Minimum Impact Suppression Taetics (MIST), must be based on appropriate management response while providing for fire fighter and public safety, land and resource management objectives, values at risk, weather, fuel conditions, threats and values to be protected, and available resources |
|
FM-15. |
Fire management activities along National Historic Trails will be eonducted to assure no adverse effects occur to those resources and values identified in the legislation designating the trail. |
|
FM-16. |
ACEC and Back Country Byways are established in the Approved RMP. The Desired Future Conditions and management prescriptions for these special areas will be considered in implementing fire management activities. Fire Suppression Actions |
|
FM-17. |
Suppression tactics will be utilized that limit damage or disturbance to the habitat and landseape. No heavy equipment will be used (such as dozers) unless approved by the field office manager. |
|
FM-18. |
Use of fire retardants or chemicals adjacent to waterways will be accomplished in accordance to the Environmental Guidelines for Delivery of Retardant or Foam near Waterways (Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations pages 8-13). |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 33
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
FM-19. All known cultural resources will be protected from disturbance.
FM-20. In WAs, WSAs, and lands with wilderness characteristics according to land use plans, when suppression actions are required, minimum impact suppression tactics (Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations 2003) will be utilized and coordinated with WA management objectives and guidelines.
FM-2 1 . The general and species-specific conservation measures listed in Appendix D of the AZLUP (USDI-BLM 2004) will be implemented to the extent possible to minimize adverse effects to federally listed, proposed, or candidate species occurring within the planning area.
FM-22. For fire suppression activities, a protocol for consultation has been developed as a part of the Biological Opinion for the AZLUP (USDI-BLM 2004). This programmatic consultation contains conservation measures and prescriptions for use in fire suppression activities. Emergency consultation should only be needed in the future if suppression actions fall outside of these prescriptions/measures. The Biological Opinion will outline coordination needs for emergency response actions that may affect a listed/proposed species and/or critical habitat.
FM-23. The BLM will contact the appropriate USFWS biologist as soon as practical once a wildfire starts and a determination is made that a federally protected species and/or its habitat could be affected by the fire and/or fire suppression activities. USFWS will work with the BLM during the emergency response to apply the appropriate conservation measures. If conservation measures cannot be applied during the suppression activities, the BLM will need to consult after the fact on any suppression actions that may have affected the federally proteeted species or its habitat. If conservation measures are adhered to, then the BLM will report on the actions taken and effects to the speeies and its habitat following the fire, but no further consultation on that incident will be required.
Monitoring
Monitoring will determine whether fire management strategies, practices, and activities are meeting resource management objectives and coneems. Fire management plans and policies will be updated as needed to keep current with national and state fire management direction. Scheduled program reviews (post-season fire review) will be conducted to evaluate fire management effectiveness in meeting goals and to reassess program direction. In the case of wildfire rehabilitation, monitoring will be specific to resource objectives. Monitoring information and conclusions of this type will be ineluded in the Annual Planning Update Report and Summary.
Lands and Realty Program
The Lands and Realty program consists generally of two distinct segments: Land tenure and use authorization. The following shows the current poliey for the Lands and Realty program. The decisions for the Lands and Realty program follow the poliey section and are noted by the symbol LR.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
34
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Land Tenure
The land tenure segment of the Lands and Realty program specifies that the Lake Havasu Field Office will
1 . retain all public lands or interests in land that enhance multiple-use management,
2. acquire lands or interests in land that complement important resource values and further management objectives, and
3. dispose of lands or interests in lands that are difficult or uneconomical to manage or are no longer needed for federal purposes.
Land Management
Split estate is property for which the surface estate is owned by one entity and the mineral estate is owned by another entity. For purposes of the Lands and Realty program, split estate refers to federal government ownership of the surface estate and ownership of the mineral estate by another entity. In this situation, the BLM may attempt to acquire the mineral estate from the owner(s).
Land Acquisition
Lake Havasu Field Office may acquire lands or interests in lands by purchase using Land and Water Conservation Fund funds or through other funding. The BLM may also acquire lands from donations or exchanges.
Acquisition of non-federal lands would be prioritized based on the potential to enhance the conservation and management of threatened or endangered species habitat, riparian habitat, desert tortoise habitat, key big game habitat, or to improve the overall manageability of wildlife habitat.
Land Disposal
The BLM may dispose of lands or interests through sales, exchanges, conveyance of mineral interests, R&PP patents. Legal descriptions of parcels that have been identified (and the approved method of disposal) are listed in Appendix G.
The BLM may also use withdrawals in which jurisdiction of the land or interests in lands are transferred to another federal agency. If Lake Havasu Field Office discovers an area that needs the protection of a withdrawal, the withdrawal will be processed. If other agencies’ withdrawals are revoked, the BLM will manage the land consistently with the current land use plan.
■ Public lands may have potential for disposal when they are isolated and/or difficult to manage. Disposal actions are usually in response to public request or application that results in a title transfer, wherein the lands leave the public domain. All public lands would be retained unless specifically identified for disposal. The criteria for land disposals are listed below.
■ Public lands classified, withdrawn, reserved, or otherwise designated as not available or subject to sale are unavailable. A land use plan amendment would be required to dispose of lands not identified for disposal in the current land use plan. All disposal
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
35
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
actions are coordinated with adjoining landowners, local governments, and current land users.
■ There are two distinct sets of criteria in the FLPMA for evaluating whether disposal will serve the national interest. One set is for disposal by sale and the other is for disposal by exchange:
a) Land disposal by public sale is addressed in Section 203(a) of the FLPMA. This section contains three criteria to apply in identifying public lands suitable for disposal by public sale. The criteria, as paraphrased, are that a) the tract of public land is difficult and uneconomical to manage as part of the public lands and is not suitable for management by another federal department or agency, b) the land is no longer required for a specific purpose, or c) disposal will serve important public objectives.
b) The criteria for determining which public lands or land interests are available for disposal by exchange are covered in Section 206(a) of the FLPMA. These criteria require the BLM to consider the public interest by giving full consideration to better federal land management and the needs of state and local people. These include the need of lands for the economy, community expansion, recreation areas, food, fiber, minerals, and fish and wildlife. The criteria also require that the public objectives to be served must be greater on the lands to be acquired than on the lands to be conveyed.
The Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act of 1954, as amended, authorizes the lease and/or conveyance of BLM-administered lands for recreational or public purposes to state and local governments and to qualified nonprofit organizations under specified conditions at less than the fair market value.
The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1 982 provides for the conveyance of BLM- administered lands to public agencies for use as airports and airways. Disposal criteria with respect to Endangered Species Act listed, proposed, or candidate species and critical habitat are as follows:
■ The BLM will not transfer out of federal ownership designated or proposed critical habitat for a listed or proposed threatened or endangered species.
■ The BLM will not transfer out of federal ownership lands supporting listed or proposed threatened or endangered species if such transfer would be inconsistent with recovery needs and objectives or would likely affect the recovery of the listed or proposed species.
■ The BLM will not transfer out of federal ownership lands supporting federal candidate species if such action would contribute to the need to list the species as threatened or endangered.
Exceptions to the three previous criteria could occur if the recipient of the lands would protect the species or critical habitat equally well under the Endangered Species Act, such as disposal to a nonfederal governmental agency or private organization if conservation purposes for the species would still be achieved and ensured.
In addition, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000, commonly referred to as the Baca Bill, allows the BLM to retain receipts from land sales to cover
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
36
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
administrative costs and acquire properties. Section 205 of the Act requires that the public land be identified for disposal in an approved land use plan as of July 25, 2000. Those Baca lands identified for disposal in the Approved RMP are identified in Appendix G. Lands identified for disposal that are large enough to show on a map are displayed on Map 14.
Use Authorization
Lake Havasu Field Office may allow the use of the public lands or interests in lands through issuance of ROWs, leases, and pennits. The types of uses that would be authorized by a ROW issued pursuant to Title 5 FLPMA would include access roads, power lines, telephone lines, fiber optic systems, communications facilities, and so forth. Examples of uses authorized pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act include crude oil pipelines and oil and gas pipelines. Typical uses authorized by permits would include filming and establishing and maintaining apiary sites.
To minimize adverse environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate ROWs, the utilization of shared ROWs would be required to the extent practical. Any existing transportation and utility corridors may be designated as transportation and utility corridors pursuant to FLPMA Section 503 [43 USC 1763] without further review.
Map 15 displays the locations of the corridors.
Public lands may also be designated for use as a communications site or a communications facility. A communications facility is a building and/or tower or other physical improvement that is built, installed, or established to house and support authorized communications uses. Lake Havasu Field Office communications sites accommodate the wireless systems referred to in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as well as many other uses, including AM/FM broadcast facilities, commercial mobile radios, private mobile radios, and microwaves on designated communications sites located on mountaintops. Map 1 5 also displays the location of the communication sites.
Land Use Allocations Acquisitions
LR-l. Acquisition of lands, or interests in lands, including non-federal minerals, will be considered if the three following conditions exist:
(a) The lands are free and clear of any hazardous materials, or legal encumbrances.
(b) The owners are willing to sell or exchange or donate.
(c) One or more of following criteria apply:
□ Inholdings and easements encompassed within the boundaries of special designated areas (ACECs, WAs, WSAs, National Trails, proposed Wild and Scenic River, and so forth) as designated in the Approved RMP.
□ Properties adjacent to public lands that contain significant cultural resources including, but not limited to, those properties eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Priority
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
37
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
acquisitions will be for lands that contain portions of eligible sites also located on public lands.
□ Lands made available by willing non-federal landowners that are within Category 1 and II desert tortoise habitat and/or will improve the status of desert tortoise by protecting areas large enough to support viable populations of desert tortoise.
□ Properties within wildlife habitat management areas as allocated in the Approved RMP.
□ Properties adjacent to wildlife habitat management areas where the species are jeopardized by future proposed activities.
□ Properties with important wildlife corridors or properties that provide for continuity of important wildlife corridors where links between fragmented habitats will be made available for movement of species.
□ Properties within or adjacent to SRMAs or Recreation Management Zones (RMZs), or that enhance recreational opportunities available on adjacent public lands.
□ Lands that provide connectivity for trails or routes.
□ Properties within areas with high wilderness characteristics as described in the Approved RMP.
□ Properties that will consolidate public ownership for the benefit of a resource program.
LR-2. Lake Havasu Field Office could acquire conservation easements to protect
resources within the Special Designations, WHAs, cultural resource sites, and SRMAs.
Disposals
LR-3. Approximately 50,616 acres (see Appendix G) will be available for potential disposal by land tenure category as follows:
2,934 acres as current leases for disposal under R&PP Act
47,682 acres as available for sale, exchange, and R&PP leasing and disposal
LR-4. The BLM will dispose of federal minerals underlying state and private land and acquire nonfederal minerals underlying public lands to eliminate split estate property. Any lands acquired by the BLM will include both the surface and the mineral estate whenever possible.
Use Authorizations
Lake Havasu Field Office may allow the use of the public lands or interests in lands through issuance of ROWs, leases, and permits. The types of uses that will be authorized by a ROW issued pursuant to Title 5 FLPMA will include access roads, power lines, telephone lines, fiber optic systems, communications facilities, and so forth. Examples of uses authorized pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act include crude oil pipelines and oil
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
38
May 2007
if)
"D
03
(0
tf>
O
Q.
if>
m
Q
5
00
5
05
S
u
b
O
Q
nJ
cn
>
<
a:
<
c
CO
c
Cl>
B
(D
bX)
cO
C
CO
<u
CJ
o
c/5
d)
■D Q) (/5
m
g)
Q. X CD Q) O) i_
CD O
Ev.
c
o
c
§
o
x:
CO
c
g
CO d.
E TO
^ !=^ ^ E
C !CC — ^ o
o
05
Q.
CO
0)
C/)
0
o
CN
LO -
0
0
E
o
5
o
- in
q:
o
ir
LU
LLI ^ X c H TO
o ^
d/ O)
^ -
m I
-1
0. ^ LJJ O
(~i -1
Q
LU
Map 15 Utility/Transportation Corridors and Communication Sites
R20E R21E
Lake
Mohave
Nevada
KINGMAN
iCorridors administered \ . primarily by , Kingman Field Office
BlUIjilHEAD
WUG-1
■WUG-
Corridors administered] primarily by y Needles Field Office!
LAKE
CITY
kVASU
Lake y\ Havasu
Alamo Lake ^
M^ave County
La Pa^^uhty CS-6,
PARKER
San gernardino County
Riverside County
AGUILA
WENDiP
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Utility Corridor Additions and Revisions
222229I Utility Corridors - 1 Mile Wide Utility Corridors - 2 Miles Wide ■■■ Western Utility Group Corridors - 1 Mile Wide Existing Utility Corridors ■■■ Utility Corridors - 1 Mile Wide IHIHI Utility Corridors - 2 Miles Wide Communication Sites A Existing Communication Sites t> New Communication Sites
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
— - Township Grid
Tij.. Interstate Highways
US and State Highways Rivers and Canals
Lakes
Utility/Transportation Corridor Additions and Revisions
Utility/Transportation Corridors - 1 Mile Wide Utility/Transportation Corridors - 2 Miles Wide
Existing Utility/Transportation Corridors
Utility/Transportation Corridors - 1 Mile Wide
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N
A
0
10
I
20 Miles
1 — \ — T
0 5 10
20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
and gas pipelines. Typical uses authorized by permits will include filming and establishing and maintaining apiary sites.
|
LR-5. |
When lands currently managed under agricultural lease no longer are authorized for agricultural use they will revert to uses that will benefit other programs carried out by the BLM or return to natural condition for use as wildlife habitat in accordance with the LCRMSCP. |
|
LR-6. |
The BLM will continue to lease recreation areas for concessions, state parks, county parks, and city parks in accordance with the prescribed recreation settings (see Map 20). |
|
LR-7. |
Within the boundaries of Special Designations (such as but not limited to: ACEC, WSA, proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers, etc.) as identified in this Approved RMP, no new utility and roads ROWs will be authorized, with the exception of utilities and access roads that provide service to nonfederal land within these areas. One additional ROW will be issued in the proposed Crossman Peak Scenic ACEC to authorize an existing building and two towers on public land in T. 14 N., R. 19 W. section 13, lot 1. The Lake Havasu Field Office may issue ROWs to ADOT for the construction and associated activities of the realignment of State Route (SR) 95 through the Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural ACEC. |
|
TM-4. |
Public access easements will be acquired across private or state lands where public access to federal lands and waterways is not available. |
|
LR-8. |
Locating facilities outside of designated corridors and communications sites will be avoided in WHAs if practicable. |
|
LR-9. |
The BLM will not permit placement of memorial monuments on the BLM. However, the BLM will cooperate with other parties to place memorials (e.g., tree or park bench) to enhance a recreation site or wildlife habitat. |
|
LR-10. |
If ADOT realigns SR 95 through the Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural ACEC, the BLM will issue a ROW for the realigned SR 95 and ROWs for the associated work including but not limited to drainage, temporary work areas, etc. |
|
LR-11. |
New utility facilities will be located in designated corridors unless an evaluation of the project shows that location outside of a designated area is the only practicable alternative. |
|
LR-12. |
Locating utility facilities outside of designated corridors and communications sites will be prohibited in Special Designations. |
|
LR-13. |
Locating utility facilities outside of designated corridors and communications sites will be avoided in Wildlife Habitat Areas. |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 39
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
LR-14. In utility corridors, uses including but not limited to transportation, pipelines, and electrical transmission lines will be allowed when the uses are compatible. These designated corridors apply only to BLM-administered lands.
Table 4 is a summary of existing and new ROW corridors and the adjustments made in the Approved RMP. Table 5 shows a summary of communications sites as designated, renamed, and undesignated. See Map 2-11 in the PRMP/FEIS for the original locations of the dropped and revised corridors and sites.
Table 4. ROW Corridors Designations Summary (See Map 15)
|
Decision Code |
ROW Corridor/Location |
Width in Miles |
Designation in Approved RMP |
|
LR-15. |
California Desert Conservation Area “F” (CA) (UC-1) |
1 |
Dropped |
|
LR-16. |
Western Utility Group (WUG 1) (new) |
1 |
Designated |
|
LR-17. |
Interstate 40 (UC-3) |
1-2 |
Rerouted and designated |
|
LR-18. |
Davis-Parker “A” (UC-2A) |
1 |
Rerouted and designated |
|
LR-19. |
Parker-Blaisdell “B”-(UC-6B) |
1 |
Rerouted and designated |
|
LR-20. |
Parker-Liberty (UC-5) |
1-2 |
Rerouted and designated |
|
LR-21. |
Central Arizona Project (CAP) (LGN-2) |
1 |
Route returned to original location |
|
LR-22. |
Bouse-Salome [Adjust] (LGN-1) |
1 |
Rerouted, adjusted and designated |
|
LR-23. |
El Paso Natural Gas (LGN-1 1) |
2 |
Rerouted and designated |
|
LR-24. |
San Juan Crossover (UC-4) |
1 |
Designated |
|
LR-25. |
Interstate 10 (UC-7) |
1 |
Designated |
|
LR-26. |
Bouse-Harcuvar (LGN-3) |
1 |
Designated |
|
LR-27. |
Little Harquahala (LGN-4) |
1 |
Designated |
|
LR-28. |
Wenden-Wickenburg (LGN-5) |
1 |
Designated |
|
LR-29. |
State Route 60 (UC-8) (new) |
1 |
Designated |
|
LR-30. |
Western Utility Group (WUG 2) (new) |
1 |
Designated |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
40
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
|
Table 5. |
Communication Sites: Undesignated |
Designated, Renamed, and |
|
Decision Code |
Communication Site |
Approved RMP |
|
LR-31. |
Smith Peak Communication Site (CS)-4 |
Designated |
|
LR-32. |
Citizens Utilities/Mohave Mountain (CS-1) |
Designated/renamed |
|
LR-33. |
Black Peak (CS-3) |
Undesignated (no new uses) |
|
LR-34. |
American Cable TV (CS-2) |
Undesignated (no new uses) |
|
LR-35. |
Alamo Dam (CS-6) |
Designated (new site) |
|
LR-36. |
All communication facilities on Black Peak |
All communication facilities on Black Peak will be phased out and relocated at a suitable site through negotiation with the Colorado River Indian Tribes and the site lessees. |
|
LR-37. |
Facilities located outside of designated corridors and communication sites |
Locating communication facilities outside of designated corridors and communication sites will be prohibited in ACEC, WAs, WSAs, and cultural sites eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. |
|
LR-38. |
New utility and communication facilities |
New communication facilities will be located in designated communication sites or corridors unless an evaluation of the project shows that location outside of a designated area is the only practicable alternative. |
Monitoring
All lands and realty actions implemented in this plan will be specifically addressed in separate NEPA documents that will generate mitigations, management objectives, and monitoring designs.
A compilation of new monitoring obligations for lands actions will be assembled for reporting in the Annual Planning Update Report and Summary. Opportunities to combine redundant efforts may be presented over time and will be addressed in the 5 -year plan evaluation report.
Mineral Resources
The minerals program consists of three categories: Saleable, Leasable, and Locatable. Saleable minerals (also referred to as mineral materials) include sand, gravel, and common varieties of stone and clay. These materials are sold to the public, on request, at fair market value or are provided to federal, state, and local government agencies through free use permits. Leasable minerals include, but are not limited to, oil, gas, coal, sodium, potassium, and geothermal resources. Locatable minerals are those minerals that are
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
41
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
appropriated by the public under the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended.
Locatable minerals include, but are not limited to, metals such as gold, silver, zinc, manganese, copper, and uncommon varieties of stone.
Subject to valid existing rights at the time of designation, all wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and closed mineral leasing and mineral material disposal. The designated wilderness areas cover a total of 120,599 acres.
Reasonable Foreseeable Development Saleable Minerals
The reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) scenario for saleable minerals will be 40 new mineral material sites distributed throughout the planning area over the life of the plan, disturbing a maximum of 1,000 acres. The disturbed areas will be reclaimed when they are no longer needed or the permit expires.
Leasable Minerals
The RFD for oil, gas, and geotheraial resources for the life of the plan will be a maximum of 10 holes drilled. The BLM does not anticipate that any of these wells will be capable of production. The 10 holes will be dispersed throughout the planning area, with each drill hole disturbing an area of 5 to 7 acres, including the access road. The pads and associated access roads will subsequently be reclaimed.
There are no known coal resources within the planning area. It is not expected that a coal lease will be issued or a coal mine developed.
The RFD for other solid leasable minerals for the life of the plan will be a maximum of three exploration permits issued, resulting in a maximum of six exploration holes drilled, with minerals found but not in sufficient a quantity or quality to anticipate development. Each exploratory drilling will disturb 5 to 7 acres, including any access roads. Maximum area of disturbance will be 42 acres for roads and pads, which will be reclaimed.
Locatable Minerals
The RFD for locatable minerals will be three to five new exploration level notices submitted per year for 20 years that will disturb a maximum of 5 acres per notice. There will be 5 to 10 new small locatable mineral operations developed over the life of the plan, which will disturb approximately 20 acres at each operation. There may be one large mine that may disturb 200 to 300 acres. The total estimated disturbance related to new mining exploration and operations over the life of the plan is 1,000 acres.
Land Use Allocations
Saleable Mineral Resources
MI- 1 . Community pits will be authorized on a case-by case basis.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
42
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
|
MI-2. |
No new or expansion of existing mineral material disposal sites will be |
|
authorized in the Swansea Townsite, cultural sites and areas, and site complexes managed for Conservation for Future Use, Traditional Use, and Public Use. |
|
|
MI-3. |
No new or expansion of existing mineral material disposal sites will be authorized in the Aubrey Hills and the Cactus Plain WSA. |
|
MI-4. |
No new or expansion of existing mineral material disposal sites will be authorized in riparian areas. |
|
MI-5. |
No new or expansion of existing mineral material disposal sites will be authorized in desert tortoise Category I habitat. |
|
MI-6. |
No new or expansion of existing mineral material disposal sites will be authorized in the Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural ACEC and the Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural ACEC. |
|
MI-7. |
No new or expansion of existing mineral material disposal sites will be authorized in Open off-highway vehicle (OHV) Areas. |
|
MI-8. |
Mineral material development will only be authorized on lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics when there will be no lasting impacts to solitude, unconfmed recreation, and naturalness. |
|
MI-9. |
The total area open to mineral material disposal is 1 ,044,027 acres, and 299,297 acres are restricted from mineral development as shown in Map 16. |
Leasable Mineral Resources
|
MI- 10. |
The entire planning area, outside of wilderness areas, will be open to mineral |
|
leasing for exploration and development. Conditions of approval and special stipulations will be developed and incorporated as part of any operational permit after site-specific environmental analyses are completed and documented per NEPA. Stipulations will mitigate impacts to special status species, cultural areas, and other resources affected by leasing-related activities. |
|
|
MI-11. |
Surface occupancy for mineral leases will not be permitted on the Cactus Plain WSA. |
|
MI-12. |
Surface occupancy for mineral leases will not be authorized on the cultural resource sites and site complexes managed for Conservation for Future Use, Traditional Use, and Public Use. |
|
MI-13. |
Surface occupancy for mineral leases will be prohibited within 0.25 mile of the Bill Williams and Colorado Rivers and within the riparian zone of the Three Rivers Riparian ACEC. |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 43
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
|
MI-14. |
Surface occupancy for mineral leases will be permitted on lands managed to |
|
MI-15. |
maintain wilderness characteristics when there will be no lasting impacts to solitude, unconfined recreation, and naturalness. 69,123 acres are restricted with a no surface occupancy stipulation as shown in Map 17. |
Locatable Mineral Resources
|
MI- 16. |
Approximately 200 acres of the Swansea Townsite will be recommended for |
|
withdrawal. |
|
|
MI-17. |
The riparian area of the Three Rivers Riparian ACEC will be recommended for withdrawal, which covers 238 acres. |
|
MI-18. |
Recommend for withdrawal approximately 185 acres within the Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural ACEC. |
|
MI-19. |
Recommend for withdrawal approximately 10 acres to protect the Incline Railway in the Harcuvar Mountains. |
See Map 1 8 for areas recommended for withdrawal.
Monitoring
Monitoring minerals activities consists of periodic field inspections that ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and site-specific authorizations. Findings for each inspection are documented and placed in the case file. The number of sites inspected and the number of sites in compliance will be reported in the Annual Planning Update Report and Summary.
Paleontological Resource Management
Desired Future Conditions
|
GL-1. |
Paleontological resources will be managed for their scientific, educational, and recreational values, and adverse impacts to these resources will be mitigated. |
|
GL-2. |
The BLM will preserve and protect significant vertebrate paleontological resources for present and future generations. Scientifically significant invertebrates (to be determined by a qualified paleontologist) will also be protected. |
Land Use Allocations
GL-3. The Golden Shores mammoth site and the Chemehuevi Formation localities will be managed for their scientific values.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
44
May 2007
Map 16 Saleable Minerals
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
TQ4N
T03N
T02N
T01N
TQ1S
T02S
Lake ' Mohave
Nevada
KINGMAN
BULLHEAD
LAKE HAVASU ► CITY
Alamo
iVjohave Lake
Scmta
La Paz / Gounty Swansea Townsite
PARKEf
AGUILA
ENDEN
Public Lands Open to Saleable Minerals • 1,044,027 BLM acres excluding the following areas (299,297 BLM acres):
I I Wilderness
I I Wilderness Study Area
ra Desert Tortoise Category 1 Habitat Riparian Areas Em Beale Slough ACEC r~m Bullhead Bajada ACEC m Swansea Townsite - 200 BLM acres OHV Open Areas I I Aubrey Hills
^■•Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid
L.. : ' Interstate Highways
US and State Highways Rivers and Canals I I Lakes
Lake xj Ha\^asii
R21E
R22
San ^rnardino County Riverside County j
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
A
0 5 10 20 Miles
0 5 10 20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
R13W R12W R11W R10W
PL A N N I N G Vl-we ARE,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Map 17 Leasable Minerals
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Lake I Mohave
Nevada
KINGMAN
BULLHEAD
CITY
LAKE HAVASU
Three Rivers Riparian ACEC riparian areas fli
Alamo Lake A
Mohave:
Goi^yr:
BUI William^ River \
^ La Paz ^ f County. Swansea Townsite
•PARKER
AGUILA
lENDEN
Public Lands Open to Leasable Minerals • 1,222,841 BLM acres excluding the following areas:
I I Wilderness
No Surface Occupancy - 69,323 BLM acres I I Wilderness Study Area
1/4 mile from the Colorado and Bill Williams Rivers imi Three Rivers Riparian ACEC - riparian areas only mm Swansea Townsite - 200 BLM acres MHkLake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid ■' ■■ interstate Highways
US and State Highways
- FLivers and Canals
I I Lakes
Lake
Havasu
R21E
SanBernardino County Riverside County ~m
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
A I ' 'i •' I ' — '
AA 0 5 10 20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
R13W R12W R11W R10W
PLANNING>:prEt?."'^i AREA^Pb'
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Map 18 Locatable Minerals
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Lake
Mohave
Nevada
KINGMAN
BULLHEAD
CITY
Bullhead Bajada
LAKE HAVASU I CITY
Lakey%
Havasu
Three Rivers Riparian ACEC riparian areas fi
Alamo
Lake^
'iWilliams River (
Mottave
La Paz ' .Coiio4i_. Swansea Townsite
'PARKER
San Bgrnardino County
Inclined
Railway
AGUILA
WENDEN
Areas Withdrawn - 188,662 BLM acres
I I Wilderness
EZD Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawn Lands EUD Bureau of Reclamation Acquired Lands
Areas Recommended for Withdrawal •
mil Swansea Townsite - 200 BLM acres
Three Rivers Riparian ACEC - riparian areas only - 238 BLM acres
★ Bullhead Bajada - 185 BLM acres
★ Inclined Railway - 10 BLM acres ^^^•Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary County Boundaries
Township Grid Interstate Highways ■■■■" US and State Highways Rivers and Canals [ I Lakes
B'. I
Riverside Coiinty
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
TUN
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
N 0
A
10
10
I
n
20 Kilometers
20 Miles _l
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
GL-4. Areas will be classified according to their potential to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. These classifications will be based on future inventory of geological units and will be accomplished through adaptive management and plan maintenance. There are four such classifications ranging from Class 1 (low sensitivity) to Class 4 (high sensitivity), shown in Table 6 below.
|
Table 6. Paleontological Resource Classifications |
|
|
Classification |
Definition |
|
Class 1 (Low sensitivity) |
Igneous and metamorphie geologic units and sedimentary geologic units where vertebrate fossils or uncommon non- vertebrate fossils are unlikely to occur. |
|
Class 2 (Moderate sensitivity) |
Sedimentaiy geologic units that are known to contain or have unknown potential to contain fossils that vary in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence. |
|
Class 3 (Moderate sensitivity) |
Areas where geologic units are known to contain fossils but have little or no risk of human-caused adverse impacts and/or low risk of natural degradation. |
|
Class 4 (High sensitivity) |
Areas where geologic units regularly and predictably contain vertebrate fossils and/or uncommon non-vertebrate fossils, and are at risk of natural degradation and/or human-caused adverse impacts. |
GL-5. Fossil localities will be identified and managed in accordance with their
scientific, educational, and recreational values through the life of the plan. All vertebrate fossils and noteworthy invertebrate and plant fossils will be managed for their scientific values. Common invertebrate and plant fossils will be available for recreational collecting.
Management Actions
No Management Actions were identified.
Monitoring
A long-term monitoring program will consist of the annual visitation to Golden Shores
Mammoth site to identify adverse impacts, if any. The same approach would apply to
other significant localities identified in the future.
Rangeland Management/Grazing
See Appendix H.
Desired Future Conditions
GM-l . Provide forage on a sustained yield basis for livestock consistent with meeting Land Health Standards and multiple use objectives. Healthy, sustainable
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
45
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
rangeland ecosystems will be maintained or improved to meet Land Health Standards (Arizona’s Standards for Rangeland Health [1997a]); and produce a wide range of public values such as wildlife habitat, livestock forage, recreation opportunities, clean water, and functional watersheds.
GM-2. Livestock use and associated management practices will be conducted in a
manner consistent with other multiple use needs and objectives to ensure that the health of rangeland resources is preserved or improved so that they are productive for all rangeland values. Where needed, public rangeland ecosystems will be improved to meet objectives.
Land Use Allocations
GM-3. A total of 1,359,765 acres will be allocated for livestock grazing use as follows:
1,121,701 acres as Available 238,064 acres as Unavailable
Note that acreage is included in allotments managed by neighboring Field Offices (Kingman and Yuma). See Map 19.
Management Actions
GM-4. Guidelines for grazing administration apply to all livestock grazing activities on BLM-administered-lands.
Monitoring
A majority of the perennial/ephemeral allotments have monitoring studies established at key areas. Monitoring data collected includes climatic information, actual use, utilization, and trend in condition. These studies will continue to be collected periodically, as necessary to ensure that current grazing management continues to meet or is making progress towards existing goals and objectives.
All grazing allotments within the Approved RMP area will be assessed in accordance with the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health prior to October 1, 2009. If the assessment finds that an allotment does not meet or is not making significant progress to meet the Land Health Standards, management actions to correct the deficiency will be implemented in accordance with the grazing regulations at 43 CFR 4100. During assessments, each allotment will be analyzed in relation to the criteria for classifying allotments as ephemeral, as enumerated in the Approved RMP.
Progress towards this commitment will be reported annually in the Annual Planning Update Report and Summary to the Field Office Manager.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
46
May 2007
Map 19 Grazing Management
R20E R21E
T21N
T20N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
TQ2S
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10
Air
I
10
_L
20 Miles
20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
'i
- • . . i. , '■• ' ’• ' ■ ’V' Al
....
■' ■ :):■.. . ' -
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Recreation Management
The plan addresses the BLM’s local, regional, and national goals (see Appendix I) for providing a wide range of opportunities for environmentally responsible recreation.
Outdoor Recreation on public lands will be managed through a societal benefits-based management approach to achieve specific targeted outcomes, with the goal to maintain a freedom of recreational choice with a minimum of regulatory constraints. Where the nature of the resource attracts concentrated or intensive recreational use, public lands may be managed as a SRMA. These are areas where the BLM focuses specific management, funding, and planning to provide for the best possible recreation experience while protecting, sustaining, and enhancing the environmental resources of these areas.
A framework for each SRMA’s activity plan can be found in Appendix B under Administrative Actions.
Specific management direction in a SRMA is devised to provide public enjoyment, resource protection, and public health and safety. Within SRMAs, RMZs have been identified to provide better site-specific planning and management. Although identified in this document, the RMZs are subject to minor adjustment during future implementation-level planning to account for the environmental and visitor use flux that occurs. In addition, new or adjusted management/administrative actions may be developed in specific SRMA activity plans. The BLM also manages recreation in the area outside of SRMAs; this area is known as the Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). There are no RMZs in ERMAs because these are by definition areas that do not receive focused, specific recreation program management.
Prescribed recreation settings or recreation management objectives are best summarized by six recreation settings or classes: Primitive, Semi-Primitive, Rural Natural, Rural Developed, Suburban, and Urban (see Appendix I). Each class prescribes an experience, setting, and potential activities as well as desired societal outcomes. Lake Havasu Field Office will manage public lands to maintain or meet these prescribed recreation settings (see Map 20).
Tables 7a through 7g describe the desired future conditions by the SRMA and RMZ. The description of desired future conditions under the Approved Plan includes:
■ Primary market strategy.
■ Market composition.
■ The niche specific to the RMZ.
■ Detailed description of specific management objectives for the RMZ.
■ The type of primary activities the public could expect to find within the RMZ.
■ A list of experiences, benefits, and settings for which the RMZ will be managed.
■ Potential outcomes for which the RMZ will be managed.
Desired future conditions for the ERMA appear in Table 7h.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
47
May 2007
Desired Future Conditions
c
TO
0.
c
TO
E
TO
O)
TO
C
TO
3
O
TO
TO
q:
■O
TO
>
O
CL
Q.
<
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 48
Map 20 Prescribed Recreation Settings
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Lake 1 Mohave
Nevada
KINGMAN
lakB-haIasu
Mohave County Alam
Santa
Paz Countyf
AGUILA
;nden
Prescribed Recreation Settings
(applies to BLM-administered lands) ] Primitive
I 1 Semi-Primitive
I I Rural Natural
Rural Developed HH Suburban
Urban
■■ALake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid
! Interstate Highways
US and State Highways County Roads — Paved
Maintained Unpaved Rivers and Canals I I Lakes
R21E
San Bernardino County Riverside County U
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
A I ' '' '' ' ' — '
r \ 0 5 10 20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
PLANNING
AREA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Map 21 Lake Havasu Field Office Recreational Management Areas
R20E R21E
Lake I Mohave
Nevada
KINGMAN
BULLHEAD
CITY
Colorado
River
Nature
Center
SRMA
Havasu
Urban
ISRMA
lakeIuavasu
CITY
Lake^
Havasu
Parker
Strip
SRMA
Lake*l
Havasi
SRMA
R25E .
Alam'
MohayeioA-e j County
Santa
nil Willies
River
LJ La Paz Swansea County SRMA
(a'PA^I
Gibraltar V SRMA '
Plomosa
SRMA
AGUILA
lENDEN
T21N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T07N
T16N
T06N
T15N
T05N
T14N
T04N
T13N
T03N
T12N
T02N
T11N
WIN
T10N
W1S
T09N
W2S
T08N
Special Recreational Management Areas
n
I 1 (Different shades are used to separate adjoining
I J SRMAst
Extensive Recreational Management Areas
Extensive Recreational Management Areas ^^WLake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid
i Interstate Highways
US and State Highways County Roads Paved
— Maintained Unpaved
Rivers and Canals
Lakes
R21E
R22
San_B^ernardino County Riverside County h
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision / V*TTi^jfey
Approved Resource Management Plan
20 Miles
I
20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
R12W R11W R10W
Arizona
Table 7a. Colorado River Nature Center SRMA (See Map 21)
Benefits Community/Social:
■ Greater community valuation of its ethnic diversity
c
CL
c
(U
E
0)
O)
ro
c
(0
in
0)
QC
"D
0)
>
O
o
lU
lid
o
"O
c
C3
C3
OJ
a>
L-i
O
c
o
(U
c
iJ
E
s
o
u
'>
c
u
a
C3
C
C
a
c
_o
4-J
C«
(U
o
(U
6J0 ^ O
C3
CL
O
a
i/i
T3
0>
in
-o
C
03
£"
a
in
Lh
<U
C
o
03 o3 <U 0> Lx Lx
o o
£
o
s
O
U
U
<u
_2
03
>
■c
(U
CL
O
Lx
CL
"O
<U
in
c3
<U
Lx
o
C
Lx
Ox
a D
•o
(U
N
a
03
-C
O
(U
C3
Lx
a
03
z;
C3
cs:;
C
CO
c
.O
c:
o
O
Sx.
CD
o
2
CD
•C
O
D)
.C
CD
CO
£
OJ
CO
c
o
u
'4—*
c
<u
o > c3 a
§ J
s £
cd
a
c3
z
p
(U
o
’E
u
CO
>
c
<u
c/:3
<L>
03
X-x
c
o
U
<U C
a
I i
‘T CO
c
<u
CO
(U
_N
ia
CL
3
O
L<
a
<L»
CO
a
03
z
D
C-x
o
(U
o
c
o
a
w
(U
CO
o
03
PL
"3
C
o3
a
Lx
a
a
c
oT
o
03
Clc
C/3
c
(U
D,
o
C
0)
o
Q.
<D
4=
c/5
'o
C
<L>
DX)
13
o
o
D- ^ .& O x: ’C
^ 03
QJ CJ C (D
a ^ ^ §■ o
ci: p in 3
a o
o a
CL a
CL -3
o 3
CO
CD
S
o
o
3
O
C
CD
S*..!
o
CL
-P
E'
D
C
L»
CJ
in
Lx
D
_>
c5
o
T3
03
Lx
a
u
C-x
o
a
<L)
E
_o
’5^
0>
a
g
o3
(D
c/5
P
I
03
X)
03
C
0 *s
a o
u g:
T3 O
g ^ pp a
a ^
m a
1
t ^
4-4 ^
c/5
^ > <u >
8 ^
in O o3 'x3 CU _c3
a
OJ
P lx
a ^
^ CL C/ 03
CD
-C
CJ
03 .3
03
|
3 OJ |
Pi |
|
O |
C/5 |
|
-4— » |
IS |
|
C/5 '4—* |
H |
|
a |
|
|
0> 3 |
03 O |
|
c/5 |
4 |
|
o |
03 |
|
o |
|
|
>X -3 |
|
|
X—* |
■4— • |
|
a |
|
|
3 |
* ^ |
|
3 |
(D |
|
3 |
S |
|
o |
O |
|
CJ |
o |
|
Lx |
|
|
o |
c/5 |
|
3L |
o |
|
in • E |
o 4( P |
|
a |
O C/5 O |
|
a |
Uh |
|
3 |
|
|
o |
P |
|
CL |
O |
|
CL |
+-* |
|
O |
'P |
|
CD |
o |
|
a |
OS) |
|
'> |
-S |
|
O Lx |
•4—' o |
|
CL |
4) ■4— » |
|
O |
o |
|
u> |
|
|
<U |
Oh |
|
3 |
(U |
|
O |
|
|
N |
|
|
in |
a
p O
CD
O
.CD
a'
o
c
CD
5
CD
CD
CD
c
CD
1^
o
o
CM
>S
CD
Primary Activities ■ Wildlife watching
■ Fitness activity (routine walking/running)
■ Picnicking
■ River/beach access
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 5Q
Table 7b. Lake Havasu SRMA (See Map 22)
Desired Future Conditions for Lake Havasu Special Recreation Management Area are as:
C
i5
CL
c
0)
E
CD
O)
(C
c
CD
CD
O
k.
3
o
(J)
CD
QC
CD
>
O
L.
a
n
C
0
E
0
U)
CD
c
CD
■o
c
CD
3
CD
0
3
CQ
0>
Q
G
O
‘Bb
0)
G
C3
>
c3
E
(D
u
0)
>
"O
G
c3
0-H
o
G
0)
r2
0)
CD
?
CO
Q)
CO
CO
5
0)
CO
o
G.
G.
O
c
_o
'(— » o3 G
kH
O
<D
k-
T3
G
C3
O)
<U
>
<u
o
k-r
G
O
(U
c
Ij
kH
o
g:
CO
-a
c
C3
G
M
eg
<L>
C
o
G
_o
-k-*
<U
kk
O
0)
kk
<D
a
_G
’o
>
_G
(50
«50
G
G
G
3
3
LL
■o
.9^
55
Q .o
DC p
GO O
a
0>
cn
c/3
G
T3
0>
W)
CQ
G
G
a
"g
kk
(U
G
<u
(50
(U
kG
a
.2"
le
(50
G
O
CO
G
O G
i'G
'O 00
§1
u rs
0> ^
^ P
-§ Gk "(D
o> -Is
a
« -C Q Ok
fU
o
G
_0J
‘kk
<u
Gk
X
G
>
(50
c
15
G
G
(50
G
G
<u
o
t/3
"O
0>
(50
(50
a
(50
_G
‘C
G
O
>
ffi
O
"O
G
G
(50
G
a
0)
-c
CJ
N
Cik ‘
•c
^ C50 G
Gk 3 cq k-T O 3
Q)
>
O
,<D
S'
O
c:
CD
S
CD
O)
CO
c
CO
CO
CO
G
O
(50 00 G
3 G
(50
G
'.5
kk
G
O
>
E
O
Gi!
o
G
Gk
kX
o
G
m
(50 ,G
CO "G
G
a O
I
-G G
■-5 G
O
CO
E
<u
Gk
G
O
CO
'O
G
G
a
G
G
|
V3 |
0> kH |
G 'kk G Gk |
C/3 -4-H |
|
|
0) ■j— ' |
0> |
a c |
G |
|
|
o c |
> |
c o |
||
|
c3 |
0 |
'G |
o |
CL |
|
T3 |
G |
CO G |
c/3 0) |
|
|
c |
73 |
(50 |
<u |
kH |
|
0 |
C3 0) |
G |
CO |
|
|
c/3 |
13 c |
15 G |
"g |
0 TD |
|
13 |
1 |
O |
h |
|
|
c/3 |
o |
-X |
0.) kG |
0) |
|
i:tO |
c/3 kH |
CO |
> |
|
|
Ch |
0) |
kk |
0) |
|
|
Oh |
(50 |
(50 |
CJ) |
|
|
CL |
b£) |
_c |
c |
o |
|
> |
O 'j— * |
o |
‘C o |
*Bh 0 |
|
c/3 |
> |
O |
||
|
0) |
0> |
"a |
G |
c/3 |
|
Q |
H |
w |
(jO |
w |
CO
0
o
C
0
c:
0
§
h-.
O
O
CT\i
>,
CD
LT)
C
_CD
Q_
c
0
E
0
0
c
0
0) O
o 5,
!t 05
0 ^
O 0
g °
1 E
^ 8
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 52
Map 22 Lake Havasu Special Recreation Management Area
R25E
U5N
m.5N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T13N
T12N
T1 iN
R26E
R27E
R18VV
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0
A
1 2 3
I 1 1 |i I i|
5 Miles
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
May 2007
■ •*
c
ro
CL
■D
0)
>
o
a
a
<
*0
c
cc
O
3
(D
0
u
3
00
r-*.
o
o
CsJ
>>
03
00
10
c
i5
CL
c
0
E
0
O)
0
c
0
,0 (/)
^ <1^
o ^
lo
iT-S
W Q
5
ro ° X E <u o ^ o
_l Qi
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 54
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
CM
CM
a
CO
0)
0
CO
0^
CO
3
(/)
(0
>
0
X
0
0
0
0
H
3
Di
cS
T3
<L»
(50
cd
C
s
C3
Vh
<u
fi
OJ
CO
<D
k.
3
I
N
T3
c .5 o > U 6
!U S
b
3 ^ b (U
tS ^
T3 (U p T3
♦-4 • t-H
S o Q a
<u
-O
s
0>
e
'C
C3
e
3
a
o
Dh
o
S'
X
o
Ch
tu
c«
o
Ij
c
<L>
(D
3
CT"
(D
"O
C
3
C
<L>
s
o
'5"
OJ
,o ^
s § s
CO S 3 O
.3 3
§
CO
c: u
"S
o
t/1
CD
>
s3
O
.<y>
-o’
o
c
O)
S
CL)
D)
Ct3
c:
CO
CO
(U
■>
,<u
3 t3
<U (U 3 3
or .b W tlH
CO
_3
3
3
ffi
<u
o
3
3
3
-3
3
"3
3
O
cn
;-H
<U
3h
CO
3
<u
H
<u
3.
3
O
</3
33
3
3
B
3
3
O
3
0)
CO
3
■>^
_o
'B
w
3
_o -(— » 3
S-i
3.
X
3
b
3
rs
'3
CO
3
3
CO
_3
O
’B
w
3
3,
3
3
c/2
"O
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
_3
‘C
3
3.
X
3
o
c/2
3
3
3
b
CO
^3
'C
o
>
3
GO
3
B
O
</)
3
Pk
o
S'
CD
5
CO
CO
o
c
CL)
c:
CL)
d)
o
c/^ O
CO
H«w
cc:
CD
c:
CD
CO
h-
o
o
CN
>N
CD
E
CD
O)
CD
c
CD
0) O O CO
az <0 O ^
?l
o
3 0)
CO Q
(0 u_
3 ° 3 O
sx O
■ Improved physical fitness and health maintenance
Community/Social:
■ Heightened sense of satisfaction with the community
■ Feeling that this community is a special place to live
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 55
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 57
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 53
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
N.
O
O
CN
c
0
E
0
O)
CO
c
(0
1.0 3 a>
o R
v' O _i CL
Maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation-tourism market niche or character Increased property values
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 00
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 0-|
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 02
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
h-
o
o
CN
>%
03
CO
CO
c
CL
c
CD
E
CD
O
03
c
03
OJ O o CO
O ^ 2 §
o
13 0) W3 Q
^ ° X E
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 04
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
CM
CM
Q.
re
0)
0)
CO
(0
3
re
re
>
re
o
re
n
h-
0
re
H
cd
a
c2
T3
(U
CiX)
ca
c
K!
E
k-.
flj
c
D
bO
<u
X)
N
Vi
C3
>
«
ffi
&b
c
C8 •-
J ^
o
C 0> O X
’■w
0)
^ rs
o > U 2
(U & 3 2
O X .« w
C/5 >
(U D
Q Q
o
C3
Oh
S
3
X
00
U
o
c/2
C3
>
K!
ffi
<L»
X
ca
hJ
>>
X
X
<u
X
'>
o
3^
■>< 2 o
O. CQ
2^ - 3 3
o ^
|
Q-) |
(L> |
|
;is C/5 Cd |
cd C cd c |
|
Dh |
S |
|
g |
|
|
3 |
o |
|
00 _c |
■4-^ o JO |
|
3 |
<D |
|
o |
|
|
m |
Cd |
CD
-C
o
o
X
(U <L)
3 S=i
JS o
OJ N
ICO
<U X
c ■£
c cu
s
D o c
K!
X
c
"a/
2 M X
o 53 S
X o ITS
=3 CO
c ^
■ o
(?3
(D
cd
^ O
0>
^ o <u o
'S 3
C5 ^
X .Oh
<U X
00
c
X
CO
X
<U
_c
3
kH
o
X
CO
cd
C
O
N
00
C X <U b
HH ®
2 CO
CO «
X 2
o 3
Vh C3
c ^
§ C)
CO -O Vh CO O 3
X o 2
> 3
3 g
Vi./ 'X
3 <
(U e X C
p 3 3 X
c ^ X X
o <u X
CO cd <U — "
X <u
3 3
X 3
O CO ° Oh
c s o 3
o
Oh O 3^
cd C
<u o o 3 2 X <L> iS
(U O
3 c
> X o c o
Oh o
3 ^
o X c 3 P > o
o 00 cd O cd
O CO d3 OX
p X X 1o
CO IHH
o
N
X
CO
<U (U 00 X cd •c:'
p 2
cd X
3
CD
.:o.
X
CD
.<1>
O
■+HH
c
CD
S
CD
CD
CD
c
CD
h3 g
3 o E P-
i.i
C X
o o X P
c -2
(U <u
3 O
o
^H I-l
X o
o
X
CO
t-H
o
o
s
00
.o
c3
o
OQ
3^
cd
00
3 3 3 X 3 o
X X
GO
CJ
b'
CD
E
0>
X
cd
CJ
C/5
-o
C
cd
o>
5 c <u >
X cd
00 S
C CJ
5
cd
O
o
X
cd
CJ CJ
_ cd
v> 0*^
.22 cd
!-( CJ
00 00
c c
0^
o
c c W X
CO
CD
CJ
c
CD
c:
CD
§
X .b
o
o
3
3
o
X
CJ
>
o
X
CJ
X
5
cd
o
CJ
X
o
CJ
X
CJ
o
c
cd
3
X
CJ
o
X
X
CJ
o
C/3
00
.c
X
c
0
X
-3
1
,cd
CJ
X
o
■w *-
^ «•»
g 3 u S
cd
CJ
a
|
o o |
fa CJ |
|
|
X ;3 |
> o |
c/5 |
|
o !-< |
X |
|
|
00 |
B |
|
|
X |
T3 |
|
|
CJ > o |
CJ |
(U O c |
|
CO |
cd |
|
|
X |
G— 1 |
G |
|
i-H |
X |
W |
o
u
s
o
c
u
i2
0)
c:
Q)
r^
o
o
CNJ
>.
03
Q_
*c
<D
E
0)
O)
03
c
03
0)
o
u.
CD O O (/) <D
See
il
o
U CD to Q CO H_
TO ° X ■D 0 O
v* O
Maintenance of distinctive recreation setting character
Table 7b. Lake Havasu SRMA (See Map 22)
Improved maintenance of physical facilities Reduced negative human impacts
C
TO
CL
C
(D
E
0
O)
TO
c
TO
0
O
D
O
CO
0
cl:
“O
0
>
o
CL
Q.
<
c
0
E
0
O)
TO
C
TO
■o
C
TO
TO
TO
0
TO
CO
O
c
o
o
D
15
c
o
*5h
Lh
C
c3
>> O
.t: o
o
fl
©
o
G
O
o
o
>
o
Lh
CL
s
1/3
c
_o
X)
■4— •
iTi
TO
O
D
CO
TO
CD
Lm
o
c
£;
C (U
p
I -
CL CL O
X O
TO
O
0>
CO
TO
<U
Lh
o
TO
TO
0
T3
O
'TD
TO
1
(U
rS
>
TO
D
Ln
o
CO
<u
o>
CO
TO
0)
O
TO
o
TO
TO
O
Lm
O
<D
-TO
CJ
1>
c3
'B
:3
-O o ■ b O
(U
13
>
u
D.
O
T3
<n
X)
kH
D
c
c3
-C
O
<u
2
>> S
JZ (U
CL. p:^
CO
c:
o
c
o
O
■S
o
2
CD
•C
O
02
.c
■4^
CD
CO
H)
c/2
C
o
U
c
<u
(U >
bD -r; TO
§6
g
S
c/2
O
C/2
>
C
cd
l-H
=3
-D
C/2
O
_g
C
o
U
"O
C14
_o
>
02
Q
”3
)-i
3
Qi
C
cd
XI
3
X
3
C/2
02
_N
C^
C2h
3
O
O
3
;z
c
3
X
3
X
3
C/2
02
o
C
02
■3
’>
w
<u
a-
_o
Ij
>
02
Q
3
Pi
X
02
I2
>
02
Q
"3
2-<
3 Pi
02 "3
3 r3
o
3
Ph
o
3
p
n.
a.
3
c
02
g
S
60
3 3 3
X
02
Ph
_o
02
>
02
X
X
6J2
3
O
c/3
02
X
'S 3
o
3 02
0^ p
‘S O c "2 § g
3 X
G
G 2 3 3
a .2
6 s
^ Lh
^ O V <1-*
.& X X 02
c/3 t/3
(-4 3
2 -9
3
G ^ P,
CO
CD
S
o
CJ
'4>w
O
O
c:
CD
O
0.
02
3 02 X
"O
02
u
pX)
3
02
O X 02
3 3
02
X
DD
3
O
3
CO
O
CO
CO
o
6J2
3
X
02
3
>
X
02
1/3
3 02
O
3
3
3
3
_o
'3-
3
3
O X
c/3
"3
02 "3
3 3 3 X 3
'3 3
3 _
c/3 g
fa 3 X 02
^ o
c/3 X 02
02 g
cn
^ -S
3
m
3
X
H
"3
3
6X)
3
3
3
3
3
3
60
3
X
3
O
CO
00
N
3
>•
3
K
3
Pi
3
hJ
!-i
c2
3
3
O
1 'i
o > U o
a ^
3 X
3 CC2
3 oS
-3 3 3 -3 5-^ •
’3 ^
02 O
Q 3-
X
DQ
3
X
6-.
X
X
3
60
3
3
3
3
a.
3
>
3
o
X
3
3
c2
(X
60
_s
TO
O
PQ
CD
-C
o
c/3
60
3 ■'5
C/3
3
.2 TD c/3 r-
2 .1 X ^
3
60
3
3 "G 3
3
GO
3
C
O
N
'C
<
X
o
3
3
X J
G X,
k- lQ 3
§-|
1!
s 2
X .2
CQ c/3 3 O
X 3 H ^
X
3 G
C20 G
<D q3 >
O X
U f
TO
TO
<L)
u §
>3 N 3 .2
X X
C X 3 O
•- C
N 2 .
*5 C 3
<637: ^ G •2 G -3
X G G
H a ^
CD
.X
CJ
.03
-O'
O
C
CD
a
CD
02
CD
C
CD
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 05
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 57
Table 7b. Lake Havasu SRMA (See Map 22)
Maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation-tourism market niche or character
C
CL
c
0)
E
CD
O)
TO
c
03
CD
O
D
O
(/)
0
q:
*o
0
>
o
Q.
CL
<
c
0
E
0
O)
(T3
C
03
■D
C
03
rj
03
0
D
CO
0>
>
(D
D.
o
d,
xt
(U
CO
(U
o
G
"O
u
o
c/5
C
C3
T3
<U
N
G
O
<u
G
G
X)
G
X
G
C/5
O
G
G
O
U
G
a
G
G
Pi
G
U
•S Q
X d
<u
Pi
CO
c
p
sG
P
c
o
O
V.
Ct>
Sw
o
2
CO
■c
o
03
p
o
CO
(U
GO
G
O
U
G
03
G > GO X G X
G
Ph
I
S
03
CO
O)
_o
G
GO
O
>
G
G
X
G
X
G
CO
03
_N
CO
d
G
O
!-(
o
6 a
G
a
G
X
G
GO
D
d
o
G
O
G
03
a
w
X
0)
d
"03
>
0)
Q
a
Ih
G
Pi
03
GO
O
G
d
d
_o
03
>
0)
X
o
X
X
G
G
(Z1
03
CJ
^ C
03 5
bO .2
X
G
O
"d
d
G
03
l-i
03
G
S
-4— >
o
X
03
d
G
G
03
S O
£ d
X g
O CD
in
(D
C 5-^
"S
G rj d
X C
X
S ^
Cd O r. (U
C/3
c3 ^ d ^
03 X
'4-J I
G 03
rli d!
CO ^ G ' ' G O o
N X
< §
a d
■5 G
B a
G J3
£
d g
on
cd
c
C3
X £
^ X
S a
d G P3 X
- Ln
2 o
a o
H 0
CO
CD
S
o
o
'4-0
O
O
a
c
CD
o
CL
bO
C3
G
d
£
c/3
C
O)
>
03
a
c/3
C
.2
ts
'Bh
CL
c3
GO
03
a
x
G
Vh
G
G
_C
G
O
G
X
P3
G
X
H
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 53
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 59
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
II
II
!!
o
c
iS
Q_
c
CD
£
0)
O)
03
c
CD
(1) O o
!t 0) 2 § ^ o
3 0) W Q
5
ro °
X E
^ 8
CO 0^
Jj ai
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 7-j
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 72
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
CM
a
(Z
Q>
<D
CO
0^
CO
a.
■ MB
CO
k.
O
L-
(Z
0.
u
h-
o
n
(Z
H
-O
c3
C
c3
(1>
CJ
C
c3
a
13
c
o
dj
Cl.
c3
o
c/3
C
c3
13
B
C3
C
O
<U
o
c
’C
«u
Cl.
g
b
o
c
&0 (D C on
C3
00
c
'B
_o
13
>
0>
Q
(D
u.
60
_C
(U
H
OJ
60 00
S
o
o
C'
W 00 l-Ll
-C
C3
t/3
<D
c
o
CIh
CO
u
C6
T3
OJ
>
(U
60
c
'B.
03
O
CO
QJ
O
C
CD
C
CD
§
CZ
0)
o
c
QJ
s
'B
<u
i-H
o
o
B
B
o
;-H
B
B
C3
i=l
0>
B
B
c/3
c
o
C/3
"O
(U
>
o
u
-is
cc
CD
c
CD
OQ
u
o
<y:
a
s
S
B
o
U
(U
C/3
t-M
T3
6)
O
c
C3
-C
C
W
o
c:
o
B
C6
Is
o
c
<u
-o
c
6)
Cl.
<u
_c
60
_c
(Z1
<j3
<U
kH
o
C
o
c6
Cl.
a
c
33
s
CS
<U
>
6)
cx
33
CJ
c/3
t3
C
33
B
;-H
B
33
c
6-1
o
c
o
o
(U
cx
T3 C
33 c/3 c/3
(D
c
Ki 6h 60 C3
C
"CD
(U ^ CJ cO CS <U
Pi B
O
S
O
U
u
-is
cc:
CD
C
CD
OQ
<u
CJ
-2
B.
33
-O
C3
<U
T3
(U
c/3
cd
<U
o
c
B
C3
B
Vh
3
fxi
T3
CD
_N
B
33
XC
CJ
QJ
6.
CL,
OJ
00
6
JS u Cu Pi
CO
c
o
c
o
o
CD
o
2
CD
■c
O
CD3
.C
'fw
CD
CO
CD
GO
O
6h
B
o
u
B
OJ
a dj
«u > 60
33 • — 33 .2
■C
ex
dJ
00
dJ
o
V
O)
>
5
cd
S
c3
|
ex |
|||
|
. Jx |
|||
|
dJ |
g |
||
|
_> |
dJ |
||
|
<D > |
C/D |
||
|
dj c/3 |
|||
|
5 |
|||
|
.S |
ex |
D |
|
|
Oh |
dj |
c-l— ( O |
|
|
N |
|||
|
c/3 |
C^ |
dJ o |
|
|
*s |
o C3 C |
ex es o |
c dJ B |
|
o |
O |
6. |
’> |
|
C/5 |
u |
o |
m |
o
c3
r^
o
o
CM
>.
CO
Potential Outcomes ■ Minimal improvements to aehieve targeted benefits, realize potential for solitude, unconfined primitive activities;
increased effort to manage unauthorized motor vehicle use.
■ Outfitting/guiding could be considered in certain situations.
c
TO
CL
c
CD
£
0
CD
TO
c
TO
3
O
C/)
0
QC
■D
0
>
O
Q.
<
C
0
E
0
D)
TO
C
TO
■D
C
TO
O
D
TO
0
CQ
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 74
c
0)
E
0)
05
ro
c
(0
0)
o
o
o
w
05
cc
•D
(15
>
O
Q.
Q.
<
CM
Q.
(0
0
0
CO
or
CO
0
0
0
c
0
CO
■
■o
h-
0
JQ
0
H
<L)
bO "O
(U
JO
03
S
o
b
a*
a.
|
Cd |
|
|
cd |
|
|
a |
a cd |
|
3 |
G |
|
0 |
D |
|
X3 -4— t |
|
|
<u |
|
|
cd |
|
|
JZ c/3 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
ti:; |
a |
|
c/3 |
|
|
0 |
G |
|
<D |
0 |
|
Oh |
|
|
C/3 |
G |
|
0-) |
|
|
u |
3 |
|
U |
u |
|
(U |
;-H |
|
0) |
|
|
03 |
c/3 |
|
D |
a u
s
o
<u
(U
(<— I
c
o
05
;-H
<u
Cu
O
<u
G .2
<u u
05 o
T3 05 O
c
C(3 JO
c w
s
3
E
S
o
U
c
05
E
05
05
CO
c
(0
CO
0)
c
CD
OQ
c
05
T3
s
3
s
e
o
o
05
4-<
O
(3D
_5
c
C3
05
'O
G
3
o
05
"3
3
'O
C
o3
u
05
JO
O
T3
3
c3
3
_o
ts
05
kH
05
05
3
05
e
05
o
>
_3
05
{X
CO
o
c/5
33
3
CO
s
3
3
O
3
_o
o
(U
o o.
.§ O 05 L, -r-i
05 05
.-3
c/5 3
Si
O
-t— *
.:£ 13
-3 3
3h '3 3
CO
3
CO
s
3
JO
05
>
'3
3
3
1/5
o a
C/5
3
3
(30 3
3
3
"3 3 3
3 T3 3
Oi
3
3
c/5
"S
3
e e
o
3 IDO
3 O
JO
C^-H
o
X>
3
3
TO 3 3
TO tS
05 3
pci GO
3 .3
e
o e o
3
u
c/5
3
TO
TO
3
c/5
3
3
)-H
3
3
3
3
3
X)
TO
3
3
c/5
3
3
3
_3
'C
3
C3
X
3
3
_o
3
3
3
3
k-
TO
3
3
3
(30
_3
■>
O
3h
c/5
3
3
kH
3
— TO O 3 IX
3 O 3
•rr c/5 CG i-H
3 -2
2 ^ S-( • 1— <
X)
cd
T3
<D
O
I
w
S
"O
<
3
O
CZ3
3
^3
’c/5
CO
c
,o
h3
c
o
O
■2
o
2
CD
-c
O
C35
c
:£
CD
CO
TO
3
X
'3
>
3
Q
3
pc;
2
a
3
"3
S-I
o
S-H
3
O
U
.3 ^
6
3
on
e
3
CO
3
3
3
o
U
TO
3
CO
_o
”3
>
3
Q
"3
3
p:i
TO
3
Co
I5
>
3
Q
lo
!-h
3
Pi
TO 3
3 3
N g
3 3
3 (30
JO 3
3 3
3 3 _
^ S >
3
CO
o
3
_N
Co
3
O
kH
a
TO
3
CO
_o
"S
>
3
Q
3
Pi
c/5
3
_3
*3
!-i
a
03
03
a
cd
:z
3
Pi
3
c/5
D
O-H
o
3
3
3
3
a
'>
w
TO
3
CO
I5
>
3
Q
a
;-H
3
Pi
3
3
Po
X
3
>
5-1
O
o
E
TO
3
_N
‘C
o
X
3
3
3
3
3
(30
3
3
3
e
t:
C-H
3
TO
3
c/5
3
3
S-H
3
3
X
3
3
3
X
X
3
H— *
3
(30
Vh
3
3
>
3
a
3
3
3
3
s
3
>
o
S-H
.1
a
a
3
CO
CD
S
o
C5
S
O
C
O
o
CL
h-
o
o
CNI
>N
ro
c
0
E
0
O)
0
c
0
3 o
o in
itz 3
O ¥ 2 § .5^ i
^ o
3 3 3 Q 5 «H- 3 °
X -g ^ 8 3^
Public education related to historic mining will be emphasized to realize desired benefits.
The development of interpretive trails will further achieve the targeted benefits and resource protection. Camping may be allowed.
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 70
Map 23 Gibraltar
Special Recreation Management Area
Shea Hills RMZ3
Gibraltar Special Recreation Management Area
JJHU Gibraltar SRMA
0 Recreation Management Zones ^^^PLake Havasu Field OfTice Planning Area Boundary County Boundaries
Township Grid
«■■■■■ US and Slate Highways Paved County Road - — - Unpaved County Road
Routes
Rivers and Canals
1 j Lakes
Land Status
Bureau of Land Management Indian Lands . Private State
_ _ i City, County, & State Park US Fish & Wildlife Service
t \ ; I
Buckskin Mesa / Of
RMZ4
MA ^
Cienega .->■ !
RMZ2
Gibraltar Wilderness RMZ 1
^ ,, Shea Road/ '^pshorne Wash RMZ 5
T11N
T10N
T09N
R19W
R18W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 1 2 3 4 Miles
A
4 Kilometers
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
Bureau of Land Management
R17W
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 77
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
O
O
CVJ
>^
TO
00
r^
c
0)
E
o
Ui
TO
c
TO
0) O o 5^
O ^
Si
u.
w o
_ 0) </> Q
5
ro ° X E
^ 8
Table 7e. Gibraltar SRMA (See Map 23)
■ Improved skills for outdoor enjoyment with others
Community/Social:
CD
O
w
D
O
(/)
<D
a:
TD
CD
>
O
a
Q.
<
c
<u
-a
|
C/3 |
|
|
a |
a |
|
t/3 |
a |
|
bO |
G |
|
_G |
C/3 |
|
+-H G G |
|
|
G Gh |
G G c |
|
G |
G |
|
G |
£ |
|
> |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
|
Gh |
<D |
|
s |
'4—* |
o
(D
T3
C
-2
Vh
0)
-G
T3
C
C
_o
(S
(U
kH
o
(U
o
bO
_C
c
K3
bO
"3
G
0
1
<2
a> 0)
"S 'S
«u <u
o o
(U
-o
G
G
o
G
Gh
6
G
G
S
G
-G
>
G
Gh
G
O
c/5
"G
G
G
"g
s
G
G
■h-i
O
G
_o
O
(U
Gh
"O
G
G
c/3
t/3
G
G
(U
Hi
bO
G
(U
g:
• G G G3 G
Sa 5
G,
"O G G
O
'C o
c/3
o bO G
G
o
t/3
G
G
O
o
<GI
o
|
13 |
G G |
cd |
’S |
|
|
c |
G |
<l> |
G |
c3 |
|
G |
dJ |
C/5 |
c |
|
|
£ |
0 P |
0> |
0 |
3 |
|
c |
G |
G |
C/D |
|
|
0 |
(D |
dJ |
||
|
G '> s |
a |
a |
00 |
|
B
o
s
o
u
u
o
c/3
"G
<D
G,
'o>
>
(D
Q
"g
G
cg;
5 D
"O
(U
_N
'g
G
g:
o
<D
T3
G
Gh
_o
>
(U
Q
G
Oi
o
G
O
U
't— »
G
G
e
(U
bJO
G
G
G
"O
lU
Gh
_o
Ij
>
G
Q
”g
c§
o
G
G
O
u
GJ
G
Gh
_o
"S
>
OJ
Q
G
OJ
G
(U
o
s
G
Pil
G
G
-G
tH
G
-O
G
CO
c/3
(D
O
't
(D
C/^
O
S S >
c3
a
c3
(U
_N
'do
Gh
G
O
kH
o
"O
o>
Gh
_o
a
>
0>
Q
a
kH
G
cg!
<u
a
S-H
a
G
G
a
G
c§
<D
c/3
P
C-H
o
<L»
O
G
(U
a
w
"G
<u
Gh
_o
a
>
(U
Q
a
Vh
S
o
G
P-H
!G
<u
G
<D
JG
•G
a
a
bO
G
<U
>
<U
a
o
G
G
s
OJ
>
o
i-H
Gh
s
G
G
-G
o
a
G
G
G
hO
-G
G
S-H
c/3
G
TG
G
_N
a
G
Gt
G
+-*
G
G
G
G
O
G
G
hO
hG
o
G
G
G
G
G
G
"G
G
hG
G
Oh
G
_o
'h-h
G
G
-HH
o
S-H
Gh
G
G
G
O
c/3
G
S-H
Gt
C
G
eG
G
G
G
hO
G
G
-HH
G
bJO
G
G
4- H
G
>
_G
a
G
G
5- H
G
G
■c
a
bX)
G
S
^ -G
G
G
H
G'
,>
G
S-H
&
(D
a.
S
CC
o
a
G
G
a
a
G
G
4-h
o
c
G
6 G Gh G
^ a
a a
> ^ G G
c3
dj
<
00
C
O
t3
c
o
O
S-H
Q)
o
CO
-c
O
Co
.c
-4^
Cl)
CO
CO
0)
s
o
o
3
o
TO
c:
Cl)
4^
O
CL
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 79
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
CO
CM
a
(0
o>
o
CO
0^
CO
(Q
L-
n
5
0)
h-
0
n
c
'T3
tu
173
c
03
e
(U
C
(D
bfl
<u
S
3 . .
Ph M
"O .S
(U
o
c
_a>
Th
<u
o.
X
OJ
13
c
o
t3
o
lU
03
bfi
tifl
C
c
(U
o
1/3
T3
m
M
M
s
bO
_C
'C
o
>
X
o
"O
c
03
bC
C
Ph
bO
|
«D TD |
o |
|
|
•4-^ |
||
|
> |
C3 |
|
|
P |
T3 |
o |
|
a- |
‘55} |
|
|
o |
3 |
0) |
|
C3 |
;-■ |
|
|
<D |
• S |
1 |
|
c |
cd |
C3 |
|
o |
||
|
N |
c/5 2 |
cd |
33 V3
■ S o
b) aj bX) 2 03
S M ^2 c
o
o ^ <U 03
G.
X
u
>
i-i .tb
2 P
03 -g 0) ^
<=0 CJ (U Jz; n O
^ s
<+H ^
O
(5X) G
■G C
tb 03 03 ^ c/3 C ^ <1> 2 o
03 b) <U
b "S
^ <u
03
b) „
^ -2 ^ s ^
c/5
2 o G
b)
bO > G
g:
(U
N
O b
s
b ■
Gh o ^
^ b
c/5
|
tJ} |
c3 |
V.\> |
G |
|
C |
c |
G |
0> |
|
0) |
o |
c3 |
Vh O 0) |
|
o |
*51} <D |
bO |
|
|
c/5 Ul |
G |
no |
|
|
O |
"O |
G |
0) |
|
-t— * |
G |
c/5 |
G |
|
c/5 |
G |
0) |
|
|
*> |
c/5 ■J— • |
G o |
|
|
G |
G |
O |
|
|
0> T3 |
a |
G G |
2i O
-p }-H
I ^
^ S C
G. I §■ £
-rt °
r2 tH
b c/3
Gh (1)
O 3
■g G G a3 bO -G G G
« I s §-
CD
O
.0)
S'
O
c
CD
S
0)
O)
Ct3
c
Ct5
G. G ^ G. O <u ^ ■ >
"G G
G -O
(T3 £ bJ) _G
S S
bO ^
^ G G
O
5 ^
G
bX)
G
E ^ a
o •
^ c/5
2^ G -
.£ >
£ ^
G Gb
^ 2
G !±b ,
2 b) G
G G 'G
G
G
£
G,
_o
"g
>
O
o
b
CO
S
G3
G
bX)
G
a.
o
G
>
G
Q
G
G
G
G
G
G
-G
G
G
13
G
O
G
G
G
G.
bX)
G
G
G
a
G
G
>
"G
G
bX)
c
G
I
-X
G
G-
G
G
C/3
"G
G
G
3
G
G
G
O
G
H
G G G G
Xi
c/3
.32 G ^ G
bJD bX)
.£ .£ o o '3 '3 w u
CO
CO
o
c
CO
C:
CO
§
b-
O
o
CM
>v
CD
C
0
E
0
O)
CD
c
CD
0 O
G O O M it G
2 §
..92 I
o
=J G W Q
5 -
X S o o G
CL
Escaping everyday responsibilities for awhile
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
N.
O
O
CVJ
>%
CD
00
c
0)
E
CD
O)
CD
c
CD
CD o O CO
o ^
II
^ o
13 0) Cfl Q
^ o
■p <D o
CD
Table 7e. Gibraltar SRMA (See Map 23)
RR-23 Desired Future Conditions for Gibraltar RMZ 4 - Buckskin Mesa will be generally managed for Semi-Primitive
providing the following:
c
CL
c
0)
E
(D
05
5
c
(U
>
T3
C
_o
(U
S-H
o
<u
T3
C
<U
&£)
C
(U
13
JO
o
(U
0
S
1
(D
>
'O
(U
o
cS
iO
o
_o
X
<u
>
o
c
ao
c
<u
H
0>
-c
o
T3 OJ U N SO -JI!
O t- <U ^
JO O -O <U JO — . p O
O ^
JO c ^
^•2 b
« S >
^ J-H ,
O ^
Q (1) O
^ ^
■-rt '03 ^
^ (L> <U
"O to J3
S ^
03 c tO O •2 c
13 =3
Cl ks
X v5 (U M — <D SO
O 2 ^ -P Cin
C ^
|
<D CiS) |
<u p |
|
C3 |
o |
|
bO |
N |
|
a |
c/5 |
|
D |
|
|
o |
■4—' |
|
•S |
|
|
c/5 |
|
|
o |
c/5 .2 |
|
'c/5 |
|
|
> |
'p |
|
s |
|
|
2 |
T-( o |
|
in |
p- |
|
03 |
Ps |
|
o |
|
|
'2 |
|
|
■P |
■4— » |
|
o |
'p |
|
CL |
^p |
|
CL |
’C |
|
O |
Ph |
|
03 |
• ^ |
|
'O |
£ |
|
’> |
<u c/5 |
|
o |
|
|
)-( |
(U |
|
CL X |
|
|
O |
|
|
03 |
|
|
SO |
d) |
|
o |
(Z5 |
|
N |
0> |
|
Vh |
|
|
in |
Oh |
|
X |
|
|
C/5 |
|
|
03 |
d) |
|
ao |
*P |
|
CO |
|
|
so |
|
|
cO |
-4-* |
|
s |
o cb |
o
13
3
ao
<u
"O
so
o3
CL
>
"O
L<
o
so
<u
o
so
.*33
'C
03
CL
CL
CJ
Lh
O
■4^
o
CD
-o'
O
C
Q)
S
CD
03
CO
c
CD
ao
S
o
ao
so
ao -2
S > § :^ E E E O
ao _g ao ^
S 2)
^ s
03
CL
03
Lh
ao
o
o
JO
CL
-O
C
03
ao
_c
'S
<u
in
Jc
ao
S >
cj
CD
E
03
O
SO
03
-o
SO
03
CL
03
'O
_c
O
SO
03
"O
SO
03
CL
03
"O
_c
•a
c
03
-o
03
03
03
SO
03
Lh
P
-o
CO
03
13
c
o
c/3
)-i
03
CL
ao
CO
03
TO
CO
03
J.C
in
ao
c
‘Dk
_o
>
03
Q
o
in
ao
_c
"03 X)
03
03
5= "S
C33 ."S
S
03
03
Lh
ao
03
3 O X 03
ao 73 c o
03
c
_03
'C
03
CL
X
w
o
ao
ao
"S
03
X
03
CL
03
03
c/>
73
SO
JO
13
Lh
5
o3
SO
03
L-i
O
03
O
c
_03
'C
03
CL
X
03
b
O
in
SO
03
in
03
X
ao
'C
o
>
ca
DO
CO
CD
CJ
c:
CD
C:
CD
§
a
SO:
CD
C
CD
E
§
^ 73 O 03 03
03
ao
so
03
03
in
O
6 X
SO
03
L-i
O
o
"5
o
in
CO
SO
o
in
t-i
03
CL
L-h
O
03
in
SO
03
T3 ~0
03 03
> ^
o S
L^ CO CL X
e ^
03
'>
O
'S
o
CL
CL
O
"O
03
>
o
U
o
CZ5
s
E
o
U
in
73
c;
CO
X
03
CL
so
o
>.
o
so
03
~o
c
03
CL
03
'T3
'c
3
SO
03
in
T3
03
an
L-
03
"c
w
S
03
E
s
o
u
’>
s
U
C3
CO
CL
J3
X
3
CL
■C3
C
03
c:
03
a.
_o
03
>
03
T3
x"
%
O
an
03
CL
CO
03
in
T3
C
CO
5
CO
CO
X
o
so
o
o
03
CL
■o
SO
CO
X
CO
X
-i—t
c
cO
"O
c
cO
03
SO
03
3
CO
73
03
in
CO
03
O 2
2 O
X
C/5
O
a
.2
■4— •
o
B
o
u
D,
h-
O
o
CM
>5
03
CN
CO
c
TO
Q_
c
0)
E
o
O)
03
c
03
03 O y U5 iti 03
O ^
c g w o
03 03
X -s
o
C3 03
cc
2
g
Ll
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 83
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 84
c
ro
a.
c
Q)
£
CD
CD
cc
c
CD
0
O
L.
D
O
(/)
0
a:
■o
0
>
o
a
a
<
c
0
E
0
O)
CO
c
0
■O
c
0
o
3
0
0
L.
3
CD
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 85
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
r-.
o
o
CNJ
CO
CD
00
c
_co
CL
C
<D
E
0)
D)
CO
c
CO
(U O O (/) a= CD
O g
II
o
3 0)
X
CD O v* CJ
Map 24 Havasu Urban Special Recreation Management Area
K1
Crossman Peak RMZ2
T04N
|
Havasu Urban Special Recreation Management Area I ' ~jHavasu Urban SRMA |
Land Status |
|
RecreaWor^anagement Zones |
Bureau of Land Management |
|
Township Grid |
Indian Lands |
|
US and State Highways |
[ I Private |
|
Routes |
State |
|
I I Lakes |
: City, County, & State Park |
Havasu Urban Interface RMZ3
'kr
yu-,..../
R25t R26E
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 1 2 3 4 5 Mile
A I I I ^"1 ^ ^ The Bureau of Land Management makes
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers no warranties, implied or expressed,
with respect to information shown on this map.
iles
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 87
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
CM
a
(0
0
0
CO
0^
CO
c
0
3
(/)
0
>
0
X
h-
0
0
• S (50 •ti C
O o
^ s
(U M-l 3 (U
Ph 5P
•73 .S
(U Td
> O
Q a
<D
<U
>
o
o
czi
"O
C
ca
G
O
O
Bh
X
ttJ
13
c
o
U2
;-i
(U
a
(5fl
c
o
a,
CP
o
i=i
C3
c/2
<U
CT*
<U
T3
C
K!
(30
c
CD
.c
o
c3 c«
r: <u
00
CD
O
.CO
-o'
o
c
CD
E
CD
CD)
CD
C
CD
(30
c
(30
c
|
(30 |
|||
|
(30 |
(30 |
Uh H |
^g |
|
'C G |
g 03 |
2 |
B c G |
|
o > |
Cd CP Pil |
‘C c/3 D |
o |
|
K |
o cd |
cx |
o o |
|
O |
PQ |
cc; |
o
CD
.S
X)
c3
"O
c
c3
c/2
(30
5
B
_o
B
>
<u
Q
(D
O
c
cd
kH
G
'O
G
<u
B
G
O
c/2
<U
CP
(30
c
5
c
(U
>
T3
cd
(30
Cl
B
c
I
c/2
03
CP
cd
03
c/2
■Td
c
cd
cd
1-1
5
c3
C
O
fi
‘C
(U
D.
g
b
o
V3
a
<D
(U
C/3
a
o
Dh
c/3
0)
c3
XI
b
03
>
03
03
H
(30
_c
P*1
_o
B
w
(30 (30
CP
cd
03
c/2
(30 W
CO
CD
O
c
CD
C:
CD
§
cd
03
l-(
o
cc
03
c
CD
OQ
E
0)
D)
Cd
c
Cd
0)
o
CD O o w
it 0)
O ¥
1 1 U- 'o 03 0) CO Q
5 ^
s °
X -O
^ 8
• Improved skills for outdoor enjoyment
■ Closer relationship with the natural world
Community/Sociai:
■ Enhaneed lifestyle
■ Increasing independence/autonomy
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 89
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan qq
c
ro
Q.
c
a:
■D
0
>
O
k.
Q.
Q.
<
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan g-]
Table 7g. Plomosa SRMA (See Map 25)
Experiences ■ Enjoying closeness of family and friends
C
Q_
c
CD
E
(D
O)
CD
c
CD
0)
O
o
cn
CD
q:
■D
0
>
O
Q.
Q.
<
(L>
X5
DO
C
c/2
0>
Oh
O
c/2
C
03
B
c3
c
o
<u
o
X)
cd
cd
(D
bO
c
o
s >
bO cd C X
6
cd
(U
-1
O
'B
w
bO
C
G
<U
a
c
o
Vi
’>
G
ID
G
0
1
CO
X
G
G
X
o
(U
o
o
G
bfi
G
O
■o'
w
o
o
G
o
T3
!X
G
O
o
Td
G
G
<D
bO
Td
<D
s
G
G
b-(
O
bO
_G
G
G
c/2
Vh
(U
Td
G
G
'Td
G
G
|
C/2 C/2 |
|||
|
o |
O c |
||
|
o |
<u |
||
|
Td |
c3 |
G |
|
|
G |
|||
|
o |
03 |
O |
|
|
X |
Td |
C/5 |
|
|
G > |
0^ o |
||
|
o |
c cd |
"S |
|
|
C3 |
G. G |
X |
3 |
|
c |
G |
3 |
|
|
o |
w |
c |
|
|
C/5 |
|||
|
© |
|||
CO
Su
mG
CD
C
CD
o
G
Vh
G
X
CJ
G
G
a
a
o
o
<u
X
o
G
o
Vh
UJ
bfl
_C
'o
G
"O
OJ
G
G
_o
G
CD
CD
CD
!-(
b-H
o
G
X
G
CD
'bb
'o
CD
G
X
CD
Vi
G
"O
G
G
.a
o
a
X
CD
_G
G
G
Td
G
G
g"
O
|
td |
||
|
■<— > «D |
_G |
|
|
30 |
a |
|
|
(D > o |
G o G O G |
|
|
30 |
c/2 |
G |
|
P |
^1 |
|
|
'Ph C |
_o |
G G O |
|
P cd |
0> |
'a |
|
a Q |
G G |
|
|
>1 Td |
|
X |
c/2 |
|
|
o |
'C |
|
|
'p o |
c/2 Cd |
G o 11 |
|
c/2 |
o P |
Z' a |
|
c/2 |
c/2 |
G |
X P
G
^CD
*CD5
>-v
X
CO
c;
.O
c
o
O
Vi
CD
o
2
CD
X
O
D)
.C
Sw
CD
CO
G
G
X
C/5
"O
CD
_N
'a
G
X
CD
CD
X
CD
D.
_o
B _
> ^
Q §-
G
CD
>
G CD
Q
r/i G
G
O
U
CD
bX)
G
G
G
G
G
X
Vi
G
X
G
on
o
G
11
G
O
u
Td
CD
G.
_o
Id
>
CD
Q
G
1h
G
CD
G
CD
O
a
CD
G
CD
CD
'E
<D
o
2 s >
X
G
z
G
(X
CD
_N
ia
G.
G
O
Vi
o
Td
G
G.
_o
G
>
G
Q
G
(X
G
_C
”g
1h
a
G
z
Td
G
G.
"g
>
G
Q
(X
G
c/i
D
G
G
G
G
a
'>
w
Td
G
G-
_o
G
>
G
Q
G
CG|
G
G
X
X
G
G
G
X
Td
G
G
bo
CO
CD
s
o
CD
X
O
TO
c
CD
o
CL
G
>v
X
G
bO
_o
G
r'U
X
G
Td
G
G
G
c/2
G
I
1*1
G
Td
b£
a
bX)
G
_>
<D
&
<D
'O
(U
c/2
c3
(D
U
O
c
o
c/2
c
O o
N
s
pci X
z 'E
I ^
G DQ S CD
a X
S H
r^
o
o
CNJ
>^
03
CN
O)
c
a.
"c
0
E
0
02
0
C
0
0) O o w
O
'o
O 0 0 Q 0
X E 0) g
v o
Map 25 Plomosa
Special Recreation Management Area
/ RMZ 2 r Plomosa Mountain;
BRENDA
Plomosa Special Recreation Management Area
L™j| Plomosa SRMA
Recreation Management Zones i^^WLake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary Township Grid — j Interstate Highways
US and State Highways State Highway Paved Road ' Routes Land Status
Bureau of Land Management
, Private
State
Bouse Plain RMZ 3
Bouse Plain RMZ 3
Back Country Byway 7 RMZ 1 J
Plomosa Mountains - " RMZ2
T05N
T04n
R19W R18W R17W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
A) , I, ,l , I, ^ 1
'''''' The Bureau of Land Management makes
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers no warranties, implied or expressed,
with respect to information shown on this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
.,,,, _^ , _ wr. %,- ' .g ■T*> - ‘-'a^
' ■' .,'■ ,' '■'35'; "' ' . ^y...\L, ‘ '' ' -ii. ... -
' 'V'- •> -,- «k
%.v - ' . ;.
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
in
CM
a
re
a>
0)
c/>
CO
re
(A
o
E
o
0.
d)
h-
0)
re
Ph
■§
0)
GO
!-h
T3
(U
bO
cb
C
P3
s
c3
<u
C
(U
bO
c2
c/5
C
.2 bb
-S
o ^
(U
2 <u 5 -C
bO
T3 .2 (U T3
Un • p>«
S o Q ^
(D
bO
fi
<u
-C
o
c
o
c/5
S-H
(D
Cl.
'O
c
c3
c
o
o
o
Cl.
Cl.
c3
=s
>
K
O
c
o
cn
c3
<u
c/5
T3
C
cb
bO
C
C/5 o
.2 c
o <u
^ (U 0>
■f— * J-*
gj Q-) bO G.
b
i3 1>
t/5
c
C3
o
c2 T3 ^ <1^ 00 ^ <D cd
1 °
S s
O 2 Cl. o
O c/5 (U ^
T3 ^ ">
o .2
>-i bb
C1.-C o ^
bO
(U C
c
O o N CD c/5 o
^ o.
c/5
O
o o
a x>
2
t3 Cl,
^ 2 tJO.T:
2 p S -2
c S ^
CL O (U >
o P ,£ o ^ « t; o bp
o cd -O
c
o
G.
c/5 ^
G)
^ '<U
-l-> Lh
c/5 (1)
o JS
s
g.c2
.2 c/5
<—■ fl)
G3 O G-. i=
° o
,0J c/5
c+^ 0/
CP bn
„C 2
r c 5 IS
•S <->
■> bp C cb
|
03 |
p |
(75 |
p |
|
V |
X |
X |
|
|
o a c3 |
13 c |
o c/5 |
|
|
4b C |
GX |
o c/5 |
N |
|
QJ O |
G a c/5 |
<u G. |
|
|
S |
C/5 |
||
|
<D |
<Lf |
3 |
|
|
N |
cd |
||
|
.s |
(D |
||
|
’C |
> |
3 |
> |
|
X-* C/5 |
O Vh |
||
|
’C |
<D |
G. G |
|
|
G. |
C/5 |
c/5 |
|
|
<D |
G |
G |
|
|
JO |
0> _o |
G. |
bO OJ cb .G bO C
-P
.2 (L)
> p p yp
■2 c <u P
i|
.2 c/5
*S 1)
bO cb cb b
S 5
P c3
c3
s
bO _P
"S
•S?
c/5
s ^
S b3 •p c
§) ^
G) ^
*:; c jp
bp G> c/5
C
„ t: Pi
G> ^ CU
P c
G. 3
o E
cb
c
G)
,G
bp
G
cb
c/5
bp
C
cb
G.
O
-c
'p P ^cS o c
c/5 o
'P
2 X) Cb ^ G "2
P G
C/3 Gh
G.
0-)
cd
D
bD
C
>
<U
cb ^ G» G E cb cb ,
G
4P
CD
>
hP
o
.<!>
S'
o
C
CD
S
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
bD
'S
G
c/5
-4— »
g:
bO
>4
X
G.
Cb
M bJO O P
O X
X o
c/5 Oh
X
X
cb
E c/5
G cb
G -2
U >
bD
p
X
X
bO
P
|
bp <u Q |
_P P |
p o X-* |
bX) _P |
bX) |
|
X G |
P P o |
> |
-4— * P P |
P X |
|
X |
s |
o |
ffi |
S |
o
<C
CD
.S
bp
P
P
G)
!-(
G)
X
P
X
bO
P
G»
X
p
o
X
p
X
G)
CJ
G)
X
bX)
_P
"S
X
G)
bO
P
G> G> X X P , — I
O p c/5 L. bp p P X P G —
"p bp
<v
p X
c/5
1^1 P
G>
X
p o X p
X
p
p
o
G
a
<p
p
1^4
C/5
P
G)
G G
bO bp
2 o
bX)
^P
'S
W
o
bX) bX) _P
"o
G)
W X
> bX) P P X
I ^
P
c
o
c/5
<u
CO
CD
o
c:
CD
C:
CD
0)
c:
0)
C3Q
r^
o
o
CM
>%
03
E
<D
D)
03
C
03
CD O O S
O
lo
ii-e
P 05 CO Q
5 '*-
TO °
:c S
0) o o
05^
■ Improved outdoor knowledge and self-eonfidenee
■ Enhanced awareness and understanding of nature
Community/Social:
■ Enlarged sense of community dependence on public lands
■ Increase community involvement, reducing erosion of the community’s small-town, rural character
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
r-.
o
o
CN
>»
03
c
CL
c
0)
E
<D
O)
03
C
03
0) O o (0
!fc 0)
II
LL O 3 0) tn Q
5 M- °
X
^ 8
c
CL
c
0)
E
0
D)
03
C
03
TD
0
>
O
w
a
a
<
c
0
E
0
03
03
C
03
*o
c
03
O
o
03
0
u
D
GO
h-
O
o
eg
>>
03
LO
o>
C
0
E
0
O)
03
c
03
0
O
<U O
o 55
O ^ lo
ii-e
D 0) to Q 5 ^ ra ° X E
TO ^ _l cc
Bureau of Land Management Approved Resource Management Plan
CM
a
(0
0)
0)
CO
>
'55
c
CD
X
111
■
£
h-
o
n
(Q
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 95
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Land Use Allocations
RR-34. 1,097,495 acres will be allocated as the ERMA; the remaining BLM acres will
be alloeated between seven SRMAs as detailed below.
Colorado River Nature Center SRMA
RR-35. The Colorado River Nature Center SRMA is 363 acres, an area that includes the previous facilities developed in partnership with other ageneies (see Map 21).
The SRMA is divided into two RMZs (see Map 21):
RMZ 1 — Southern Bluff- 100 acres RMZ 2 — River Side - 263 acres
Lake Havasu SRMA
RR-36. The Lake Havasu SRMA (41,918 aeres) will include an area from the south edge of the Havasu Wildlife Refuge to the Parker Dam (see Appendix J) including both AZ and CA shorelines. The area will also include the Lake Havasu Aubrey Hills region west of SR 95 and the Whipple Mountains west of the CA shoreline (see Maps 21 and 22). The SRMA will consist of 8 RMZs that will have management prescribed to them to aehieve the goals, setting, and experiences desired for recreational resources in each.
RMZ 1 - Whipple Mountains - 8,859 acres
RMZ 2 - North Aubrey - 4,587 acres
RMZ 3 - Aubrey Hills - 10,251 acres
RMZ 4 - AZ Shoreline - 1,698 acres
RMZ 5 - Havasu Springs - 1,339 acres
RMZ 6 - CA Shoreline - 1,588 acres
RMZ 7 - North Lake Havasu - 9,752 aeres
RMZ 8 - South Lake Havasu - 3,844 acres
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
97
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Parker Strip SRMA
RR36. The Parker Strip SRMA will continue to manage the area outlined in the
Parker Strip Recreation Area Management Plan (1993) (see Map 21). This consists of approximately 12,913 acres of land. Three RMZs will be identified within the SRMA.
RMZ 1 - Parker Strip Urban - 2,890 acres
RMZ 2 - Crossroads and Copper-basin - 2,602 acres
RMZ 3 - Parker Strip Back Country - 7,421 acres
Swansea SRMA
RJl-37. The Swansea SRMA (3,837 acres) will encompass the historical town site and outlying areas (see Map 21). This SRMA comprises one RMZ consisting of the total acreage of the SRMA.
Gibraltar SRMA
RR-38. The Gibraltar SRMA (50,691 acres) will include from the Bill Williams
wildlife refuge to Osborne Wash, Shea Road, and west to the tribal lands and Parker urban interface. Within this area five RMZs are identified (see Maps 21 and 23).
RMZ 1 - Gibraltar Wilderness - 18,719 acres RMZ 2 - Cienega - 8,876 acres RMZ 3 - Shea Hills - 7,234 acres RMZ 4 - Buckskin Mesa - 15,118 acres RMZ 5 -Shea Road/Osbome Wash - 744 acres
Havasu Urban SRMA
RR-39. The Havasu Urban SRMA (49, 470 acres) is identified as the area immediately east of Lake Havasu City and to the north and south of the city limits. It extends back up towards Crossman Peak. Within this SRMA three RMZs are allocated (see Maps 2 1 and 24).
RMZ 1 - Standard Wash - 6,291 acres
RMZ 2 - Crossman Peak - 24,970 acres
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
98
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
RMZ 3 - Havasu Urban Interface - 1 8,209 acres
Plomosa SRMA
|
RR-40. |
The Plomosa SRMA (102,053 acres) contains the public lands between Bouse |
|
and Brenda (see Maps 21 and 25). Three SRZs have been identified. RMZ 1 - Back Country Byway - 5,759 acres RMZ 2 - Plomosa Mountains - 27,243 acres RMZ 3 - Bouse Plain - 69,05 1 acres |
Management Actions
Administrative Actions, such as the Framework for SRMAs are listed in Appendix B, Administrative Actions and Standard Operating Procedures.
|
RR-41. |
Where long-term impacts from recreational use patterns are observed or |
|
anticipated that exceed acceptable thresholds, control activities through specialized management actions such as designated campsites, permits, and limitations on number of users, types of use, and duration of use will be implemented to maintain the prescribed social settings and targeted benefits. Recreation management plans will be reviewed to ensure that they are maintaining the prescribed social settings. |
|
|
RR-42. |
No new development of any kind will be allowed in the floodplain of desert washes except for public health and safety or resource protection. |
|
RR-43. |
New concession leases will be allowed in accordance with the desired ROS settings of the area and NEPA compliance. |
|
RR-44. |
Vending will be allowed except in areas identified as primitive or semi- primitive under prescribed recreation settings (see Map 20), and only if the issuance of the permits will be consistent with the criteria outlined in Appendix I. |
|
RR-45. |
Custodial management within the ERMA will include the development and construction of orientation and informational kiosks at scenic views, trail heads to support resource protection and public safety, and wildlife viewing areas to interpret the cultural, wildlife, and recreational value of the area. |
|
RR-46. |
Throughout the lands managed by Lake Havasu Field Office, unless otherwise posted or restricted, dispersed camping (in undeveloped areas) is allowed without permit for no longer than 14 days within any 28-day period. After the 14th day, campers must move beyond a 25-mile radius of their previous camp. |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 99
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
RR-47.
RR-48.
RR-49.
RR-50.
RR-51.
RR-52.
RR-53.
RR-54.
This decision does not apply to concessions, public agency leases, and Long- Term Visitor Areas (LTV As).
BLM will coordinate with incorporated towns and cities to create restrictions or limitations to dispersed camping on public lands within the boundaries of these towns.
Collection of dead and down wood within the Lake Havasu Field Office will be prohibited except for wood collected within the vicinity (100 feet) of a dispersed campsite for campsite use only. Firewood collection for campsites may be closed within specific areas identified in activity plans. Education will be used to promote use of commercial firewood and camping stoves on public lands. (See Biological Resources Management.)
Paintball activities will not be allowed in WAs and ACEC. Paintball activities will be allowed beyond 0.25 mile of any established facilities or sites, campgrounds, residences, Railheads, staging areas, roads. Special Designations, and other areas as posted. In addition, paintball activities will be restricted in accordance with any applicable local and state laws governing recreational shooting. Further stipulations will apply, if SRPs are required, and are outlined in Appendix I.
Recreational shooting is governed by state law. These laws apply across the field office boundaries for the respective states. The activities may be further restricted where public safety and significant resource concerns exist. Shooting sports will continue to be allowed in R&PPs and other leases specifically designed to manage these activities.
The Parker 400 course will continue as a competitive, commercial-use off- highway race course. The season of use will continue to run from December 1 through February 28. The race will only be authorized on designated routes. The specific course alignment will be determined though a NEPA process. The Parker 400 course will be limited to two competitive-use events per year (see Map 26).
No additional competitive-use off-highway race courses will be allowed, except in designated open areas (see Travel Management).
Specialized vehicle recreation (see Glossary for definition) activities will be allowed in open areas and on routes/trails designated for this purpose.
The establishment of new camping areas including LTVAs will be based on criteria outlined in Appendix I.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
100
May 2007
Map 26 Allocated Competitive Use Routes
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Lake ' Mohave
Nevada
KINGMAN
LAKE HAVASU , CITY
Alamo
Lake^
Mohave
County
BUI Williams y^tRiver
La Paz County
AGUILA
WENDEN
■" Parker 400 Approved Routes
^ Parker 400 Pits
^^■iLake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid
: Interstate Highways
US and State Highways County Roads Paved
— Maintained Unpaved
Rivers and Canals
I I Lakes
R21E R22
San^ernardino County Riverside County U
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
TUN
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
A I ' 'i '' ' ' '
0 5 10 20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
P L A N N I N G ARE,'
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
:-y 'ME!? '' ■ *
Vv;:v V' 'Mltr '1^'' ' ’v'*%
'*T" ,'* '"^
ik '
*.* ' -x- f I
'/'V '. .
I '.*■■
■ ^ .1 I
■ ' f
■■SM;.fe,;if' ■•■'■4'yiiitSy'
J"'
■■■■■
, . . ^ „ :M: y ... .k
1
I-’ ul
S- li !
',*,'\ ."^ .1.
IV " -‘V-
■ ; :^f^J'^ /*iik ' M
■\ i'.
jis,.:.
R 1
"v; \R''W
;. ff' ' ■..■ '^ .'■
■R'
...... .
.; v„:'; v;d'' ^:r.*:.''-'''^v^
.' ;f|fi^.,<;(&( — lyt' ’•.sift^'- tp^-.. ■' ■' ■.',^i.,*»iKm\ •; Tvtffoijx.- , 'w
RRiR ': .;,: V " ''"
r.i.'e''V<’?''Vtf''^ '■''**
'^r ..kR-
, W : '"M
( 'iy‘, -4V'-''; ' ‘ "•'• '• W •.
'■ VktHMter ^1 . I .a .1 ^ . i‘ !;:<_■
» ■/**..
-'■is,' -
. 'iit; ‘1? .
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Lake Havasu SRMA
|
RR-55. |
Development of visitor-oriented facilities will include and will not be limited |
|
to, interpretive installations, parking and boat ramps, contact stations and both hiking and water trails. |
|
|
RR-56. |
Along the AZ/CA shoreline (RMZs 4 and 6) overnight camping will be limited to recreation sites allocated to that use, including undeveloped areas signed to that effect. |
|
RR-57. |
New overnight camping and day use sites will be developed in conjunction with environmental mitigation and assessment consistent with the LCRMSCP. Any facilities established on the California side (RMZ 6) will provide for a more primitive and isolated experience. |
RR-58. Lake Havasu Field Offiee will continue to charge a day use/camping fees for
|
BLM-developed sites within the area. The fee will be appropriate to the economics of maintaining the area and provide for fair value in recreation. |
|
|
RR-59. |
A scenic non-motorized trail will be developed in RMZs 2, 3, and 4. Coordination and partnerships with other landowners, agencies, and user groups will be undertaken to achieve this development. |
|
RR-60. |
Within the SRMA BLM will require SRPs for organized events and activities that impact the public lands comprising the lake bottom and shoreline. |
|
RR-61. |
Lake Havasu Field Office and the Lake Havasu Fisheries Program partners and other interests will develop no more than three additional free public shoreline fishing facilities on the Arizona side of Lake Havasu at either Black Rock Cove, Contact Point, or Partners Point (see Map 27) (RMZ 4). |
|
RR-62. |
Educational and informational buoys will be installed to alert the public to important fish and wildlife habitat areas. |
Parker Strip SRMA
RR-63. Camping in the Parker Strip SRMA will be limited to concession resorts and designated campgrounds (see Map 27), or to at least 0.5 mile from all maintained paved roads, unless otherwise posted.
Swansea SRMA
RR-64. Camping will be allowed within the SRMA only in the identified campsites for
|
RR-65. |
a maximum stay of 3 nights. Interpretive trails will be constructed to protect resources and provided for visitor enjoyment and safety. |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan -| q1
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Gibraltar SRMA
|
RR-66. |
Within the SRMA, except for the WA (RMZ 1), BLM will consider developing |
|
RR-67. |
campsites and facilities to protect important natural and cultural resources and to provide for growing recreation demand. Low-impact trails may be developed and interpretive materials provided at trailheads. |
|
RR-68. |
Within Shea Road/Osbome Wash area (RMZ 5) Lake Havasu Field Office will develop OHV staging areas, facilities for enhanced use of the area and educational kiosks. Sensitive wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and public safety issues will be identified and mitigated for in this area. |
Havasu Urban SRMA
|
RR-69. |
Within Standard Wash (RMZ 1) Lake Havasu Field Office will develop OHV |
|
staging areas, facilities for enhanced use of the area and educational kiosks. Sensitive wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and public safety issues will be identified and mitigated for in this area. |
|
|
RR-70. |
Standard Wash (RMZ 1) will be closed to recreational shooting activities (except legal hunting). |
|
RR-71. |
The Craggy Wash area will be maintained as a 14-day camping area. The camping area will be identified with signs. This approach will include enforcing a 1-mile no-camping limit from the city limits of Lake Havasu City. |
|
RR-72. |
The Crossman Peak Natural Scenic Area (26,080 acres) addressed in the 1987 YRMP is addressed as RMZ 2 within the Havasu Urban SRMA. |
Plomosa SRMA
|
RR-73. |
Recreation activities will be limited to pastimes that are sensitive to cultural |
|
and natural resources within RMZ 2. These limitations will include seasonal restrictions to OHV use to enhance protection of sensitive resources, such as wildlife habitat. |
|
|
RR-74. |
BLM will encourage learning and appreciation of the natural world by developing interpretive kiosks throughout the SRMA. |
|
Monitoring |
Detailed monitoring for potential reereational impacts to soil, water, and air resources along the Colorado River will be addressed through either the Lake Havasu SRMA implementation plan and/or the Lake Havasu Regional Management Plan. Monitoring activities will be accomplished through partnerships.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
102
May 2007
Map 27 Existing Developed Recreation Sites and Potential Fishing Dock Locations
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Public lands within ERMA will be monitored so that the quality of desired experience, environmental setting and potential activities which were identified during the planning process and prescribed by this Approved RMP (see Prescribed Recreation Settings,
Map 20) are being maintained. Annually and on a rotating basis, one to three sites/areas within the ERMA will be evaluated for the seven elements used to describe recreational settings: Access, Remoteness, Naturalness, Site Management, Visitor Management, Social Encounters, Visitor Impacts (see Appendix I).
Other recreation program and natural resource issues will be addressed in the development of Special Recreation Management Area Plans. Activity planning framework(s), including general monitoring requirements for each SRMA are provided in Appendix B under Administrative Actions. These individual activity-oriented plans will set monitoring standards and indicators that assess whether recreation benefits/objectives are being met and setting prescriptions are being maintained. Land health will also be measured in relation to existing standards and/or Desired Future Conditions for natural resources. The plans will be developed according to existing priorities. Approved RMP implementation schedules, and available future funding levels.
Until the SRMAs plans are completed, each RMZ will be monitored annually for the Setting Character Conditions as described in the Approved RMP (see Desired Future Conditions Tables 7a through 7g for each RMZ). The BLM will monitor the seven elements as described for the ERMA monitoring, to establish that quality of experienees and settings provided in these RMZ continue to be met or will meet the prescribed recreation setting.
Special recreation use permits and vendor permits will be monitored for compliance and effeetiveness on an as-needed basis through the NEPA proeess.
Concession leases will be monitored for compliance and effectiveness on an as-needed basis through the existing Concession Review Policy on a quarterly basis and the NEPA process, as needed. The results of the quarterly compliance will be compiled annually and submitted to the Field Manager.
Any new development will be monitored for compliance utilizing site-specific stipulations developed during the NEPA process. Additionally, the impact of recreation concession facilities on recreational, cultural, and natural resources will be monitored as needed. Baseline collection of data will be identified during activity plan development. The frequency of monitoring will be determined after the collection of baseline data.
Photo points will be initiated at popular boat-in camp sites, dispersed camping areas, and OHV RMZ to document potential impacts, erosion, and existing plant community at a minimum of 20 such BLM facilities/sites each year. Photos will be repeated at 5 -year intervals. Additionally, as many as five aquatic locations adjoining recreational facilities will be sampled annually during periods of high use to determine compliance with appropriate state standards for primary contact recreation and wann water fish habitat.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
103
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Remote sensing techniques using satellite and low-level imagery will be used to document total boats on the water at one time on a summer holiday weekend, along with the shoreline footprint created by this use. This will be repeated at 5-year intervals to understand use patterns, measure compliance with prescribed recreation settings, and document growth within the watershed.
Noise throughout public land reaches of Lake Havasu will be monitored during high use periods to document cumulative noise extremes relative to prescribed recreation settings, state law, and worker safety.
Annual data collected on recreational activities (e.g., visitation, SRPs, and conditions of facilities) will be reported in the BLM Recreation Management Information System (RMIS) and Facilities Maintenance Information System (FAMS).
Completion of these recreation-oriented plans will be tracked and reported on a 5 -year basis through the plan evaluation schedule. Resource monitoring obligations and protocols generated through development of the above plans will be progressively included into Field Office monitoring schedules. Resource monitoring findings and trends derived from other activities within RMZs will be combined with information from recreation activity plans to be reported concisely in the Annual Planning Update Report and Summary to the Field Office Manager.
Special Designations
The following are recognized land use designations for protection of one or more sensitive resources that will be used in this Approved RMP: ACEC, Back Country Byway, Wild and Scenic River, Wildemess/WSA.
Congressional Designations Wilderness
Desired Future Conditions for Wilderness Areas
WM-1 . To provide for the long-term protection and preservation of the designated
area’s wilderness character under the principle of non-degradation. The area’s natural condition, opportunities for solitude, opportunities for primitive and unconfmed types of recreation, and any ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value present will be managed so that they will remain unimpaired.
WM-2. To manage the WA for the use and enjoyment of visitors in a manner that will leave the area unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The wilderness resources will be dominant in all management decisions where a choice must be made between preservation of wilderness and visitor use.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
104
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
WM-3. To manage nonconforming but accepted uses permitted by the Wilderness Act and subsequent laws in a manner that will prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the area’s wilderness character. Nonconforming uses are the exception rather than rule; therefore, emphasis is placed on maintaining wilderness character.
Management Actions for Wilderness Areas
WM-4. Accommodate the traditional or sacred use that may be identified in the future by the tribes that historically used the WAs.
WM-5. No recreational facilities, including trails, will be constructed within the WAs unless needed for public safety or the protection of natural conditions and/or any ecological, cultural, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
Monitoring for Wilderness Areas
Each WA will be monitored annually for preservation of wilderness values (i.e., naturalness, opportunities for solitude, and unconfmed recreation) and the condition of special features found within the area. Baseline conditions for each area will be referenced to analyze change, if any. Existing and future Wilderness Management Plans have focused/will focus on monitoring and management actions through the development of “Limits of Acceptable Change” standards and indicators.
Wilderness Study Area (WSA)
In the 1990 Arizona Desert Wilderness Act Congress designated Cactus Plain as a WSA. This area will be managed in accordance to BLM’s Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review H-8550-1, until Congress designates it as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System or removes it from its Congressional Wilderness Study Status.
Desired Future Conditions for WSA
WM- 6. Cactus Plain WSA (see Map 29) will be managed in a manner that does not impair the suitability of the area for the future designation as wilderness by Congress.
Management Actions for WSA (if released by Congress)
WM-7. If Cactus Plain were released from WSA status by Congress, the management of the area will not change extensively. To protect the stabilized sand dune complex and the associated vegetation within the area, it will be classified “Limited to Authorized Users” (see Travel Management in this Approved RMP). Mineral material disposals will not be authorized within the area and mineral leasing will be subject to no surface occupancy (see also Mineral Resources). The area will continue to be managed to meet the prescribed “Primitive” recreation setting (see Map 20).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
105
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Monitoring for WSA
The WSA will be monitored annually to assure that management has met the non- impairment standard set in BLM’s H-8002-1.
Administrative Designations
Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns (ACECs)
Desired Future Conditions for ACECs
AC-1 . Three Rivers Riparian ACEC will be managed to proteet and prevent
irreparable damage to the relevant eharacteristies or important values (Map 28).
Relevance
□ Riparian resources.
□ Threatened and endangered speeies habitat.
□ Scenic characteristics.
Importance
□ Protects riparian habitat, a limited resource in the southwestern United States.
□ Provides for semi-primitive setting around the Bill Williams River while allowing for a degree of interaction with the natural environment around Lake Alamo.
AC-2. Swansea Historic District ACEC will be managed to protect and prevent
irreparable damage to the relevant characteristics or important values (Map 28).
Relevance
□ Historic Swansea Townsite Cultural/historical resources. Includes associated shafts, adits, historical features, roads, railroads, and the Swansea pump station.
□ Natural and scenic character.
Importance
□ Eligible for inclusion on the NRHP and provides a unique opportunity to interpret tum-of-the-century mining.
□ The remote, natural location is irreplaceable and adds to public’s understanding of the Swansea story.
AC-3. Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural ACEC will be managed to protect and
prevent irreparable damage to the relevant characteristics or important values (Map 28).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
106
May 2007
Map 28 Special Designations - ACECs and Back Country Byways
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Lake
Mohave
Nevada
I : : : : :| Areas of Critical Environmental Concern □□ ACEC administered by Kingman Field Office Existing Back Country Byway Nominated Back Country Byway ^^■iLake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid US and State Highways State Highway Rivers and Canals
KINGMAN
BULLHEAD CITY 1
Bullhead
Bajada
Beale 1 Slough
LAKE HAVASU I CITY
Lake^
Havasu
Three Rivers Riparian f
Alamo' Lak^ County y
R23E R24E R25E Parker Dam Road Back Country Byway^^26E
La Paz County
>ARKER
San ggrnardino County Riverside County U
Parker-Bouse- Swansea Loop
AGUILA
Plomosa
|
Swansea ^ Historic District |
||||
|
ri -~‘7 |
||||
|
1 |
WENDEN^^ |
Jeo]^^ |
||
|
1 1 O I |
||||
|
V \ _ \ |
1 O 1 § CL 1 |
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
TON
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
I I I I I The Bureau of Land Management makes
I ' ' ' ' no warranties, implied or expressed,
0 5 10 20 Kilometers with respect to information shown on
this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Map 29 Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Area, and Determined Suitable Wild & Scenic River Segments
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Lakei
Mohave
I I Wilderness Area
I I Wilderness Study Area
Determined Suitable Wild & Scenic River Segments
I I Wild (Segments 1 & 3)
I I Scenic (Segment 2)
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid ....i Interstate Highways US and State Highways
Rivers and Canals
I I Lakes
Nevada
KINGMAN
BULLHEAD
CITY
/DEAD \ tOUNTAIN^
CHEMEHUEVI
MOUNTAINS
LAKE HAVASU CITY
Lake ^ Havasu
ARRASTRA
MOUNTAIN
WHIPPLE
\. MOUNTAINS
MoHave County
■ R2SE'
Alamo
Lake
GIBRALTAR^
MOUNTAIN
RAWHIDE/ 1 BlOUNTAItjS'
,La_ Paz CounJ^I
PARKER
San Bernardino Countv
Riverside County
\|cA^>s CACTUS PLAIN \PLAIN / WSA \ /
Jharcuv/^
moun™ns
AGUILA
WENDEN
|
il /]■- |
||||
|
Ml \ ‘ |
|
-Jsl |
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
A I ' '| '' I ' — '
0 5 10 20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
PLAN N I N G AREA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Relevance
□ Regional rare riparian resourees and wildlife habitat.
□ Signifieant eultural resourees, eultural sites within part of a regional eiiltural eomplex.
□ Plaee of traditional Native Ameriean importanee.
Importance
□ The area has regional importance as it was set in reserve to stop the gradual decline of aquatic and associated riparian and terrestrial habitat along the Colorado River.
□ The area’s fragile and irreplaceable prehistoric sites are eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.
□ Assure that the public will continue to have an opportunity to have an interaction with the natural environment and cultural values of the area.
□ This area was part of mitigation for the channelization by Reclamation in 1951 and identified by the LCRMSCP for its fish and wildlife values.
AC-4. Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural ACEC will be managed to protect and
prevent irreparable damage to the relevant characteristics or important values
(Map 28).
Relevance
□ Historic Beale’s Wagon Road.
□ Adjacent prehistoric resources.
□ Habitat for Arizona State-listed Sonoran Desert tortoise.
□ Other special status or sensitive species present throughout the area.
Importance
□ The site complex is eligible for the NRHP and is of regional, if not national, importance.
□ Protects the complex from expanding urbanization around Bullhead City.
□ Beale built the wagon road in 1857 in the “Great Camel Experimenf’ along the 35* parallel. He followed existing prehistoric trails and associated sites.
AC-5. Crossman Peak Scenic ACEC will be managed to protect and prevent
irreparable damage to the relevant characteristics or important values (Map 28).
Relevance
□ Significant places of traditional cultural importance.
□ Natural scenic backdrop or mountain preserve for Lake Havasu City.
□ Major lambing grounds for bighorn sheep.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
107
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
□ Large tract of public land that exhibits high degree of naturalness with little human modification of the landscape.
Importance
□ The scenic value of Crossman Peak is irreplaceable to the region.
□ Protects a sacred mountain, sites eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, and priority wildlife habitat from impacts of expanding urbanization in the Lake Havasu region.
□ Includes large area that provides the region with high opportunity for isolation from the sights and sounds of human development.
Designations (see Map 28)
AC-6 Designate an estimated 2,246 acres of public lands as Three Rivers Riparian ACEC.
AC-7 Designate an estimated 5,973 acres of public lands as Swansea Historic District ACEC.
AC-8 Designate an estimated 2,395 acres of public lands as Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural ACEC.
AC-9 Designate an estimated 7,090 acres of public lands as Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural ACEC.
AC- 10 Designate an estimated 48,855 acres of public lands as Crossman Peak Scenic ACEC.
Management Actions for ACECs
AC- 1 1 . Acquire all non-federal lands and minerals within ACEC boundary from willing sellers (Three Rivers Riparian, Swansea Historic District, Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural, Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural, Crossman Peak Scenic).
AC- 12. Develop desired plant community descriptions and design grazing prescriptions to achieve the desired plant community objectives (Three Rivers Riparian, Swansea Historic District, Crossman Peak Scenic).
AC- 13. In ACECs that contain recreation values, facilities will be limited to projects that protect the values that initiated the ACEC designation. The values for each ACEC include those settings and experiences that were identified as management objectives in recreation management prescriptions (Three Rivers Riparian, Swansea Historic District, Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural, Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural, Crossman Peak Scenic).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
108
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
AC- 14. Camping will be limited to developed or signed sites (town site within Swansea Historic District, Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural, Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural).
AC- 15. Camping may be limited to identified areas. Some parts or whole ACEC will be closed to overnight camping. These allocations will be made in activity- level plans (Three Rivers Riparian, Swansea Historic District, Crossman Peak Scenic).
AC- 16. Prohibit recreational shooting, except for legal hunting, in identified areas (e.g., within town site at Swansea) or posted (Three Rivers Riparian, Swansea Historic District, Crossman Peak Scenic).
AC-17. Prohibit recreational shooting, except for legal hunting, within ACEC
boundaries (Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural, Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural).
AC-18. Hiking and non-motorized use will be encouraged by developing a non-
motorized trail network (Swansea Historic District, Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural, Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural, Crossman Peak Scenic).
AC- 19. Prohibit firewood collection in the Three Rivers Riparian ACEC, Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural ACEC, and within town site in Swansea Historic District ACEC.
AC-20. Prohibit driving except on designated open and signed routes in Swansea Townsite (Swansea Historic District).
Monitoring for ACECs
ACECs designated through this Approved RMP will be monitored for potential damage to the relevant characteristics or important values. This monitoring will be accomplished primarily under guidance provided from the cultural and biological sections of this document. ACEC management plans will be developed in the future with associated monitoring plans.
Back Country Byways
Desired Future Conditions for Back Country Byways
BB-1. Provide for interconnectivity between local communities and to work in partnership for the regional development of eco- and recreational tourism.
BB-2. Expose visitors to the local recreational resources, various multiple-use
management programs and interpret natural, cultural, geological, and scenic features.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
109
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
BB-3. Manage these corridors in a manner consistent with the intrinsic values that will allow for a future byway designation.
Designations
BB-4. An estimated 17 miles of the Parker Dam Road will continue as a designated National Back Country Byway (see Map 28).
BB-5. An estimated 20 miles of the Plomosa Road is identified for nomination as a designated National Back Country Byway, which will be managed in partnership with local communities (see Map 28).
BB-6. An estimated 47 miles of the Parker-Bouse-Swansea loop are identified for nomination as a designated National Back Country Byway, which will be managed in partnership with local communities (see Map 28).
Management Actions for Back Country Byways
BB-7. Acquire easements where needed to ensure long-term public access.
BB-8. Directional, safety, and interpretive signing will be installed to enhance public
use, enjoyment, and stewardship of the route. A list of potential interpretive topics is in included in Appendix K.
BB-9. Back Country Byways that cross bighorn sheep habitat will include protection measures such as but not limited to: speed limits of 25 miles per hour (mph) and warning signs and or speed bumps.
Monitoring for Back Country Byways
The existing Back Country Byways visitation and facilities will be monitored annually to document effectiveness of interpretive messages, management actions, and to determine conditions and trends. Visitor use data and resources will be monitored to establish baseline conditions on the two potential byways, during the development of the TMPs. Specific monitoring requirements will be addressed in the development of the individual National Back Country Byway Plans and nomination packages.
Potential Wild and Scenic River
Desired Future Conditions for Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers
WR-1 . Eligible stream segments will be managed to preserve their suitability for
inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System. Outstandingly remarkable values must be protected and the free-flowing character of the stream segments cannot be modified.
WR-2. A new segment may be identified by the BLM for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River system after possible acquisition of private property (Planet Ranch) on the Bill Williams River. A study/EIS will be completed within
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
110
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
5 years of acquisition to determine the suitability of the segment for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River system.
Designations
WR-3. This RMP will not change the final Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative Environmental Impact Statement and Study Report/Record of Decision (December 1994) detennination that approximately 20.5 miles of the Bill Williams River are suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, classified as follows (see Map 29):
□ Segment 1 will be 8.3 miles in length, covering 2,314 acres, and determined suitable as Wild.
□ Segment 2 will be 5.1 miles in length, covering 494 acres, and determined suitable as Scenic.
□ Segment 3 will be 6.2 miles in length, covering 1,850 acres, and determined suitable as Wild.
Congress has not acted on these determinations. Pending congressional action, these segments will be managed to protect the outstandingly remarkable values identified as making the segments eligible for protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Management Actions for Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers
WR-4. The Management Actions listed in the final Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative Environmental Impact Statement and Study Report/Record of Decision (Bureau of Land Management 1994) will apply only after Congress designates the Bill Williams River as Wild and Scenic. The ongoing management actions also listed in the final Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers EIS would continue regardless of wild and scenic river designation. See Appendix K, Special Designations.
Monitoring for Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers
The segments suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System will be monitored annually to assure the segments remain eligible for future Congressional action. This monitoring can be accomplished in conjunction with the monitoring done for Swansea and Rawhide Mountain Wilderness and Three River Riparian ACEC. Additional hydrological and ecological standards for the Bill Williams River will be developed and monitored as part of BLM’s participation with Bill Williams River Steering Committee.
Travel Management
OHV area designations as defined in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(f), (g) and (h) and further specified in 43 CFR 8342.1 are made in this Approved RMP throughout the planning area. The BLM’s OHV area designations are listed below:
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
111
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
■ Open area means an area where all types of vehicle use are permitted at all times and anywhere in the area. Use is subject to the operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.
■ Limited area means an area restricted at certain times, in certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. These restrictions may be of any type but can generally be accommodated within the following type of categories:
□ numbers of vehicles
□ types of vehicles
□ time or season of vehicle use
□ authorized user only
□ use on existing roads and trails
□ use on designated roads and trails
■ Closed area means an area where any motorized use is prohibited. Use of motorized vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons; however, such use will be made only with the approval of the authorized officer.
The BLM will designate a Travel Management Network (TMN) for the planning area within 5 years of adoption of this Approved RMP through the TMP. The TMP will evaluate and designate all individual routes/trails for use within the planning area unless specified elsewhere in this Approved RMP. The BLM will follow the process as listed in Appendix B, Administrative Actions and Standard Operating Procedures, of this Approved RMP, when creating the TMN, including evaluating routes using the criteria listed in the Route Evaluation Tree in Appendix L. Map 30 identifies the six travel management areas that will be used in the development of the TMP.
Desired Future Conditions
TM- 1 . Designations will be made and management implemented for a balance of opportunities for the entire range of motorized and non-motorized access needs, while in balance with other resource values found on public lands.
TM-2. Reasonable, safe, and environmentally sound access will be provided to
visitors, local residents, licensed or pennitted activities, and property owners. Lake Havasu Field Office will be linked with other state, regional, and land management agencies or interest groups to better facilitate travel management.
TM-3. Travel between communities within the planning area will be made safer.
TM-4. Public access easements will be acquired across private or state lands where
public access to federal lands and waterways is not available.
TM-5. Instill and strengthen a more effective and responsible user ethic through public outreach programs for motorized and non-motorized users.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
112
May 2007
Map 30 Travel Management Areas and Route Inventory Index
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Travel Management Areas / Route Inventory Maps ■^^■Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid i--. Interstate Highways
US and State Highways County Roads
Paved
Maintained Unpaved
Rivers and Canals
Lakes
KINGMAN
These detailed maps (1:62,500) are available on the RMP CD, website or on request from the field office
HAVASU
30 B
LAKE HAVASU I CITY
Alamo Lakey /
Santa
County
$
I Bill Williams _ ■■ River
CACTUS PLAIN
/ r. 30C
PSz County
ALAMQ
30D f
>ARKER
San Bernardino County Riverside County
AGUILA
WENDEN
WENDEN
30F
|
Mohave |
|
|
5vada |
L iii |
|
\ /O |
^ ^ 1 ^ BUlkiHEADi fi |
|
r(\ I ( /[I |
BULLHEAD y_l30A-^ j 1 / i |
|
!. 1 |
\ f l\ > \ vj ■ I |
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
I I I I I The Bureau of Land Management makes
' ' I ' I no warranties, implied or expressed,
0 5 10 20 Kilometers with respect to information shown on
this map.
R13W R12W R11W R10W
PLANNlNGytt;'e^™'"«u^ AREA,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
m
)>
-■iu ■ ■ . :
-'i
V.'*
#
.^ v -] ’ '
*> ■ . er^*fi}^,- . -T- ^ '
'-V*^ — ' ^, •
!-»S%'. .8^ ■ '» ■■’
f rf’.
■■•*** ’ '(J ' ^
vWjpf.
|i^;v:#i:' ;t ' >*,iv.iii» il
*■ .s
‘ “-it" ■■'■ ■. ■
., 'i: ';vla:f
■v ‘ !: '£■':'
i:. oj. ■=■ i. ;
4i? . •• Sir’
1
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
TM-6. The BLM will continue to provide motorized and non-motorized access across public lands, with emphasis on development of non-motorized trails and trailheads.
TM-7. The BLM will assess its responsibility to manage boat related transportation opportunities as they relate to BLM facilities on the Colorado River and Lake Havasu and to develop and implement management practices accordingly.
TM-8. Opportunities for “touring” and “loop” travel beyond the boundaries of the planning area will be maintained or enhanced when creating the travel management network for the planning area.
Land Use Allocations
TM-9. OHV area designations are shown in Table 8 and on Map 3 1 . Generally, the planning area will be classified as “limited to existing roads and trails” for motorized travel, unless a specific classification has been applied to the area as in Table 8. Existing roads and trails for motorized use will be defined as those routes and trails found on route inventories completed in the period between 1990 and 2004 and shown on the Lake Havasu Field Office inventory maps (Map 32 and the six detailed electronic maps with inserts found in the attached CD).
Estimated acreages by OHV area designation are shown below in Table 8.
|
Table 8. OHV Area Designations |
|
|
General Description of Classification |
Estimated Acres of Public Lands In the Approved RMP (Map 31) |
|
Open |
9,637 |
|
|
Closed |
120,990 |
|
|
Limited |
||
|
■ |
Limited to authorized users only |
71,752 |
|
■ |
Limited to existing roads and trails |
941,352 |
|
■ |
Limited to designated roads and trails^ |
164,348 |
|
■ |
Limited to existing roads and trails — seasonal use |
30,943 |
|
■ |
Limited to designated roads and trails — seasonal use |
5,049 |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
113
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
|
TM-10. |
Washes in areas designated Open, are available for motorized travel. In areas designated “existing road or trails” only washes with routes shown on inventory maps will be open to motorized travel. After the TMP is completed only washes with designated routes will be open for travel. All other washes will be closed to motorized travel unless at a later date reviewed as a new route or trail and evaluated under the route evaluation process as outlined in Appendix L. |
|
TM-11. |
Between the ROD and the completion of the TMP, three areas totaling 30,943 acres (see Map 31) will retain seasonal closures for motorized vehicles from January 1 to June 30, to protect sensitive habitats, ACEC values, recreational settings, and/or cultural sites. These areas were originally seasonally closed under the YRMP for bighorn sheep lambing grounds. All routes in these areas will be evaluated and designated in the TMP and the area allocation dropped. This does not affect areas currently limited to designated routes. |
|
TM-12. |
“Limited to Existing Roads and Trails” areas will be converted to “Limited to Designated Roads and Trails” following the Travel Management Network Plan. |
|
TM-13. |
Wheeled non-motorized carts will be allowed except in WAs. |
|
TM-14. |
Motorized vehicles may be allowed to pull off an existing/designated route 1 00 feet either side of centerline. This use shall be monitored on a continuing basis. If monitoring results show effects that exceed limits of acceptable change, motorized vehicles will not be allowed to pull off a designated route 1 00 feet either side of centerline in those areas where resource damage has exceeded limits of acceptable change. |
|
TM-15. |
Technical Vehicle Specialized Sport Sites could be identified and managed as an RMZ or specific sites within RMZ or the ERMA and not part of the travel management network. |
|
TM-16. |
Foot and equestrian cross-country travel will be allowed on public lands. California and Arizona state laws consider bicycles vehicles and cross-country travel will not be allowed except in designated open areas. Except in WAs, all roads and trails will be open to bicycles unless designated otherwise. |
|
TM-17. |
Public lands within the Gibraltar Mountain Interdisciplinary Management Planning Area, except in the WA and the proposed Shea Road/Osbome Wash Open Area, will be classified as limited to designated roads and trails or limited to designated routes closed seasonally. These designated trails and routes were established under the 2001 Gibraltar Mountain Interdisciplinary Management Plan (see Map 31). |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan -] -|4
Lake < Mohave
Nevada
KINGMAN
LAKE HAVASU t CITY
Parker Strip
Maria
Alamo
Lake/^..
Mohave
Coutj^
UIl Willia) River
La Pa^' ■Cdliftty
Cactus Plain
'ENDEN
Map 31 Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations
R20E R21E
OHV Area Designations
Closed
Limited to Authorized Users Only Limited to Existing Roads and Trails *
|[|||| Limited to Designated Roads and Trails 77Z\ Limited to Existing Roads and Trails - Seasonal Use CD Standard Wash OHV Area m Shea Road/Osborne Wash OHV Area ■■■•Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid
T~. Interstate Highways
US and State Highways County Roads ” Paved
— Maintained Unpaved Rivers and Canals I I Lakes
Limited to Existing Roads and Trails areas will be converted to "Limited to Designated Roads and Trails" following completion of the Travel Management Plan.
Lakey%
Havasu
R21E
SanBernardino County
AGUILA
|
fc <9. f |
|
|
'E a o w |
|
|
R5 1 o 1 |
|
A © i |
|||
|
i ■ |
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OE THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
0 5 10 20 Miles
0 5 10 20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
|
z |
z |
z |
|
|
o |
03 |
00 |
|
|
C\J |
Csl |
T“ |
|
|
1- |
1- |
1- |
H |
|
z LO |
z |
Z |
Z |
Z |
Z |
Z |
Z |
|
CD |
CD |
in |
rf |
cn |
CM |
T~ |
o |
|
H |
H |
K |
H |
K |
H |
H |
|
Z |
5 |
z |
z |
z |
5 |
5 |
Z |
00 |
|||
|
T**» |
o |
C33 |
CO |
s. |
CO |
to |
CO |
CM |
|||
|
T- f- |
t- |
£ |
S |
e |
2 |
o
CM
a:
CM
CM
a:
U
b
o
Q
nJ
>
<
<
^ ro
< _i Q. M- LU O Q 13
C/5 S
LU 1- < I — CO Q LU
c 0)
E X
<D 0) 03 ^ CO O
S's
c
5
o
Q.-C W
(0
^ E
II
SI
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
|
TM-18. |
Public lands within the La Posa Management Planning Area and within the Lake Havasu Field Office planning area will be classified as limited to designated roads and trails. These designated trails and routes were established under the La Posa Interdisciplinary Management Plan (Bureau of Land Management 1997b) (see Map 31). |
|
TM-19. |
Public lands within the Parker Strip Recreation Area, except in developed facilities and the two OHV areas, will be classified as limited to designated roads and trails. These designated trails and routes were established under the 1 993 Parker Strip Recreation Area Management Plan (see Map 3 1 ). |
|
TM-20. |
Public lands within the Swansea Townsite will be classified as limited to designated roads and trails. These designated trails and routes were established under the Swansea Historic District Cultural Resource Management Plan (Bureau of Land Management 1997c) (see Map 31). |
|
TM-21. |
Individual designated routes within the four areas listed above may be revaluated in the TMP, only if it can be shown that sensitive resources or unique recreational opportunities are impacted by the earlier designations. |
|
TM-22. |
The 2,602 acres in the Crossroads and Copper Basin OHV areas will remain designated open to intensive OHV use. The Recreation Project Plan for the Parker Strip Off-Highway Vehicle Area and Routes was completed in 1996, and no changes in management are proposed (Bureau of Land Management 1996). |
|
TM-23. |
Approximately 602 acres identified as resource protection sites in previous implementation documents (including activity level plans or NEPA actions) will be designated Closed (see Map 31). (Note: Sites smaller than 5 acres are not shown.) |
|
TM-24. |
Standard Wash and Shea Road/Osbome Wash RMZs will be allocated “Open” following compliance with NHPA and the Endangered Species Act and the successful resolution of adverse effects to historic properties and threatened and endangered species. Until these consultations are completed in these two RMZs, travel will remain restrieted to existing roads and trails. |
|
TM-25. |
The Southern bluff RMZ above the Colorado River in the Colorado River Nature Center SRMA will be limited to authorized users for motorized vehicles. |
|
TM-26. |
Within Take Havasu Aubrey Hills area, motorized use will be limited to authorized users. (See Map 31 and Biological Resources.) |
|
TM-27. |
Approximately 5,023 acres identified as protection sites in previous plans would be designated as “limited” and the specific concerns for these areas will be identified as evaluation criteria and addressed through the route evaluation and designation process. |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan ns
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Refer to the discussion in the Special Designations section for additional motorized vehicle provisions in these areas (see Map 28).
Management Actions
|
TM-28. |
To maintain the natural landscape in lands managed for maintaining wilderness characteristics, vehicles will be limited to existing routes until the route designation process is complete. Each route will be evaluated on individual merit and designated open, limited, or closed. Non-motorized access may include development of some trails or, to minimize disturbance of the ground surface, be limited to marking foot routes with posts. |
|
TM-29. |
The BLM will require permittees (e.g., for hunting, wood gathering, livestock operators) to comply with field office route designations. Exceptions may be authorized on a case-by-case basis. |
|
TM-30. |
Impacts of motorized activity (except for authorized vehicles) will be evaluated and the areas converted to limited to administrative access to motorized vehicles within 0.25 mile of any spring. If necessary to maintain access, a new route may be established. |
|
TM-31. |
Specific routes or portions of specific routes through WHAs established for special status species may be closed to vehicular traffic (except for administrative use) during the seasons when the habitats are being used and will be addressed during the route designation process. |
|
TM-32. |
No new permanent motorized routes will be authorized in lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics, except those required by law. |
|
TM-33. |
Upon completion of the TMP process, the route network will be limited to designated roads, primitive roads, and trails. Upon completion of each TMP, a map will be published showing the status, maintenance intensity, and other relevant information for all roads, primitive roads, and trails within each respective Travel Management Area. |
|
TM-34. |
The BLM will not develop, endorse, or establish route or trail ratings. The BLM may describe physical characteristics of a route. |
|
TM-35. |
Proposals for new roads, routes, or trails (including but not limited to ROWs and/or administrative needs) will be evaluated and the route designated in conjunction with the NEPA process (see Appendix L). |
|
TM-36. |
Use of authorized ROWs will be managed for public access and through the TMPs designated either open or limited. |
|
TM-37. |
On BLM published maps, areas designated as limited to authorized users will be shown as closed to general motorized use. |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
116
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
TM-38. All rockcrawling activities will be limited to locations away from special status species. This will be a consideration in the Route Evaluation Process.
TM-39. Prior to completing the TMP and route designation process, any vehicle routes not represented on the route inventory maps will be subject to restoration actions as described in Administrative Actions and Standard Operating Procedures, Appendix B. After site-specific cultural and wildlife clearances are accomplished, the restoration action could be completed without further NEPA or public notice.
TM-40. Through the route designation process, the BLM will decrease Bill Williams River vehicle access crossings to two sites downstream of Alamo Dam. The BLM will continue working with landowners to provide non-motorized access to the river.
Monitoring
TMPs will be developed and include prescriptions and monitoring strategies.
In the 5 years prior to the completion of the TMP, monitoring of OHV use on the interim route network will be completed in conjunction with other resource programs. Mitigation measures (such as those listed in Appendix L, Travel Management) may be initiated where impacts from OHV use impacts sensitive resources. The interim route network includes the “Existing Roads and Trails” as defined by the Route Inventory Maps. The inventory maps include routes already designated in previous activity plans and these designations still apply. These areas/routes will be monitored for compliance.
Land Health Assessments will determine upland conditions and trend as a part of all TMPs and serve as a baseline measure for any further monitoring required to measure management success in that area. This will include route restoration prescriptions to satisfy land health objectives, and monitoring strategy to measure progress and management success. Revegetation and soil stabilization prescriptions associated with utility and transportation corridor work, plus monitoring requirements will be addressed as part of this effort on existing corridors; new proposals will have prescriptions and monitoring strategies addressed in the NEPA process.
At the end of many roads and trails exists an abandoned mine. Therefore, the TMP is an opportunity to identify abandoned mines as an inventory for risk assessment, management actions, and further monitoring to assure public and environmental health. Abandoned mine lands identified through this process will be included in the BLM database. Sites with high risk factors will be ineluded in the Annual Planning Update Report and Summary.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
117
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Visual Resource Management
Visual resource values are managed in accordance with Visual Resource Management
(VRM) class objectives (see Map 33). VRM classes are allocated for all areas of BLM-
administered land, based on an inventory of visual resources and management
considerations for other land uses. The following criteria were used in determining the
VRM Management Class allocations for this plan:
■ The overall management emphasis intended for each alternative.
■ Recognize all applicable Special Designations and all Land Use Allocations as VRM classifications are applied.
■ Assure that other management activities and land uses being provided for in a specific area may be achieved within the VRM Class objective being set, consistent with Special Designations and Land Use Allocations.
■ Use of the least restrictive class that still achieves objectives to attain Desired Future Conditions.
Desired Future Conditions
VR-l . VRM Class I - The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for the natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change of the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention.
VR-2. VRM Class II - The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
VR-3. VRM Class III - The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing
character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
VR-4. VRM Class IV - The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
118
May 2007
Map 33 Visual Resource Management
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
TOON
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
TQ4N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Lake I Mohave
VRM Classes
(applies to BLM-administered lands) HH Class
Nevada
KINGMAN
-BULLHEAD
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid
Interstate Highways
US and State Highways
Rivers and Canais
LAKE HAVASU . . CITY ,
Lakey%
Havasu
Alamo Lake J
Santa
iylohave
tiountv
PARKI
San Bernardino Counfy Riverside County jJ
AGUILA
|
I |
^ |
i 1 |
|
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
I I I I I The Bureau of Land Management makes
1 ’ I ' ^ no warranties, implied or expressed,
0 5 10 20 Kilometers with respect to information shown on
this map.
R13W R12W R11W R10W
PLANNING
AREA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
r,. —
« t C i-»sM ^
■'J
I
" - ■■'. -■ ' ' . m
*MC' v’*
' I'”**'''*' **'
^ f*
'■KIJSSfj;)* H-: ,
7^'
. ,.)i.‘ :,
yf
m.
I
!,’•
t'lUii
Jit :■ %'• ^Sv» I
r'’-„
;'! ^1'.
i/
'x,>
■Mr O-MCII.' .
.>’ ■ ■■' i''" '' '1
^ jttrifk ..; .-Ai.m.mP 'iFiX^iKiww wS .afl-t. '■ 4 ’
'•' '■|^ \\ ■“*
’ ' ■'",■■■5# ‘’.'I
- ■* ' V
/ ':.V
j [M-
jJ,.-.;, ■4^'
bi". A
;' '-: 'V/Ac±!
', 1 1
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Land Use Allocations (Shown in Map 33)
|
VR-5. |
Class I: 179,133 acres |
|
VR-6. |
Class II: 253,367 acres |
|
VR-7. |
Class III: 521,356 acres |
|
VR-8. |
Class IV: 405,247 acres |
|
Managemeni |
: Actions |
|
VR-9. |
Visual resource design techniques and best management practices will be used to mitigate the potential for short- and long-term visual impacts from other uses and activities. |
|
VR-10. |
Contrast ratings are required for major projects proposed on public lands that fall within VRM Class I, II, and III areas that have high sensitivity levels. Contrast-rating procedures are described in Handbook H-8341-1 and outlined in Appendix B, Administrative Actions and Standard Operating Procedures. |
|
VR-11. |
The BLM will protect the scenic quality in a corridor on each side of SR 95 from south of Lake Havasu City to the Bill Williams River, a distance of approximately 20 miles. The width of the corridor will be 0.5 mile to either side of the paved shoulders of SR 95 (Map 33). Public lands in this scenic corridor will generally be managed to VRM Class II or III objectives. Physical improvements to existing leases or activities such as ROWs will be managed per existing agreements. |
Monitoring
Since the overall VRM goal is to minimize visual impacts, mitigating measures will be prepared for all adverse contrasts that can be reduced. These measures will be evaluated for effectiveness in meeting VRM Management Objectives as part of compliance monitoring.
Some or all of the Key Observation Points (KOPs) used during the VRM inventory, and the establishment of new KOPs identified by changing conditions, plans, or actions will be evaluated in VRM Class I, II, and III areas and monitored for changes in landscape character every 5 years in rotation.
Wild Burro Management
The management of wild burros on public land is accomplished at the minimum level necessary to assure the herd’s free-roaming character, health, and self-sustaining ability in accordance with the Act. Herd areas (HAs) are limited to the geographic areas identified as being habitat used by wild burros at the time of passage of the Act (Map 34).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
119
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Herd Management Areas (HMAs) are established on areas within HAs through the land use planning process, within which wild burros can be managed for the long term. Upon designation as an HMA, wild burros shall be managed as an integral component of the public lands on the basis of multiple uses and in a manner that maintains an ecological balance (Map 35).
Desired Future Conditions
HB-l . Viable, color-diverse burro populations will be maintained within the HMA, while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance with other resources and consistent with other management agencies’ objectives (including wildlife, riparian and upland vegetation, recreation, and others).
Land Use Allocations
HB-2. In accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, non-BLM- administered lands including the Alamo Wildlife Area, will be excluded from HMAs. These lands will be excluded from determinations of Appropriate Management Level (AML) for burros within the HMA. Wild burros that use non-BLM lands as part of their habitat remain protected under the Wild Horse and Burro Act; therefore, any removal actions remain the responsibility of the BLM.
The California side of the Havasu HMA (Havasu-CA HMA) will be managed in accordance with the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan, which combines the Havasu-CA HMA with the Chemehuevi HMA (Bureau of Land Management 2002b). The combined area will be named Chemehuevi HMA and the initial AML will be 108 burros.
Based on the manageability analysis found in Appendix M, wild burros will not be managed within the Little Harquahala HA boundaries; therefore, the HA will not be designated as an HMA and the BLM does not intend to maintain a burro herd in this areas.
HB-3. The eastern boundary of the Alamo HMA will run west from the southern boundary of the Alamo Wildlife Area, and then extend south from the state land block within the Palmerita Allotment, excluding the Alamo Wildlife Area, state, and private land. This demarcation will provide protection for threatened and endangered species, riparian, and wildlife issues.
HB-4. The area north of Lake Havasu City (west of SR 95 and east of the Colorado River) will be excluded from the Havasu HMA due to increasing population pressures, traffic concerns, and refuge conflicts.
HB-5. The initial AML levels will be adjusted based on the AMLs in the existing plans, the effects of boundary changes on the critical area, and existing monitoring data, which is the basis for the AML.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
120
May 2007
Map 34 Wild Horse and Burro Herd Areas
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Lake ■ Mohave
Burro Herd Areas (HA) administered by LHFO plans Herd Areas administered by other field office plans Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary County Boundaries Township Grid Interstate Highways US and State Highways Rivers and Canals
Nevada
KINGMAN
BULLHEAD
CITY
Lakes
HAVASU-CA HA 'd
William's'Rivei-
PARKER
San Bernardino County
Riverside County \U
AGUILA
|
f^/ / /\^ / / / / / /^/ / / /■ |
|||
|
{ \ |
LITTLE HARQUAHALA HA |
||
|
L m c |
|
7//Iv ■'“<n ,i . |
\ |
|||
|
/ / / / |
\' ■ |
<D > |
||
|
a |
||||
|
/// / / //X/ / / / |
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
A '
^ ' 0 5 10 20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
PLAN N I N G AREA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Map 35 Wild Burro Herd Management Areas
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
R20E R21E
□ Burro Herd Management Areas (HMA) administered by LHFO RMP [/ /\ Burro Herd Areas (HA) administered by LHFO RMP
□ Burro HMAs within LHFO boundary, administered by adjacent FO plans Burro HAs within LHFO boundary, administered by adjacent FO plans Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid ^ •• • : Interstate Highways mmmmm US and State Highways " ' ' Rivers and Canals
Lake * Mohave
Nevada
KINGMAN
KFO - BLACK MOUNTAIN HMA
HAVAS U-AZ / HMA
HAVAS U-pA HMA (part of C^iemeheuvi HMA) \|
Lakey^
Havasu
PARKER
Sar^ernardino County Riverside County
AGUILA
LITTLE
HARQUAHALA HA _
|
j [l |
! 1 5] 1 |
|
1 |
1 |
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
N 0 5 10 20 Miles
A ' ' '
r \ 0 5 10 20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
P L A N N I N G ““i
AREA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Management Actions
HB-6. Management of burros in the Alamo HMA will consider and assess the fish
and wildlife conservation purposes and objectives for the Alamo Wildlife Area and the mandates of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Endangered Species Act. The purposes and objectives for the Wildlife Area are outlined in AGFD’s Alamo Wildlife Area Management Plan. AGFD has indicated that they will periodically (approximately every 5 years) review and possibly revise the plan. The BLM will manage the burros in consultation with AGFD and USFWS consistent with the Alamo Wildlife Area Management Plan. Decisions concerning burros within the wildlife area will be consistent with federal laws and regulations, including the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended 1976 and 1978.
The BLM does not intend to maintain burros that are outside of HMA boundaries but are within the HAs, nor maintain burros that are within HA that have not been designated as an HMA. Burro use will occur within the Alamo Wildlife Area as outlined in the Alamo Wildlife Area Management Plan.
Burro use may occur within the Santa Maria and Big Sandy corridors at levels developed cooperatively with AGFD and USFWS.
The BLM and AGFD will work collaboratively to provide wild burros with access to water in Alamo Lake within specific areas of the Alamo Wildlife Area. Such access will be through agreement with AGFD and compatible with the goals and objectives of the wildlife area as outlined in the Alamo Wildlife Area Management Plan.
The level of burro use that is compatible and acceptable within the Alamo Wildlife Area will be cooperatively determined by AGFD and the BLM and identified in the Alamo Wildlife Area Plan. The BLM, AGFD, and USFWS will work together to establish key monitoring areas within sensitive riparian habitat. AGFD has indicated that they believe burro use will be compatible with the purposes of the wildlife area if annual bark stripping of live trees does not exceed 3% in any of the key areas. Additional upland monitoring sites and associated levels of acceptable use may be established within the Alamo Wildlife Area if resource damage by burros is observed in those areas.
The BLM will target burro removals in sensitive habitat areas and work with AGFD and USFWS to develop other management practices (if needed) such as the construction of fencing and alternative water sources to maintain levels of acceptable burro use within the wildlife area and to protect sensitive habitats.
The BLM will evaluate all monitoring data, population data, and removal data every 5 years to assess whether the current AML continues to be appropriate for all HMAs (Havasu and Alamo). During the evaluation process, monitoring protocols and additional data needs will be analyzed. The evaluation will consider acceptable levels of use within the Alamo Wildlife Area. The evaluation and any adjustments in AML will be conducted in coordination and
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
121
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
consultation with the AGFD and USFWS. The AGFD has stated that they will periodically re-evaluate monitoring and acceptable burro use levels within the Alamo Wildlife Area. Every effort will be made to insure that these evaluations occur as concurrently and collaborative as feasible.
HB-7. Any new fence construction within burro HMAs will not prevent burro access to water, unless the water has been developed for a specific purpose (such as wildlife catchments) that will make it necessary to exclude burros.
HB-8. The guidelines and criteria for adjusting AML will include the use of
monitoring data and be coordinated with affected resources and agencies.
HB-9. Safety issues will continue to be handled as emergency/nuisance removals,
receiving top priority to correct public safety concerns. Additionally, the BLM will work with ADOT to create accessible safe crossings for wildlife and wild burros.
HB-10. The initial Appropriate Management Levels for wild burros (the number of wild burros to be managed with the HMA) in the Approved RMP are listed below. Acreages within the HMAs appear in Table 9:
Alamo: 160 Havasu- AZ: 166 Havasu-CA/Chemehuevi: 108
|
Table 9. Acreages within Herd Management Areas |
|
|
HMA |
Acreage |
|
Alamo |
189,237 |
|
Havasu AZ |
268,271 |
|
Havasu-C A/ Chemehuevi |
24,318 |
Monitoring
Monitoring data will continue to be collected on the Havasu and Alamo HMAs to ensure proper use and to provide a tool to evaluate the Appropriate Management Level. The data collected include climate, actual use, utilization, and trend. Population data will continue to be collected in coordination with AGFD every 3 to 5 years through collaborative census techniques. Age and sex data are collected following removals of excess burros. Census flights and burro removals will be reported in the Annual Planning Update Report and Summary.
The simultaneous double-count census method has been tested in coordination with the AGFD as a technique for accurately estimating burro populations. As any technique becomes available, the BLM and AGFD will work collaboratively to test its effectiveness.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
122
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Wilderness Characteristics
Desired Future Conditions
WC- 1 . The following wilderness characteristics will be maintained or enhanced where lands are allocated for that purpose:
Naturalness - Lands and resources exhibit a high degree of naturalness when affected primarily by the forces of nature and where the imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable. Naturalness attributes may include the presence or absence of roads and trails, fences, wildlife facilities and other improvements; the nature and extent of landscape modifications; the presence of native vegetation communities; and the connectivity of habitats. Wildlife populations and habitat are recognized as important aspects of the naturalness and will be actively managed.
Solitude - Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for solitude when the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or infrequent, where visitors can be isolated, alone or secluded from others.
Primitive and Unconfined Recreation - Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfmed types of recreation where the use of the area is through non-motorized, non-mechanical means off designated routes or as specifically excepted, and where no or minimal developed recreation facilities are encountered.
Land Use Allocations
WC-2. 41,590 acres will be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics (Map 36).
Management Actions
WC-3. Use of motor vehicles and mechanical transport, and the construction of
temporary roads, structures, and installations will be allowed for emergency purposes. Any emergency actions will be conducted in a manner that creates the least disturbance and will be reclaimed as soon as possible after the situation has ended.
WC-4. Use of non-motorized wheeled carts (game carriers) will be allowed.
WC-5. The administrative use of motorized/mechanized equipment for natural and cultural resource management will be allowed. Administrative activities include, but are not limited to, water supplementation, collar retrieval, and capture/release of wildlife, maintenance/repair and reconstruction or construction of wildlife waters. Cross-country travel for administrative purposes will be permitted only with prior approval by the authorized officer. Any administrative actions will be conducted in a manner that creates the least
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
123
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
disturbance and reclaimed as soon as possible after the administrative need has ended.
WC-6. Surface-disturbing activities or the permanent placement of structures
including the rerouting of inventoried and/or designated routes will be allowed only when the level of change to the landscape is low. Though sueh ehanges may be seen, they will not attract the attention of the easual observer, subject to criteria outlined below.’
WC-7. Develop and maintain reereation facilities only when compatible with
maintaining wilderness characteristics or when needed to proteet resources or provide for public safety.
WC-8. Maintenance of existing facilities will be allowed.
WC-9. Decrease the visual effect of facilities on naturalness or scenic resources, when the opportunity arises, during reconstruction, replacement, or major maintenance of new or existing facilities.
WC-10. Vending operations and coneession leases will be prohibited. Other temporary commercial or recreation permits that meet the land use plan objectives for the area could be issued. These permits include, but not limited to, SRPs for backcountry guides or temporary land use authorizations for filming.
WC-1 1 . Public lands within lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics will be retained in public ownership.
^ Project consideration criteria: In general, projects with a small footprint that, across the area as a whole, would benefit maintenance of wilderness characteristics and are compatible with other resource objectives could be approved. Criteria to consider include:
■ Need for project to protect natural and cultural resources.
■ Opportunity to manage and control public use or provide for public safety.
■ Opportunity to restore or enhance natural, cultural, or visual resources and meet resource objectives.
■ Magnitude of long-term effect (positive or negative) on naturalness and resources.
■ Ability to restore the use area after the project is completed to its previous natural state.
■ Size and scale of project.
■ Compatibility with the specified VRM zone and recreation settings.
■ Loss of opportunity for solitude and primitive recreation.
■ Potential for project or use to be accommodated outside of area.
When approved, projects would be completed using the least impacting methods that could be reasonably used to accomplish the project, considering resource effects as well as labor effort and cost, including designs for the facility to blend into the landscape, consideration of site seleetion and use of a low profile, design facilities that would require minimal maintenance, and use of best management practices to minimize surface and vegetation disturbance during constmction. When completed, a restoration plan would be implemented to actively restore disturbed areas.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
124
May 2007
Map 36 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
R20E R21E
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
T02N
T01N
T01S
T02S
Lake"
Mohave'
Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
Trails within Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area Boundary
County Boundaries
Township Grid
Interstate Highways
US and State Highways
Rivers and Canals
Lakes
Nevada
KINGMAN
BULLHEAD
CITY
•LAKE HAVASU
Alamo Lake J
Mohave Counts
La-, PazXounty
PARKER
San Bernardino County
^
Riverside County B
AGUILA
|
E Santa h' |
|
T21N
T20N
T19N
T18N
T17N
T16.5N
T16N
T15N
T14N
T13N
T12N
T11N
T10N
T09N
T08N
T07N
T06N
T05N
T04N
T03N
R22W R21W R20W R19W R18W
LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE
Record of Decision /
Approved Resource Management Plan
R17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W R11W R10W
N 0
A
10
J.
20 Miles
I
20 Kilometers
The Bureau of Land Management makes no warranties, implied or expressed, with respect to information shown on this map.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management
May 2007
' i»r
•* •' .. >\
m'
' "'■ ’ ' '.f ^ :f:' , ■';' : ■’.'
V'^':
TPT '
li..
,vAi
1“
■■ ‘^i ' -f yi' , , '•>
.■4;.
f ■ '
„
I ,- ' < T •"•
i%'
; ■
,' • •vfc '
.. 4’- n'*' . , ..
r"'=4'
jgj ) . 'i . ,,^
■VAT
^'1* 0. ' ^1
.'5 I 'V : ■1'. , '"av'^"
?> ,■ Al" )"-
..''I’
Ji,.;-} 4y,-
mi
‘ ::■ '5-:;
4ir
-^1’' V''«3sf'osS
.'.'f
'•’^7
H'!^
■■'«'rAs
■in' ' (
. t '
:«r'“
I'-:'.’
I ... { ■’ ■ :L
L, :i^'
1' ,^ ^ ■; , :i: . ■' 4'Sais»v*™w4S .V
■■..•■ 1
fim:- .'.■ -‘‘v • ','■ ■ ’•
iKr'
.4mA.
l( S”
!i:',.iii..' V' .ufL
f '^' TI-TTU
1;^
I r
rf:-i*4Si
Fmm
c&wx
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
|
WC-12. |
Acquire state and private inholdings from willing sellers whenever practicable, within lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. |
|
WC-13. |
Recreational or hobby collecting of mineral specimens when conducted without location of a mining claim and limited to hand collection and detection equipment may be allowed. |
|
MI-8. |
Mineral material development will only be authorized on lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics when there will be no lasting impacts to solitude, unconfmed recreation, and naturalness. |
|
MI-14. |
Surface occupancy for mineral leases will be permitted on lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics when there will be no lasting impacts to solitude, unconfmed recreation, and naturalness. |
|
WC-14. |
Existing livestock grazing operations and support facilities are allowed to continue. |
|
WC-15. |
During fire suppression operations, minimum impact suppression techniques will be used. |
|
WC-16. |
Prescribed fires are allowed in conformity with a fire management plan so long as it is consistent with improving or maintaining the area’s wilderness characteristics. |
|
WC-17. |
Vegetative manipulation to control noxious, exotic, or invasive plant species is allowed when there is no effective alternative and when the control is necessary to maintain the natural ecological balances within the area. Control may include manual, chemical, and biological treatment provided it will not cause adverse impacts to the wilderness characteristics. |
|
WC-18. |
Rehabilitation, stabilization, reconstruction, and restoration work on prehistoric and historic sites and structures, as well as, excavations and surface collection may be specifically permitted if wilderness characteristics are maintained. |
|
Monitoring |
Lands managed for wilderness characteristics will be monitored to determine the effectiveness of management prescriptions to maintain naturalness, solitude, and Primitive Unconfmed Recreation as defined in IM 2003-275 - Change 1 Attachment 2 (see Appendix A, Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Planning Criteria).
Monitoring can be completed in conjunction with other resource programs, such as Recreation, Travel Management (IMP), Biological Resources (Land Health Standards) Monitoring will be conducted in rotation (one area per year or as needed.) Results and conclusions of this work will be presented in the 5-year plan evaluation.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
125
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Public Involvement
The BLM will continue to actively seek the views of the public, using techniques such as news releases and mass mailings to ask for participation and to inform the public of new and ongoing project proposals (including the status of the TMP), site-specific planning, and opportunities and timeframes for comment. The public is encouraged to contact the BLM (Lake Havasu Field Office at 2610 Sweetwater Avenue, Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86406) and request that their name be placed in the field office mailing list along with their specific area of interest (e.g., recreation, cultural, or mineral) for future projects. The public may also make this request by calling (928) 505-1200.
The BLM will also continue to coordinate, both formally and informally, with the numerous federal and state agencies, American Indian Tribes, local agencies, and officials interested and involved in the management of public lands in the planning area.
Management Plan Implementation
Plan implementation is a continuous and active process. Decisions presented in the Management Decisions section of this Approved RMP are of three types; Immediate, One-Time, and Long-Term.
Immediate Decisions
These decisions go into effect upon signature of the Record of Decision and Approved RMP. These include decisions such as the allocation of lands as available or unavailable for disposal, ACEC designations, and minerals actions. Immediate decisions require no additional analysis and provide the framework for any subsequent activities proposed in the planning area. Proposals for actions such as land adjustments and other allocation- based actions will be reviewed against these decisions/allocations to determine if the proposal is in conformance with the plan.
One-Time Decisions
These decisions include those that are implemented after additional site-specific analysis is completed. Examples are implementation of the development of an ACEC plan or TMP. One-time decisions usually require additional analysis and are prioritized as part of the BLM budget process. Priorities for implementation of “one-time” RMP decisions will be based on several criteria, including:
■ Current and projected resource needs and demands.
■ National and statewide BLM management direction and program emphasis.
■ Funding.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
126
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
Long-Term Guidance/Life of Plan Direction
These decisions include the goals, objectives (Desired Future Conditions), and management actions established by the plan that are applied during site-specific analyses and activity planning. This guidance is applied whether the action is initiated by the BLM or by a non-BLM project proponent. Long-term guidance and plan direction is incorporated into BLM management as implementation-level planning and project analysis occurs. For instance, if any developer, including the BLM, proposes construction of a new launch ramp on Lake Flavasu that involves public land, that proposal would need to be in harmony with the goals, allocations, and actions established through this Approved RMP relative to that parcel of land, for the associated biological, prescribed recreation settings, VRM, and lands interests. If the proposal was in compliance with the BLM’s long-term guidance, it could easily move onto the next level of assessment. In short, these decisions “guide” BLM decision-makers in what is, and is not acceptable through the life of the plan.
General Implementation Schedule of “One-Time”
Actions
Decisions in the Approved RMP will be implemented over a period of years depending on budget and staff availability. Appendix N identifies the priority and schedules for projects. Most of these actions require additional analysis and site-specific activity planning. The priority list and schedule will assist BLM managers and staff members in preparing budget requests and in scheduling work. However, the proposed priorities must be considered tentative and will be affected by future funding, changing program priorities, non-discretionary workloads, community dynamics, and cooperation by partners and external publics.
Implementation Updates
The BLM will prepare an Annual Planning Update Report and Summary on the implementation of the Approved RMP. This report will be released in January of the year following the fiscal year reviewed (for example, January 2009 for Fiscal Year 2008) and will be available to the public on the Internet, with hard copies available upon request. Annual review of the plan will provide consistent tracking of accomplishments and provide information that can be used to develop annual budget requests to continue implementation.
Maintaining the Plan
Land use plan decisions and supporting information can be maintained to reflect minor changes in data, but maintenance is limited to refining, documenting, and/or clarifying previously approved decisions. Some examples of maintenance actions include:
■ Correcting minor data, typographical, mapping, or tabular data enors.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
127
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
■ Refining baseline information as a result of new inventory data (e.g., changing the boundary of an archaeological district, refining the known habitat of special status species, or adjusting the boundary of a fire management unit based on updated fire regime condition class inventory, fire occurrence, monitoring data, and/or demographic changes).
The BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, research, other agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data and/or support new management techniques, best management practices, and scientific principles. Adaptive management strategies may be used when monitoring data is available as long as the goals and objectives of the plan are met (see Plan Evaluation and Adaptive Management). In other words, where monitoring shows land use plan actions or best management practices are not effective, modifications or adjustments may occur within the plan without amendment or revision of the plan as long as assumptions and impacts disclosed in the analysis remain valid and broad-scale goals and objectives are not changed.
Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records (see Appendix O for an example of a Plan Maintenance Roster) and reported in annual planning updates. Plan maintenance does not require formal public involvement, inter-agency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making new land use plan decisions.
Changing the Plan
Land use plan decisions are changed through either a plan amendment or a plan revision. Amendments and revisions are accomplished with public input and the appropriate level of environmental analysis.
Plan amendments are often prompted by the need to:
■ consider an action that does not conform to the plan,
■ implement a policy that changes land use plan decisions,
■ respond to changed uses on public lands, and
■ consider significant new information from resource assessments, monitoring, or scientific studies that change land use plan decisions.
Plan revisions involve preparation of a new RMP to replace an existing RMP. Revisions are necessary if monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, or changes in circumstances indicate that decisions for an entire plan, or a major portion of the plan, no longer serve as a useful guide for resource management.
The Approved RMP may be changed, should conditions warrant, through a plan amendment. A plan amendment may become necessary if major changes are needed or in consideration of a proposal or action that is not in conformance with the plan. The results of monitoring, evaluation of new data, or policy changes and changing public needs might also provide the impetus for an amendment. Generally, an amendment is
issue-specific. If several areas of the plan become outdated or otherwise obsolete, a plan
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
128
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
amendment may become necessary. Amendments are accomplished with public input and the appropriate level of environmental analysis.
Plan Evaluation and Adaptive Management
Plan Evaluation
Evaluation is a process in which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to see if management goals and objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. Land use plan evaluations determine if decisions are being implemented, whether mitigation measures are satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the related plans of other entities, whether there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions should be changed through amendment. Monitoring data gathered over time is examined and used to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, why they are failing. Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current management or to identify what changes need to be made in management practices to meet objectives.
The BLM will use land use plan evaluations to determine if the decisions in the Approved RMP, supported by the accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid in light of new information and monitoring data. Evaluation of the Approved RMP will generally be conducted every 5 years, unless unexpected actions, new information, or significant changes in other plans, legislation, or litigation triggers an evaluation.
The following estimated evaluation schedule will be followed for the Lake Elavasu Field Office RMP:
■ 2012
■ 2017
■ 2022 ■ 2027
Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H- 1601-1) or other appropriate guidance in effect when the evaluation is initiated.
Adaptive Management
As defined by the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, adaptive management is a system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes, monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or re-evaluated.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
129
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Approved Resource Management Plan
As described in the DRMP/DEIS and the PRMP/FEIS, the Lake Havasu Field Office Approved RMP fosters “adaptiveness” by the presentation of desired future conditions that focus on reaching outcomes rather than identifying inflexible standards and prescriptions that may not be applicable in certain situations.
When land use plan actions or best management practices are found to be ineffective, modifications may occur without amendment of the plan as long as assumptions and impacts disclosed in the analysis remain valid and broad-scale goals and objectives are not changed. This approach, as depicted on Figure 1, uses on-the-ground monitoring, review of scientific information, and consideration of practical experience to adjust management and modify implementation of the plan to reach the desired outcome. See Appendix P for a Plan Monitoring Roster.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
130
May 2007
FIGURE 1: MONITORING MODEL FLOW DIAGRAM
\
, • • .. •. :• . . I. • • ■, )!»•.“/•_ ■ .■.'
• ■ " ^ ■■■ :. ‘Pc .-•; V '
fC ■' ■ ' . *, «Ji'!Vv, ■'''=('. i' '
■ " = . .,M
■• ii' '
•• i. 4% .(,'' ' •w»Os2®w; '■■ • ■ ■ aiv
■ ’*'' '' ' '
• ■*;: .';,''4,^/ -M--
5-iij;'"
S'
I
t
p
I
f
?
h
B
i,
VI
'f
t-
Glossary
A
ACCESS: The ability to legally make use of route or way across public or private lands; without barriers to use by the public or a specified user.
ACQUIRED PUBLIC LANDS: Lands in federal ownership that the government obtained as a gift or by purchase, exchange, or condemnation. Also see PUBLIC LANDS.
ACQUISITION: The activity of obtaining land and/or interest in land through purchase, exchange, donation, or condemnation.
ACTIVITY PLAN: A detailed and specific plan for managing a single resource program or plan element undertaken as needed to implement the more general resource management plan (RMP) decisions. BLM prepares activity plans for specific areas to reach specific resource management objectives within stated time frames. Synonymous with Implementation Plan.
ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP): A livestock grazing management plan dealing with a specific unit of rangeland and based on multiple use resource management objectives. The AMP considers livestock grazing in relation to other uses of rangelands and to renewable resources (e.g., watershed, vegetation, and wildlife). An AMP establishes the seasons of use, number of livestock to be permitted on rangelands, and the range improvements needed.
ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV): A two- to six-wheeled vehicle equipped with low-pressure tires and a seat straddled by the rider.
ANIMAL UNIT: One mature (1,000-pound) cow or the equivalent based upon an average daily forage consumption of 26 pounds of dry matter per day.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
131
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM): The amount of forage needed to sustain one cow, five sheep, or five goats for a month.
APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT LEVEL: That “optimum number” of wild horses, which results in a thriving ecological balance and avoids a deterioration of the range.
AQUATIC HABITATS: Habitats confined to streams, rivers, springs, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and other water bodies.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURE: Non-portable object, not recoverable from its matrix (usually in an archaeological site) without destroying its integrity. Examples are rock paintings, hearths, postholes, floors, and walls.
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACECs): Areas where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important cultural, historic, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazard under section 2021(3) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.(FLPMA)
ARIZONA REVISED STATUE ARS1 7-301 B [USE OF FIREARMS]: A person shall not take wildlife, except aquatic wildlife, or discharge a firearm or shoot any other device from a motor vehicle, including an automobile, aircraft, train or powerboat, or from a sailboat, boat under sail, or a floating object towed by powerboat or sailboat except as expressly permitted by the commission. No person may knowingly discharge any firearm or shoot any other device upon, from, across, or into a road or railway.
ARIZONA STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING ADMINISTRATION: Standards and guidelines developed collaboratively by BLM and the Arizona Resource Advisory Council (RAC) to address the minimum requirements of the Department of the Interior’s final rule for Grazing Administration, effective August 21, 1995.
AUTHORIZED: Invested with legal authority through a written agreement, permit, or other legal document by the BLM.
AVAILABLE FORAGE: Forage that can be grazed and still allow sustained forage production on rangeland. Available forage may or may not be authorized for grazing.
B
BACA BILL: The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000, commonly referred to as the Baca Bill, amended FLPMA to allow a percentage of receipts from qualifying land sales and equalization payments from qualifying exchanges to be returned to the Department.
BACK COUNTRY BYWAYS: A component of the national scenic byway system that focuses primarily on corridors along back country roads that have high scenic, historic, archaeological, or other public interest values. The road may vary from a single-track bike trail to a low-speed, paved road that traverses back country areas.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
132
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
BASIN AND RANGE: A landscape characterized by a series of fault block mountains separated by sediment-filled basins.
BENEFIT (RECREATION/SOCIETAL): A benefit is defined as an improved condition or the prevention of a worse condition. Benefits of leisure and recreation engagements can be realized by individuals (e.g., improved physical and psychological well-being), groups of individuals (strengthened bonds among family and friends), communities (economic gain from tourism), society (the cumulative effects of individual and group benefits), and the environment (a result of a stronger environmental ethic among individuals).
BENEFITS-BASED MANAGEMENT (RECREATION/SOCIETAL): Benefits-based management is an approach to park and recreation management that focuses on the positive outcomes of engaging in recreational experiences.
BIG GAME: Large species of wildlife that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope.
BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT: Area is open to non-vehicular traffic year around (e.g., hiking, biking, and equestrian). Restrictions vary by location and are listed in RMP. Typically, roads are closed during lambing season (January 1-June 30).
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT : Information prepared by or under the direction of a federal agency to determine whether a proposed action is likely to: 1) harm threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, 2) jeopardize the existence of species that are proposed for listing, or 3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat. Biological assessments must be prepared for major construction activities. The outcome of a biological assessment determines whether formal Section 7 consultation or a conference is needed. Also see BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION.
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (BIODIVERSITY): The full range of variability within and among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. Biological diversity encompasses ecosystem or community diversity, species diversity, and genetic diversity.
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION: The gathering and evaluation of information on proposed endangered and threatened species and critical and proposed critical habitat for actions that do not require a biological assessment. Also see BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT.
BIOLOGICAL OPINION: A document that includes the following: 1) the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service as to whether a federal action is likely to jeopardize the existence of a species listed as threatened or endangered or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat, 2) a summary of the information on which the opinion is based, and 3) a detailed discussion of the effects of the action on listed species or designated critical habitat.
BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES: See SENSITIVE SPECIES.
BOSQUE: Woodland dominated by trees more than 15 feet tall.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
133
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
c
CAMPING, SHORT TERM: Camping for short terms of up to 14 days (in any 28-day period) on BLM-managed primitive or undeveloped public land.
CANDIDATE SPECIES: Species not protected under the Endangered Species Act but being considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for inclusion on the list of federally threatened and endangered species.
CASUAL USE (RECREATION): Noncommercial or non-organized group or individual activities on public land. Complies with land use decisions and designations, (e.g., Special Area Designations), does not award cash prizes, is not publicly advertised, poses minimal risk for damage to public land or related water resource values, and generally requires no monitoring. If the use goes beyond those conditions, the activity should be treated as any other organized recreational group or competitive activity or event for which BLM would require the event organizer to obtain an SRP.
CASUAL USE (MINING): Mining that only negligibly disturbs federal lands and resources and does not include the use of mechanized earth moving equipment or explosives or motorized equipment. Casual use generally includes panning, non-motorized sluicing, and collecting mineral specimens using hand tools.
CATTLE GUARD: A device placed in a road, usually a grate or series of metal bars placed perpendicular to the flow of traffic, which allows free passage of vehicles but which livestock will not cross.
CHAINING: A mechanical vegetation treatment in which two tractors drag an anchor chain extended between them over the terrain to uproot brush and small trees.
CLOSED AREA: Closed area mean an area where motorized vehicle use is prohibited. Use of motorized vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons; however, such use shall be made only with the approval of the authorized officer.
COLORADO RIVER FLOODPLAIN: Combined area of the Colorado River floodway and the Colorado floodway fringes (See Public Law 99-450).
COLORADO RIVER FLOODWAY: The channel of the Colorado River and that part of the floodplain that are necessary to safely convey the floodway flow of either a one-in-one hundred- year flow consisting of controlled releases and tributary inflow or a flow of 40,000 cfs, which ever is greater.
COLORADO RIVER FLOODWAY FRINGE: That area subject to inundation by flood of varying magnitude up to and including the floodway flow, but which is not required for safe conveyance of the floodway flow, and is not included in the computation of the Colorado River floodway elevation.
COMMERCIAL USE: Recreational use of public lands and related waters for business or financial gain.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
134
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
COMMERCIAL COLLECTION: The collection of plant materials (mainly seeds) that are harvested for commerce whether for seed distribution and/or for plant production.
COMMUNITY: A collective term used to describe an assemblage of organisms living together; an association of living organisms having mutual relationships among themselves and with their environment and thus functioning at least to some degree as an ecological unit.
COMMUNITY RECREATION-TOURISM MARKET: A community or communities dependent on public lands recreation and/or related tourism use, growth, and/or development. Major investments in facilities and visitor assistance are authorized within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to target demonstrated community recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management actions are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand for specific activity, experience, and benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced through maintenance of prescribed natural resource and/or community setting character and by
COMPETITIVE USE: 1) Any organized, sanctioned, or structured use, event, or activity on public land in which two or more contestants compete and either or both of the following elements apply: (i) Participants register, enter, or complete an application for the event;
(ii) A predetermined course or area is designated; or 2) One or more individuals contesting an established record such as for speed or endurance.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT : An easement to assure the permanent preservation of land in its natural state or in whatever degree of naturalness the land has when the easement is granted. Also see EASEMENT.
CONSERVATION FOR FUTURE USE: This category is reserved for any unusual cultural resource that, because of scarcity, a research importance, cultural importance, architectural interest, or comparable reasons, is not currently appropriate for consideration as the subject of scientific or historical study that would result in its physical alteration. A cultural property or location included in this category is considered worthy of segregation from all other land or resource uses, including cultural resource uses, that would threaten the maintenance of the present condition or setting, as pertinent, and it will remain in this category until specific provisions are met in the future. A cultural resource will be separated and protected from other non-compatible land uses and preserved in place because a) that particular site type is scarce or unique, b) its information potential cannot be realized through available archaeological methods, or c) it represents an outstanding example of a particular site type.
CONTINUITY: Habitat that is uninterrupted by urbanization or other factors. Large continuous blocks of habitat with corridors that connect other similar blocks of habitat can create a continuity of habitat types. Large blocks of habitat can create healthy vegetative communities, fish and wildlife populations.
CORRIDOR: See DESIGNATED CORRIDOR.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
135
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
COVER: 1) Plants or plant parts, living or dead, on the surface of the ground; 2) plants or objects used by wild animals for nesting, rearing of young, escape from predators, or protection from harmful environmental conditions.
CRITICAL ELEMENT: The BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), Appendix 5 lists critical elements of the human environment and notes the need to reflect consideration of these resources or values in all forms of NEPA analysis. This list is intended to present the minimum of elements that must be addressed: air quality, ACECs, cultural resources, prime and unique farmlands, floodplains. Native American religious concerns, threatened and endangered specifies, hazardous and solid wastes, water quality, wetlands and riparian zones, suitable and designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness (and Wilderness Study Areas).
CRITICAL HABITAT, DESIGNATED: Specific parts of an area that are occupied by a federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal at the time it is listed and that contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species or that may require special management or protection. Critical habitat may also include specific areas outside an area occupied by a federally listed species if the Secretary of the Interior determines that these areas are essential for conserving the species.
CROSS COUNTRY TRAVEL: Leaving designated, existing, or open route or trail, by either motorized or non-motorized transportation.
CULTURAL PROPERTY: A definite location of past activity, occupation, or use including, but not limited to, archaeological, historic or architectural sites; structures or places with important public and scientific uses; and may include sites or places of traditional cultural or religious importance to specified social and/or cultural groups.
CULTURAL RESOURCES: Any material remains of human life or activities that are at least 50 years old and of archaeological interest. Cultural resource is a broad, general term meaning any cultural property (see CULTURAL PROPERTY) and any traditional lifeway value.
CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY (SURVEY): A descriptive listing and documentation including photographs and maps of cultural resources. Included in an inventory are the processes of locating, identifying, and recording sites, structures, buildings, objects, and districts through library and archival research, information from persons knowledgeable about cultural resources, and on-the-ground surveys of varying intensity.
Class I: A professionally prepared study that compiles, analyzes, and synthesizes all available data on an area’s cultural resources. Information sources for this study include published and unpublished documents, BLM inventory records, institutional site files, and state and National Register files. Class I inventories may have prehistoric, historic, and ethnological and sociological elements. These inventories are periodically updated to include new data from other studies and Class II and III inventories.
Class II: A professionally conducted, statistically based sample survey designed to describe the probable density, diversity, and distribution of cultural properties in a large area. This survey is achieved by projecting the results of an intensive survey carried out over limited parts of the target area. Within individual sample units, survey aims.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
136
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
methods, and intensities are the same as those applied in Class III inventories. To improve statistical reliability, Class II inventories may be conducted in several phases with different sample designs.
Class III: A professionally conducted intensive survey of an entire target area aimed at locating and recording all visible cultural properties. In a Class III survey, trained observers commonly conduct systematic inspections by walking a series of close-interval parallel transects until they have thoroughly examined an area.
D
DECISION RECORD: A manager’s decision on a categorical exclusion review or an environmental assessment. Comparable to the record of decision for an environmental impact statement, the decision record includes: 1) a finding of no significant impact, 2) a decision to prepare an environmental impact statement, or 3) a decision not to proceed with a proposal. Also see RECORD OF DECISION.
DEFERRED ROTATION GRAZING: Moving grazing animals to various parts of a range in succeeding years or seasons to provide for seed production, plant vigor, and seedling growth.
DESIGNATED CORRIDOR: BLM’s preferred route for placing rights-of-way for utilities (e.g., pipelines and powerlines) and transportation (e.g., highways and railroads).
DESIRED PLANT COMMUNITY : The plant community that has been determined through a land use or management plan to best meet the plan’s objectives for a site. A real, documented plant community that embodies the resource attributes needed for the present or potential use of an area, the desired plant community is consistent with the site’s capability to produce the required resource attributes through natural succession, management intervention, or a combination of both.
DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT: Roads closed February through November. Any construction needs to be monitored. Habitat compensation required for disturbance.
DESIGNATED ROADS AND TRAILS: Legal term used in CFR 8340 — OFF ROAD VEHICLES as a type of limited area designation. The term “roads and trails” includes all types routes use by off highway vehicles.
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS: Land use plans must describe the outcomes in terms of specific goals and objectives. Goals are usually not quantifiable. Standards are descriptions of healthy, sustainable lands. They may describe sight specific or watershed scale.
DESTINATION RECREATION - TOURISM MARKET: National or regional recreation- tourism visitors and other constituents who value public lands as recreation-tourism destinations. Major investments in facilities and visitor assistance are authorized within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to target demonstrated destination recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management actions are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand for specific activity, experience, and benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced through
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
137
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
maintenance of prescribed natural resource setting character and by structuring and implementing management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative actions accordingly.
DEVELOPED RECREATION SITES AND AREAS: Those sites and areas that contain structures or capital improvements primarily used by the public for recreation purposes. Such sites or areas may include such features as: delineated spaces for parking, camping, or boat launching; sanitary facilities; potable water; grills or fire rings; or controlled access.
DISCHARGED FROM MANAGEMENT: This category is assigned to cultural properties that have no remaining identifiable use. Most often these are prehistoric and historic archaeological properties, such as small surface scatters of artifacts or debris, whose limited research potential is effectively exhausted as soon as they have been documented. Also, more complex archaeological properties that have had their salient information collected and preserved through mitigation or research may be discharged from management, as should cultural properties destroyed by any natural event or human activity. Properties discharged from management remain in the inventory, but they are removed from further management attention and do not constrain other land uses.
DISPERSED CAMPING: Generally staying on public lands overnight outside of developed campgrounds or established recreational sites.
DISPOSAL: Through the land use planning process, lands may be identified for release through several methods: R&PP patent, competitive sales or exchange. Tracts identified for disposal must meet criteria identified in the regulations.
E
EASEMENT : The right to use land in a certain way granted by a landowner to a second party. BLM acquires two basic types of easements, conservation easements for the protection of resources and access easements to enhance the ability of the public to use and enjoy the public lands. Also see CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
ECOLOGICAL SITE (RANGE SITE): A distinctive kind of land that has specific physical characteristics and that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation.
ECOLOGICAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS (RANGE SITE GUIDE): Descriptions of the following characteristics of an ecological site: soils, physical features, climatic features, associated hydrologic features, plant communities possible on the site, plant community dynamics, annual production estimates and distribution of production throughout the year, associated animal communities, associated and similar sites, and interpretations for management.
ECOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY: The basic inventory of present and potential vegetation on BLM rangelands. Ecological sites are differentiated on the basis of significant differences in kind, proportion, or amount of plant species present in the plant community. The ecological site inventory utilizes soils, the existing plant community, and ecological site data to determine the
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
138
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
appropriate ecological site for a specific area of rangeland and to assign the appropriate ecological status.
ECOLOGICAL STATUS: Ecological status is the present state of vegetation of a range site in relation to the potential natural community for that site. It is an expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants in a plant community resemble that of the potential natural plant community for the site. Four classes are used to express the degree to which the production or composition of the present plant community reflects that of the potential natural community (climax).
ECOLOGICAL SITE RATING (ECOLOGICAL CONDITION/ ECOLOGICAL STATUS):
The present state of vegetation of an ecological site in relation to the potential natural community for the site. Independent of the site’s use, the ecological site rating is an expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants in a community resemble those of the potential natural community. The four ecological status classes correspond to 0-25%, 25- 50%, 51-75%, or 76-100% similarity to the potential natural community and are called early- seral, mid-seral, late-seral, and potential natural community, respectively.
EDGES: Breaks in continuity of vegetation allowing predation on species utilizing the area.
ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENT: Qualification of a river for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System by determining that it is free flowing and, with its adjacent land area, has at least one river-related value considered to be outstandingly remarkable.
ENDANGERED SPECIES: An animal or plant species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (as defined in the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982). Also see THREATENED SPECIES.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA): A concise public document for which a federal agency is responsible. An EA serves: 1) to briefly provide enough evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact and to aid an agency’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act when no EIS is needed; and 2) to facilitate preparing an EIS when one is needed. Also see ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS): An analytical document that portrays potential impacts on the human environment of a particular course of action and its possible alternatives. Required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an EIS is prepared for use by decision makers to weigh the environmental consequences of a potential decision. Also see ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ): The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income in developing, implementing, and enforcing environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
EPHEMERAL ALLOTMENTS: Allotments that are only authorized for grazing when there is adequate growth of annual vegetation (in spring).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
139
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
EPHEMERAL FORAGE: Part -time or seasonal forage; forage produced by annual forage species.
EPHEMERAL STREAM: A stream or portion of a stream that: 1) flows only in direct response to precipitation, 2) receives little or no water from springs or no long continued supply from snow or other sources, and 3) has a channel that is always above the water table.
EXCAVATION: The scientific examination of an archaeological site through layer-by-layer removal and study of the contents within prescribed surface units (e.g., square meters).
EXCHANGE: A trading of public lands (surface and/or subsurface estates) that usually do not have high public value for lands in other ownerships that do have value for public use, management, and enjoyment. The exchange may be for the benefit of other federal agencies as well as for BLM.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11644 (February 8 1972): An executive order is a Presidential directive that carries the weight of law. This order requires areas and trails to be designated “open,” “closed,” or “limited” within 1 year of the above date.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11989 (May 24 1977): An executive order is a Presidential directive that carries the weight of law. This order provides for special protection for areas and trails on the public lands when it is determined that off-road vehicles will cause or are causing considerable adverse effects
EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA (ERMA): A public lands unit identified in land use plans containing all acreage not identified as a SRMA. Recreation management actions within an ERMA are limited to only those of a custodial nature.
EXISTING ROADS AND TRAILS: Legal term used in CFR 8340 — OFF ROAD VEHICLES as a type of limited area designation. The term “roads and trails” includes all types routes use by off-highway vehicles. For the LHFO RMP “existing roads and trails” would be those roads and trails identified on the Route Inventory Maps as of the date of the Record of Decision.
EXOTIC SPECIES: A species of plant or animal that is not native to the area where it is found. Any species that is not indigenous, native, or naturalized.
EXPERIMENTAL USE: This category may be applied to a cultural property judged well-suited for controlled experimental study, to be conducted by BLM or others concerned with the techniques of managing cultural properties, which would result in the property’s alteration, possibly including loss of integrity and destruction of physical elements. Committing cultural properties or the data they contain to loss must be justified in terms of specific information that would be gained and how it would aid in the management of other cultural properties. Experimental study should aim toward understanding the kinds and rates of natural or
human-caused deterioration, testing the effectiveness of protection measures, or developing new research or interpretation methods and similar kinds of practical management information.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
140
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
F
FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT (FLPMA): The act that; 1) set out, for the Bureau of Land Management, standards for managing the public lands including land use planning, sales, withdrawals, acquisitions, and exchanges; 2) authorized the setting up of local advisory councils representing major citizens groups interested in land use planning and management; 3) established criteria for reviewing proposed wilderness areas; and 4) provided guidelines for other aspects of public land management such as grazing.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI): A document that is prepared by a federal agency and that briefly explains why an action (not otherwise excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement [EIS]) would not significantly affect the human environment and not require an EIS.
FIREARMS, USE OF: See ARIZONA REVISED STATUTE ARS 1 7-30 IB [USE OF FIREARMS].
FIRE MANAGEMENT : The integration of fire protection, prescribed burning, and fire ecology knowledge into multiple use planning, decision-making, and land management.
FIRE SUPPRESSION: All the work of extinguishing or confining a fire beginning with its discovery.
FIRE SUPPRESSION RESOURCES: People, equipment, services, and supplies available or potentially available for assignment to incidents.
FLOODPLAIN, FLOODWAY, FLOODWAY FRINGE: See COLORADO RIVER.
FORAGE: All browse and herbage that is available and acceptable to grazing animals or that may be harvested for feed.
FUEL LOAD (IN FIRE SUPPRESSION): The ovendry weight of fuel per unit area usually expressed in tons/acre.
FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND HEALTH: As Described in 43CFR 4180, the conditions in which 1 ) rangelands are in proper functioning physical condition, 2) ecological process are supporting healthy biotic populations and communities, 3) water quality is meeting state standards and BLM objectives, and 4) special status species habitat is being restored or maintained.
FUNCTIONING WATERS (WILDLIFE): A well, catchment, spring, reservoir, or other feature (human made or natural) that provides a reliable source of potable water on a yearlong basis. For such a source of water to be considered functional, the quality and quantity of water must be sufficient to sustain native wildlife populations in the local area. For example, a reservoir that fills up during monsoon rains, but goes dry in a few weeks, is not functional from a wildlife standpoint.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
141
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
G
GRAZING CAPACITY (CARRYING CAPACITY): The highest livestock stocking rate possible without damaging vegetation or related resources. Grazing capacity may vary from year to year or in the same area because of fluctuating forage production.
GRAZING CYCLE: The amount of time required for livestock to rotate completely through all the pastures in an allotment management plan.
GRAZING PERMIT/LICENSE/LEASE: Official written permission to graze a specific number, kind, and class of livestock for a specified period on a defined rangeland.
GRAZING PRIVILEGES: The use of public land for livestock grazing under permits or leases.
GRAZING REST : Any period during which no livestock grazing is allowed within an area.
GRAZING SEASON: An established period for which grazing permits are issued.
GRAZING SYSTEM: A systematic sequence of grazing use and nonuse of an allotment to meet multiple use goals by improving the quality and amount of vegetation.
GROUND COVER: See COVER.
GROUND LITTER: See LITTER.
GROUNDWATER: Subsurface water and underground streams that supply wells and springs. Use of groundwater in Arizona does not require a water right but must only be “reasonable.” Groundwater is separated from surface water by the type of alluvium in which the water is found. Water in the younger, floodplain alluvium is considered surface water. Water in the older, basin- fill alluvium is considered groundwater.
GUZZLER: A structure that provides water to wildlife from a water collection source.
H
HABITAT : The natural environment of a plant or animal: 1) Specific parameters of physical conditions used by a single species, a group of species, or a large community. The major components of habitat are generally considered to be food, water, cover, and living space; 2) the natural living space of an organism.
HERD AREA: The geographic area identified as having been used by wild horse or burro herds as their habitat in 1971.
HERD MANAGEMENT AREA: Public land under the jurisdiction of the BUM that has been designated for special management emphasizing the maintenance of an established wild horse and/or wild burro herd.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
142
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
HERD MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN: An action plan that prescribes measures for the protection, management, and control of wild horses and burros and their habitat on one or more herd management areas, in conformance with decisions made in approved management framework or resource management plans.
HISTORICAL SITE: An archaeological site that is more than 50 years old and dates to the historic period, commonly after contact with Europeans and when history is recorded in writing. These sites include, but are not limited to, wagon roads, railroads, mill sites, mining sites, ranching sites, homesteads, and military sites.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: A site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a land use plan. An implementation plan usually selects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan objectives. Implementation plans are synonymous with “activity” plans. Examples of implementation plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat management plans, and allotment management plans.
IMPROVE GRAZING ALLOTMENTS (“I” Category): These allotments are best described by one or more of the following characteristics: vegetation or watershed conditions are not satisfactory; the allotment’s potential production is high to moderate, but it is producing below its potential; there are substantive conflicts with other resource uses; the allotment’s size, physical characteristics, and the anticipated benefits from changes in management would warrant investing public funds for range improvements and supervision.
INFILTRATION: The downward entry of water into the soil or other material.
INFRASTRUCTURE: The set of systems and facilities that support a region or community’s social and economic structures. Examples of such systems include energy, transportation, communication, education, medical service, and fire and police protection.
INHALABLE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM 10): Particulate matter in ambient air exceeding 1 0 microns in diameter. Also see PARTICULATE MATTER and FINEP ARTICULATE MATTER.
INTERMITTENT STREAM: A stream that generally flows during wet seasons but is dry during dry seasons.
INVASIVE: An‘ ‘invasive species” is defined as a species that is 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Human actions are the primary means of invasive species introductions.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
143
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
J
K
L
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND: Established by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, a fund that the federal government can use to acquire and develop land and water for conservation and outdoor recreation and to help states in planning for, acquiring, and developing land and water areas and facilities.
LAND CLASSIFICATION: A process for determining the suitability of public lands for certain types of disposal or lease under the public land laws or for retention under multiple use management.
LAND TENURE: The right to exclusively occupy and use a specified area of land. Tenure may also be limited to certain resources (“resource tenure”) such as timber but not to all resources in a given area. Tenure may be held by individuals, communities, government, or corporations.
LAND USE ALLOCATION: The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable development that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based on desired future conditions.
LAND USE AUTHORIZATION: BLM’s authorizing through leases, permits, and easements of uses of the public land. Land use authorizations may allow occupancy, recreational residences and cabin sites, farming, manufacturing, outdoor recreation concessions. National Guard maneuvers, and many other uses.
LAND USE PLAN: A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of land-use-plan-level decisions developed through the planning process, regardless of the scale at which the decisions were developed.
LAND USE PLAN DECISION: Establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. Decisions are reached using the BLM planning process. When they are presented to the public as proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals.
LEASABLE MINERALS: Minerals whose extraction from federally managed land requires a lease and the payment of royalties. Leasable minerals include coal, oil and gas, oil shale and tar sands potash, phosphate, sodium, and geothermal steam.
LEAVE NO TRACE: A nationwide (and international) program to help visitors with their decisions when they travel and eamp on America’s public lands. The program strives to educate visitors about the nature of their recreational impacts as well as techniques to prevent and minimize such impacts.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
144
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
LIMITED AREAS: Limited area means an area restricted at certain times, in certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. These restrictions may be of any type but can generally be accommodated within the following type of categories. Numbers of vehicles; types of vehicles; time or season of vehicle use; permitted or licensed use only; use on existing roads and trails; use on designated roads and trails; and other restrictions.
LITTER: The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, essentially freshly fallen or slightly decomposed vegetal material.
LIVE FUEL MOISTURE: See FUEL MOISTURE.
LIVESTOCK PERFORMANCE: The efficiency of livestock within an operation as measured by such indicators as percent calf crop, weaned ealf weights, animal death rates, and cull cow weights.
LIVESTOCK TRESPASS: The unauthorized grazing of livestock.
LOCATABLE MINERALS: Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking mining claims as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of gold, silver, and other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale.
LONG TERM VISITOR AREA (LTVA): With the purchase of a permit, visitors may camp for the entire winter season (September 15 to April 15). Permit holders may move from one LTVA to another without incurring additional user fees.
LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PLAN (LCRMSCP):
This plan was conceived in 1995 by a partnership of water interests on the Lower River. It was approved in 2005 for a period of 50 years, with the following two-pronged objective:
1 ) Conserving threatened and endangered species habitat, moving listed species toward recovery, and reducing further listing of species associated with the lower Colorado River.
2) Accommodating current water diversions and power production, plus optimizing future water benefits to water users to the extent allowable by law.
LOW-INCOME POPULATION: Persons living below the poverty level based on total income, of $18,244 for a family household of four people (two adults and two children) based on the 2002 official measure of poverty.
M
MAJOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY: Rights -of-way along which pass transmission lines (consisting of 1 1 5kV or higher) used to transmit large blocks of energy to load centers for distribution.
MAINTAIN GRAZING ALLOTMENTS (“M” Category): These allotments are best described by one or more of the following characteristics: vegetation and watershed conditions
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
145
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
are satisfactory; the allotment has the potential for high resource production and is producing close to its potential; there are no serious resource use conflicts; and/or the allotment’s size and physical characteristics would warrant investment of public funds for range improvements and supervision.
MAINTENANCE: The work required keeping a facility in such a condition that it may be continuously utilized at its original or designed capacity and efficiency, and for its intended purposes.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS: Land use plans must identify the actions needed to achieve the desired outcomes, including actions to restore or protect land health. These actions include proactive measures (e.g., measures that will be taken to enhance watershed function and condition) as well as measures or criteria that will be applied to guide day-to-day activities occurring on public land.
MANAGEMENT USE: A cultural resource is used for controlled experimental study that would result in its physical alteration. This study is conducted to obtain specific information on a) the kinds and rates of natural and human-caused deterioration or b) the effectiveness of protection measures.
MINERAL ENTRY: The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any minerals it may contain.
MINERAL ESTATE: The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations.
MINERAL MATERIAL DISPOSAL: The sale of sand, gravel, decorative rock, or other materials defined in 43 CFR 3600.
MINERAL MATERIALS: Materials such as common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, and clay that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be acquired under the Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended. See also SALEABLE MINERALS.
MINERAL RIGHTS: Mineral rights outstanding are third-party rights, an interest in minerals not owned by the person or party conveying the land to the United States. It is an exception in a deed that is the result of prior conveyance separating title of certain minerals from the surface estate.
MINERAL WITHDRAWAL: A formal order that withholds federal lands and minerals from entry under the Mining Law of 1872 and closes the area to mineral location (staking mining claims), development, and leasing.
MINING CLAIM: A mining claim is a selected parcel of Federal Land, valuable for a specific mineral deposit or deposits, for which a right of possession has been asserted under the General Mining Law. This right is restricted to the development and extraction of a mineral deposit. The rights granted by a mining claim protect against a challenge by the United States and other claimants only after the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. The two types of mining claims
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
146
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
are lode and placer. In addition, mill sites and tunnel sites may be located to provide support facilities for lode and placer mining.
MINING DISTRICT: An area, usually designated by name, with described or understood boundaries, where minerals are found and mined under rules prescribed by the miners, consistent with the Mining Law of 1872.
MINING PLAN OF OPERATIONS: A plan for mineral exploration and development that a mining operator must submit to BLM for approval for all mining, milling, and bulk sampling of more than 1,000 tons or more and for exploration disturbing more than 5 acres or on special status lands, including wilderness, areas of critical environmental concern, national monuments, national conservation areas, and lands containing proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. A plan of operations must document in detail all actions that the operator plans to take from exploration through reclamation.
MINORITY: Individual(s) classified by Office of Management and Budget’s Directive No. 15 as Black/African American, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and other non-white persons.
MINORITY POPULATION: Minority populations are identified as either: (1) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 %, or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.
MONITORING: The collection of information to determine the effects of resource management and detect changing resource trends, needs, and conditions.
MULTIPLE USE: A combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that considers long- term needs for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including recreation, wildlife, rangeland, timber, minerals, and watershed protection; and scenic, scientific, and cultural values.
N
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS): The allowable concentrations of air pollutants in the ambient (public outdoor) air specified in 40 CFR 50. National ambient air quality standards are based on the air quality criteria and divided into primary standards (“sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly) and secondary standards (allowing an adequate margin of safety to protect the public welfare). Welfare is defined as including effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, and human-made materials.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA): The federal law, going into effect on January 1, 1970, which established a national policy for the environment and requires federal agencies 1) to become aware of the environmental ramifications of their proposed actions, 2) to fully disclose to the public proposed federal actions and provide a mechanism for public input to federal decision making, and 3) to prepare environmental impact statements for every major action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
147
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED (NHPA): A
federal statute that established a federal program to further the efforts of private agencies and individuals in preserving the Nation’s historic and cultural foundations. NHPA 1) authorized the National Register of Historic Places, 2) established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and a National Trust Fund to administer grants for historic preservation, and 3) authorized the development of regulations to require federal agencies to consider the effects of federally assisted activities on properties included on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT: An area containing sites of cultural significance that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. See NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES: The official list, established by the National Historic Preservation Act, of the Nation’s cultural resources worthy of preservation.
The National Register lists archeological, historic, and architectural properties (e.g., districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects) nominated for their local, state, or national significance by state and federal agencies and approved by the National Register Staff. The National Park Service maintains the National Register. Also see NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT.
NATIONAL REGISTER QUALITY (CULTURAL RESOURCES): Cultural resource properties that meet the National Register criteria and have been determined eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places because of their local, state, or national significance.
NATIONAL TRAILS: The National Trail System Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-543) authorized creation of a national trail system composed of National Recreation Trails, National Scenic Trails, and National Historic Trails. While National Scenic Trails and National Historic Trails may be designated only by an act of Congress, National Recreation Trails may be designated by the Secretary of Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to recognize exemplary trails of local and regional significance in response to an application from the trail’s managing agency or organization. Through designation, these trails are recognized as part of America’s national system of trails.
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM: A system of nationally designated rivers and their immediate environments that have outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, and other similar values and are preserved in a free-flowing condition. The system consists of three types of streams: 1) recreation — rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad and that may have some development along their shorelines and may have undergone some impoundments or diversion in the past, 2) scenic — rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments with shorelines or watersheds still largely undeveloped but accessible in places by roads, and 3) wild — rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trails with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted.
NATIVE SPECIES: A species of plant or animal that naturally occurs in the area and that was not introduced by humans (indigenous).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
148
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
NATURAL SCENIC AREA (NSA): Allocation made in the YUMA RMP that is associated with special management prescriptions. It has no legal authority but is a management tool.
NAVIGABLE WASHES: A wash or arroyo that is wide enough for a vehicle to pass through without damage to vegetation or bank soils and generally has a sandy streambed.
NICHE: (See Recreation)
NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION: Precipitation-oriented runoff that transports pollutants from surrounding landscape to waterways. Non-point source pollutants typically include fertilizers, pesticides, oils, solvents, metals, feces, sediment, and other wastes commonly found on the surface throughout human communities.
NONUSE: An authorization that BLM issues to applicants for nonuse of grazing privileges in whole or part, usually for one grazing season.
NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY: A mineral leasing stipulation that prohibits occupancy or disturbance on all or part of the lease surface to protect special values of uses. Lessees may explore for or exploit the minerals under leases restricted by this stipulation by using directional drilling from sites outside the no surface occupancy area.
NOXIOUS PLANT : An unwanted plant specified by federal or state laws as being undesirable and requiring control. Noxious weeds are usually non-native and highly invasive.
O
OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV): Any vehicle capable of or designed for travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, deriving motive power from any source other than muscle. OHVs exclude: 1) any non-amphibious registered motorboat; 2), any fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for official or emergency purposes; 3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by a permit, lease, license, agreement, or contract issued by an authorized officer or otherwise approved; 4) vehicles in official use; and 5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies.
OHV DESIGNATION: Public lands designated for off-highway vehicle use. Lands in the LHFO planning area are designated as “Open,” “Closed,” or “Limited” for OHV use.
OPEN AREA: Open area means an area where all types of vehicle use are permitted at all times, anywhere in the area is subject to the operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.
ORGANIZED GROUP ACTIVITY: Structured, ordered, consolidated, or scheduled event on, or occupation of, public lands for the purpose of recreational use that is not commercial or competitive.
OUTCOMES (TARGETED, BENEFITS-BASED, SOCIETAL): Outcomes create a focal point for the expression of the ultimate benefit that would be produced for each recreation
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
149
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
management land use zone under different assumptions of management goals, they serve to articulate the collections of recreation activities, recreation experiences, societal benefits, and environmental settings. Historically, research has shown a strong variation in psychological experiences desired by recreational users across different use management zones.
P
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES (FOSSILS): The physical remains of plants and animals preserved in soils and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are important for understanding past environments, environmental change, and the evolution of life.
PALENTOLOGY: A science dealing with the life forms of past geological periods as known from fossil remains.
PARTICULATE MATTER: Fine liquid or solid particles suspended in the air and consisting of dust, smoke, mist, fumes, and compounds containing sulfur, nitrogen, and metals. Also see FINE PARTICULATE MATTER and INHALABLE PARTICULATE MATTER.
PERENNIAL/EPHEMERAL ALLOTMENTS: Allotments that are authorized for yearlong grazing of a specific number of animals and can add additional livestock when there is adequate growth of annual vegetation.
PERENNIAL PLANT : A plant that has a life cycle of 3 or more years. Also see ANNUAL PLANT.
PERENNIAL STREAM: A stream that flows continuously during all seasons of the year.
PERSONAL INCOME: The sum of wage and salary payments, other labor income, proprietors’ income, rental income of persons, personal dividend and interest income, and transfer payments to persons, less personal contributions for social insurance.
PLAN OF OPERATIONS: See MINING PLAN OF OPERATIONS
PLANNING CRITERIA: The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and interdisciplinary teams for their use in forming judgments about decision making, analysis and data collection during planning. Planning criteria streamline and simplify the resource management planning actions.
PLANT COMMUNITY: Assemblage of plant populations in a defined area or physical habitat; an aggregation of plants similar in species composition and structure, occupying similar habitats over the landscape.
POINT SOURCE POLLUTION: The discharge of pollution into the environment from a point, typically a pipe.
PRESCRIBED FIRE (BURNING): The planned applying of fire to rangeland vegetation and fuels under specified conditions of fuels, weather, and other variables to allow the fire to remain
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
150
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
in a predetermined area to achieve such site specific objectives as controlling certain plant species; enhancing growth, reproduction, or vigor of plant species; managing fuel loads; and managing vegetation community types.
PRESCRIBED RECREATION SETTING: A term used to summarize the broad description of the desired experiences, environmental settings, and potential activities included in the desired future outcome for an area. The general definition for each prescription class (see Appendix I) matches those which were used to define the ROS/WROS inventory classes.
PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY: (SEE RECREATION-TOURISM MARKET)
PRIME FARMLAND: As defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor; and without intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Prime farmland includes land with the above characteristics, but is being used to produce livestock and timber. It does not include land already in or committed to urban development or water storage. Also see UNIQUE FARMLAND.
PRIMITIVE RECREATION: Recreation that provides opportunities for isolation from the evidence of humans, a vastness of scale, feeling a part of the natural environment, having a high degree of challenge and risk, and using outdoor skills. Primitive recreation is characterized by meeting nature on its own terms, without comfort or convenience of facilities.
PRIMITIVE ROAD: A linear route managed for use by four-wheel-drive or high-clearance vehicles. Primitive roads do not normally meet any BLM road design standards.
PRIORITY WILDLIFE HABITAT AREA: General areas that are managed to enhance the habitat of one or more priority wildlife species. These areas are now called Wildlife Habitat Management Areas (WHMAs).
PRIORITY WILDLIFE SPECIES: Includes all federally listed threatened, endangered or candidate species and all species of concern (BLM sensitive and state designated).
PROPER FUNCTIONING CONDITION (RIPARIAN WETLAND AREAS): The condition where 1 ) enough vegetation, land form, or large woody debris is present to dissipate the stream energy of high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; 2) sediments are filtered, bedload is captured, and floodplains develop; 3) flood water retention and ground water recharge are improved, root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action develop, and diverse ponding and channel characteristics are created to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature needed for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and 4) greater biodiversity is supported.
PUBLIC LANDS: As defined by Public Law 94-579 (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976), lands and interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior, through BLM, regardless of how the United States acquired possession. In common usage, public lands may refer to all federal land, no matter what agency manages it.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
151
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
PUBLIC USE: A cultural property is eligible for consideration as an interpretive exhibit-in- place, a subject of supervised participation in scientific or historical study, a subject of unsupervised collecting under permit or related educational and recreational uses by members of the general public.
Q
R
RANGE IMPROVEMENT: Any activity or program on or relating to the public lands designed to improve forage production, change vegetation composition, control use patterns, provide water, stabilize soil and water conditions, or provide habitat for livestock and wildlife. Range improvements may be structural or nonstructural.
Structural Improvement: requires placement or construction to facilitate the management or control the distribution and movement of animals. Such improvements may include fences, wells, troughs, reservoirs, pipelines, and cattleguards.
Nonstructural Improvement: consist of practices or treatments that improve resource conditions (e.g., seedings; chemical, mechanical, and biological plant control; prescribed burning; water spreaders; pitting; chiseling; and contour furrowing).
RANGELAND: A kind of land on which the native vegetation, climax, or natural potential consists predominately of grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs. Rangeland includes lands revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a plant cover that is managed like native vegetation. Rangelands may consist of natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, moist deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes, and wet meadows.
RAPTOR: A raptor is a bird of prey that is known for its predatory habits of feeding on other animals. This group of birds possesses several unique anatomical characteristics that allow them to be superior hunters. These characteristics include excellent sensory abilities, such as binocular vision and keen hearing in order to detect prey; large, powerful grasping feet with razor-sharp talons for catching prey; and generally large hooked bills that can tear prey apart. They include diurnal or daytime species such as hawks, falcons, ospreys, and eagles; and nocturnal or nighttime species such as owls.
RAPTOR HABITAT: Raptors have specific requirements that their habitat must provide, including food and water, cover from weather, space in which to gather food, and a large enough area to attract mates, establish nesting locations (aeries), and find safe corridors between habitats. Raptors generally nest in low densities and need large areas for successful breeding. Drainage of wetlands, urban expansion, and exotic plant invasions are all affecting raptor habitats.
RECORD OF DECISION: A document signed by a responsible official recording a decision that was preceded by the preparing of an environmental impact statement. Also see DECISION RECORD.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
152
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
RECOVERY : Improvement in the status of the listed threatened or endangered species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set forth in Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. Also, the process by which a species and/or its ecosystems are restored to such an extent that the species is self-sustaining and future survival in the wild can be ensured.
RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (RAMP): A plan prepared for recreation areas requiring special management.
RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSES ACT of 1926 (44 Stat. 741, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.): An act of Congress that allows lease or acquisition of public land to be used for recreation or public purposes by local government entities (county or city governments) and non-profit organizations.
RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSE (R&PP) LEASE: A federal statue that allows the disposal of public lands to any state, local, federal, or political instrumentality or non-profit organization for any recreational or public purpose, at the discretion of the authorized officer.
RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONES (RMZs): Subunits within a SRMA managed for distinctly different recreation products. Recreation products are comprised of recreation opportunities, the natural resource and community settings within which they occur, and the administrative and service environment created by all affecting recreation-tourism provides, within which recreation participation occurs. (SEE Special recreation management area)
RECREATION NICHE: The place or position within the strategically targeted recreation- tourism market for each SRMA that is most suitable (i.e., capable of producing certain specific kinds of recreation opportunities) and appropriate (i.e., most responsive to identified visitor or resident customers), given available supply and current demand, for the production of specific recreation opportunities and the sustainable maintenance of accompanying natural resource and/or community setting character.
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS): One of the existing tools for classifying recreation environments (existing and desired) along a continuum ranging from primitive, low-use, and inconspicuous administration to urban, high-use, and a highly visible administrative presence. This continuum recognizes variation among various components of any landscape’s physical, social, and administrative attributes; and resulting descriptions (of existing eonditions) and prescriptions (of desired future conditions) define recreation setting character.
RECREATION SETTINGS: The collective, distinguishing attributes of landscapes that sometimes actually determine, what kinds of recreation opportunities are produeed.
RECREATION -TOURISM MARKET: Recreation -tourism visitors, affected community residents, affecting local governments and private sector business, or other constituents and the eommunities or other places where these customers originate (loeal, regional, national, or international). Based on analysis of supply and demand, land uses plans strategically identify primary recreation-tourism markets for each SRMA — destination, community, or undeveloped.
RECREATIONAL ROCK COLLECTING: See ROCKHOUT4DING.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
153
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCILS (RACs): Advisory councils appointed by the Secretary of the Interior and consisting of representatives of major public land interest groups (e.g., commodity industries, recreation, environmental and local area interests) in a state or smaller area. RACs advise the BLM, focusing on a full array of multiple-use public land issues. RACs also help develop fundamentals for rangeland health and guidelines for livestock grazing.
RESOURCE MANGEMENT PLAN (RMP): A BLM planning document that is prepared in accord with Section 202 of FLPMA that presents systematic guidelines for making resource management decisions for a resource area. An RMP is based on an analysis of an area’s resources, its existing management, and its capability for alternative uses. RMPs are issue oriented and developed by an interdisciplinary team with public participation.
RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW): A permit or easement that authorizes the use of lands for certain specified purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone lines, or powerlines.
RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR: A parcel of land that has been identified by law. Secretarial order, through a land use plan or by other management decision as being the preferred location for existing and future right-of-way grants and suitable to accommodate one type of right-of-way or one or more rights-of-way which are similar, identical or compatible.
RIPARIAN: Pertaining to or situated on or along the bank of streams, lakes, and reservoirs.
RIPARIAN AREA: Riparian areas are the green, vegetated areas on each side of streams and rivers. They serve many important functions, including purifying water by removing sediments and other contaminants; reducing the risk of flooding and associated damage; reducing stream channel and streambank erosion; increasing available water and stream flow duration by holding water in stream banks and aquifers; supporting a diversity of plant and wildlife species; maintaining a habitat for healthy fish populations; providing water, forage, and shade for wildlife and livestock; and creating opportunities for recreationists to fish, camp, picnic, and enjoy other activities. They can be a form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the influence of permanent surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas include lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are ephemeral streams or washes that lack riparian vegetation and depend on free water in the soil.
ROAD: A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles having four or more wheels, and maintained for regular and continuous use.
ROADSIDE: A general term denoting the area adjoining the outer edge of the road.
ROCK CRAWLING: The use of specialized motor vehicles for the purpose of traversing difficult terrain. Also known as Extreme Technical Trail driving.
ROCKHOUNDING: The free collection of rock, mineral and semi-precious gemstones, invertebrate fossils, and petrified wood in reasonable amounts. BLM Arizona defines reasonable limits for personal use as up to 25 pounds per day, plus one piece, with a total of 250 pounds per
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
154
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
person, per year. Rockhounding does not include removal aid by motorized mechanical devices, including heavy equipment or explosives.
ROUTE: any motorized, non-motorized, or mechanized transportation corridor. Corridor may either be terrestrial or a waterway. “Roads,” “trails,” and/or “ways” are considered routes.
RUNOFF: The portion of a drainage area’s precipitation that flows from the area.
R.S. 2477: Revised Statute 2477 was enacted as part of the Mining Law of 1866, during a time when the federal government’s focus was on encouraging settlement and development of the West. Congress passed R.S. 2477 to ensure miners’ routes to their claims and cattlemen’s trails for their herds by granting rights-of-way over any federal land not otherwise set aside. Although Congress repealed the statute in 1976 with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, it did not terminate rights-of-way in existence at that time. As part of the new law in 1976, Congress recognized all valid existing claims to these rights-of-way as of that date.
S
SALEABLE MINERALS: Common variety minerals on the public lands, such as sand and gravel, which are used mainly for construction and are disposed by sales or free use permits to local governments. See also MENERAL MATERIALS.
SCIENTIFIC USE: This category applies to any cultural property determined to be available for consideration as the subject of scientific or historical study at the present time, using currently available research techniques. Study indicates methods that would result in the property’s physical alteration or destruction. This category applies almost entirely to prehistoric and historic archaeological properties, where this method of use is generally archaeological excavation, controlled surface collection, and/or controlled recordation (data recovery). Recommendation to allocate individual properties to this use must be based on documentation of the kinds of data the property is thought to contain and the data’s importance for pursuing specific research topics.
SCOPING: An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in an environmental impact statement and the significant issues related to a proposed action.
SHOULDER: The portion of the roadway contiguous to the travelway for accommodation of stopped vehicles.
SEASONAL GRAZING: Grazing restricted to a specific season.
SECTION: 640 acres or 1 square mile.
SECTION 404 PERMIT : A permit required by the Clean Water Act, under specified circumstances, when dredge or fill material is placed in the waters of the United States, including wetlands.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
155
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
SECTION 7 CONSULTATION: The requirement of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act that all federal agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service if a proposed action might affect a federally listed species or its critical habitat.
SEDIMENT : Solid material that originates mostly from disintegrated rocks and is transported by, suspended in, or deposited from water. Sediment includes chemical and biochemical precipitates and decomposed organic material such as humus.
SENSITIVE SHEEP HABITAT : Habitat identified by BFM and AZGFD that provides one or more essential biological elements including: lambing areas, migration routes, mineral licks, water source, and foraging areas.
SHEEP-FREE FORAGE: Alfalfa, hay, and other forage that has not been grown on fields grazed by domestic sheep.
SIKES ACT OF 1974: A federal law that promoted federal-state cooperation in managing wildlife habitats on both BFM and Forest Service lands. The act required BFM to work with state wildlife agencies to plan the development and maintenance of wildlife habitats and had as its main tool, the habitat management plan.
SIMULTANEOUS DOUBLE COUNT: A census technique to estimate animal populations.
The technique uses tandem observers counting groups of animals on the same transect.
SOCIO-CULTURAL USE: A social and/or cultural group perceives that a cultural resource, place, structure, or geographic location has characteristics that help to maintain the group’s heritage or identity.
SOIL MOISTURE: The water content stored in a soil.
SPECIAL CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA: An area containing cultural resources (e.g., archaeological sites, historic sites, or places of traditional cultural importance) that are particularly important for public use, scientific use, traditional use, or other uses as defined in BFM Manual 81 10.4. identified
SPECIAL DESIGNATION: These are nationally recognized land use designations for protection of one or more sensitive resources. Designations may include ACECs, Back Country Byways, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas, and Wilderness Study Areas.
SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA: (SRMA): A public lands unit identified in land use plans to direct recreation funding and personnel to fulfill commitments made to provide specific structured recreation opportunities (i.e., activity, experience, and benefit opportunities). Both land use plan decisions and subsequent implementing actions for recreation in each SRMA are geared to a strategically identified primary market-destination, community, or undeveloped.
SPECIAL RECREATION PERMIT (SRP): An authorization that allows for specific nonexclusive permitted recreational uses of the public lands and related waters. SRPs are issued
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
156
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
to control visitor use, protect recreational and natural resources, provide for the health and safety of visitors, and accommodate commercial recreational uses.
SPLIT-ESTATE: Land whose surface rights and mineral rights are owned by different entities.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES: Plant or animal species listed as endangered, threatened, candidate or sensitive by federal or state governments.
SPECIAL VEHICLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES: Recreation activities that require special, custom, modified, usually motorized OHV equipment that involves site-specific landscape elements required for a specialized sport. Examples include: rock crawling and motorcycle trials.
SPUR: A route that exists for a unique use, such as access to a specific use or feature. Uses include, but are not limited to recreational and commercial. Features include, but are not limited to, campsites, mines, or range developments. A spur route is connected to a designated route. Spur routes should be designated in the TMP.
STAKEHOLDERS(S): A person, party, group, organization, or agency interested either through ownership, management jurisdiction, share, or socioeconomic reliance in a location, area, or specific resource.
STAGING AREA: An area where participants in an activity gather and make final preparations for the activity.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR RANGELAND HEALTH: See Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration.
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO): The official within and authorized by each state at the request of the Secretary of the Interior to act as liaison for the National Historic Preservation Act. Also see NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT.
STATE LANDS: See STATE TRUST LANDS.
STATE TRUST LANDS: Lands granted to Arizona by the Federal government at territorial establishment and at statehood. Totaling 10.9 million acres, these lands are managed by the Arizona State Land Department to yield revenue over the long term for the 14 trust beneficiaries. The chief beneficiary consists of the public schools. Whenever Arizona sells or leases these lands and their natural resources, it must pay the beneficiaries. Revenues from land sales are maintained in a permanent fund managed by the State Treasurer, and interest from this fund is paid to the beneficiaries.
STREAM BANK: The portion of a stream channel that restricts the sideward movement of water at normal water levels. The streambank’s gradient often exceeds 45° and exhibits a distinct break in slope from the stream bottom.
STREAMBANK STABILITY: A streambank’s relative resistance to erosion, which is measured as a percentage of alteration to streambanks.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
157
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
SURFACE OCCUPANCY: See NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY.
T
TAILINGS: The waste matter from ore after the extraction of economically recoverable metals and minerals.
TAKE: As defined by the Endangered Species Act, “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
TARGET SPECIES: Plant species to be reduced or eliminated by a vegetation treatment. Also see VEGETATION TREATMENTS.
TERRESTRIAL SPECIES: Ground dwelling plants and animals.
THREATENED SPECIES: Any plant or animal species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or part of its range and designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act. Also see ENDANGERED SPECIES.
TITLES: That section of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that allows BLM to authorize certain types of rights-of-way.
TRADITIONAL LIFEWAY VALUE: The quality of being useful to the maintenance of a specified social and/or cultural group’s traditional systems of 1) religious belief, 2) cultural practice, or 3) social interaction, not closely identified with definite locations. Another group’s shared values are abstract, nonmaterial, ascribed ideas that one cannot know about without being told.
TRADITIONAL USE: This category is to be applied to any cultural resource that is perceived by a specified social and/or cultural group as having attributes that contribute to maintaining the heritage or existence of that group. This use category signifies that the cultural resource is to be managed in a way that takes those attributes into account, as applicable.
TRAIL: (Interagency definition): linear route managed for human powered, stock, or
off-highway vehicle forms of recreation or for historic or heritage values. Trails are not generally managed for use by four wheel drive or high clearance vehicles.
TRAILHEAD: The terminus of a hiking, horse, or bicycle trail, accessible by motor vehicle and sometimes having parking, signs, a visitor register, and camping and sanitary facilities.
TRAVEL MANAGEMENT NETWORK: A system that addresses access requirements to public lands. This includes, but is not limited to: Title 5 rights-of-way, RS 2477 Roads, OHV routes, county maintained roads, trails (hiking, equestrian, bike, and vehicular), authorized or permitted uses (ranchers, miners, and other agencies), and ADA needs. The network aims to also improve the lack of legal access to public lands over private or state lands.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
158
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
TREAD LIGHTLY: A not-for-profit organization whose mission is to increase awareness of ways to enjoy the great outdoors while minimizing human impacts.
U
UNIQUE FARMLAND: As defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, land other than prime fannland that is used for producing specific high-value food and fiber crops, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Unique farmland has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Examples of such crops include citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits, and vegetables. Also see PRIME FARMLAND.
UNAUTHORIZED USE: Any use of the public lands not authorized or permitted.
USER ETHIC: All visitors arrive at the public lands with a set of perceptions, habits, activities, and values, which, based upon their socialization, they determine to be appropriate or inappropriate behaviors. These ethics change over time, by region of the country, and by group affiliation/norms. Some ethics are less impacting to the natural setting. When a user group or subset of a user group is observed to demonstrate a poor user ethic, it may be valuable to provide information and interpretation in order to seek a change in user ethic.
UPLANDS: Lands at higher elevations than the alluvial plain or low stream terrace; all lands outside the riparian-wetland and aquatic zones.
V
VANDALISM (CULTURAL RESOURCE): The unauthorized collecting, excavating, or defacing of cultural resources.
VALID EXISTING RIGHTS: Locatable mineral development rights that existed when FLPMA was enacted in 1976. Some areas are segregated from entry and location under the Mining Law to protect certain values or allow certain uses. Mining claims that existed as of the effective date of the segregation may still be valid if they can meet the test of discovery of a valuable mineral required under the Mining Law. Determining the validity of mining claims located on segregated lands requires BLM to conduct a valid existing rights determination.
VEGETATION TREATMENTS: Treatments that improve vegetation condition or production. Such treatments may include seedings; prescribed burning; or chemical, mechanical, and biological plant control.
VENDING: the sale of goods or services, not from a permanent structure, associated with recreation on the public lands or related waters, such as food, beverages, clothing, firewood, souvenirs, photographs, or film (video or still), or equipment repairs.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
159
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
VERTICAL MULCHING: A reclamation strategy, designed to conform to adjacent vegetation and terrain, for restoring roads, trails, and other disturbed areas in desert tortoise and other sensitive species’ habitats. This technique involves the placement of structure (live vegetation, rocks, dead shrubs and “snags,” bunchgrasses, and various woody materials) within the confines of the treatment area, both on the ground surface and in a vertical manner.
VISITOR SERVICES: The delivery, to the visiting public, of use information, interpretation, and use rules. Visitor services may be provided in written form (maps and brochures), signing, or the direct face-to-face contact with a BLM Park Ranger or other visitor services staff. Emergency services and visitor assistance are also included as visitor services. The goal of visitor services is to improve the visitor experience, provide a BLM presence, and protect the resource.
VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM): A BLM developed system used to evaluate the visual resources of a given area to determine what degree of protection, rehabilitation, or enhancement is desirable and possible.
W, X, Y, Z
WASH: A channel or miniature valley cut by concentrated runoff but through which water commonly flows only during and immediately after heavy rains, or while snow is melting.
WATERSHED (CATCHMENT): A topographically delineated area that is drained by a stream system, that is, the total land area above some point on a stream or river that drains water past that point. The watershed is a hydrologic unit often used as a physical-biological unit and a socioeconomic-political unit for planning and managing natural resources.
WATERSHED CONDITION (WATERSHED HEALTH): The comparison of watershed processes to normal or expected measurements of properties such as soil cover, erosion rate, runoff rate, and groundwater table elevation; an assessment or categorization of an area by erosion conditions, erosion hazards, and the soil moisture/temperature regime.
WATERSHED FUNCTION: The combination of processes attributed to watersheds as part of the hydrologic cycle including interception of rain by plants, rocks, and litter; surface storage by the soil; groundwater storage; stream channel storage; soil evaporation; plant transpiration; and runoff. These processes affect the following properties of the watershed; runoff rate, water infiltration rate, soil building rate, soil erosion rate, groundwater recharge rate, groundwater discharge rate, water table elevation, and surface water discharge. These properties in turn affect plant communities through soil attributes, including soil parent material, soil moisture, and nutrients; stream and rivers through flooding duration and magnitude; and sediment load, which structures the dimension, pattern, and profile of channels; and lakes and reservoirs through sedimentation and nutrient input.
WAY : As used herein, a road-like feature used by vehicles having four or more wheels, but not declared a road by the owner and which receives no maintenance to guarantee regular and continuous use.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
160
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
WETLAND: An area that is inundated or saturated by surface- or ground water often and long enough to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil. Wetlands include marshes, shallows, lakeshores, cienegas, and riparian areas.
WILD and SCENIC RIVER CORRIDOR: See NATIONAL WILD and SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM.
WITHDRAWAL: As defined in FLPMA: “Withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than ’property’ governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 471) from one department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency.”
WILD BURROS: All unbranded and unclaimed burros using public lands as all or part of their habitat.
WILDERNESS: Area designated by Congress to protect their wilderness values or characteristics as described under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS: features of the land and are specifically identified in BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2003-275 - Change I as naturalness, solitude, and primitive/unconfmed recreation.
WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA): A roadless area of public lands that the BLM has determined possesses the wilderness qualities described in the Wilderness Act of 1964. The WSA system was established under Section 603 of FLPMA as a means of identifying for Congress those public lands that possess wilderness characteristics described by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Congress can designate WSAs, release them from study status, or maintain their wilderness study status.
WILDFIRE: Any wildland fire that is not meeting management objectives and therefore requires a suppression response.
WILDLAND FIRE: Any non-structure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland.
WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE (WUI): Areas where urban fuels directly meet natural fuels. This is primarily within 20-60 meters (66-200 feet) of houses, where fire most directly threatens the house, and where a defensible zone can be developed.
WILDLIFE: A broad term that includes birds, reptiles, amphibians, and non-domesticated mammals.
WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS (WHAs): General areas that are managed to enhance the habitat of one or more priority wildlife species. These areas were previously called Priority Wildlife Habitat.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
161
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Glossary
WITHDRAWAL: An action that restricts the disposition of public lands and holds them for specific public purposes; public lands that have been dedicated to public purpose. Also see
MINERAL WITHDRAWAL.
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 1Q2
References Cited
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona State Parks, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Cooperation and Coordination within the Bill Williams River Watershed in Southwest Arizona. The BLM became signatory on January 3, 2005.
Bureau of Land Management. 1980. The California Desert Conservation Area Plan. Desert District, Riverside, CA.
. 1983. Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan. Phoenix
District Office, Phoenix, AZ.
. 1987. Final Yuma District Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement. Yuma District Office, Yuma, AZ.
. 1988a. Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement. Phoenix District Office, Phoenix, AZ.
. 1988b. Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on Public Lands: A
Rangewide Plan. Washington, D.C.
. 1993. Parker Strip Recreation Area Management Plan. BLM Havasu
Resource Area, Yuma District Office. Yuma, AZ.
. 1994. Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative
Environmental Impact Statement. Arizona State Office, Phoenix, AZ.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
163
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
References
. 1995. Kingman Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Kingman Resource Area Office, Kingman,
AZ.
. 1996. Recreation Project Plan for the Parker Strip Off-Highway
Vehicle Area and Routes. BLM Havasu Field Office, Lake Havasu, AZ.
. 1997a. Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for
Grazing Administration. Arizona State Office, Phoenix, AZ.
. 1997b. La Posa Interdisciplinary Management Plan. Yuma Field
Office, Yuma, AZ.
. 1997c. Swansea Historic District Cultural Resource Management
Plan: A Review of Past Management and Proposed Decisions for the Future Public Use of Swansea. Lake Havasu Field Office, Lake Havasu, AZ.
. 2001. Gibraltar Mountain Interdisciplinary Management Plan. Lake
Havasu Field Office, Lake Havasu City, AZ.
. 2002a. Resource Management Plan Scoping Report. Lake Havasu
Field Office, Lake Havasu City, AZ.
. 2002b. Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated
Management Plan (NECO Plan). California Desert District Office, Riverside, CA.
. 2003. Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels,
and Air Quality Management. Arizona State Office, Phoenix, AZ.
. 2004. Proposed Statewide LUP Amendment for Fire, Fuels & Air
Quality Management. Arizona State Office, Phoenix, AZ.
. 2005. Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management
Framework Plan and the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and Decision Record. Phoenix, AZ.
. 2006. Lake Havasu Coordinated Fisheries Management Plan. Lake
Havasu Field Office. Lake Havasu City, AZ.
Bureau of Land Management and USD A Forest Service. 2002. Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations. Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2004. Lower Colorado River Multi- Species Conservation Program. Volume I, II, III, IV, and V. Available: <http://www.usbr.gOv/lc/region/g2000/mscpdocs.html>.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
164
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
References
California Partners in Flight. 2006. The Desert Bird Conservation Plan: a
Strategy for Protecting and Managing Desert Habitats and Associated Birds in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts. Version 1.0. Available: <http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html>.
City of Bullhead City. 2002. City of Bullhead City General Plan Update. Bullhead City, AZ: DFD.
Cunning, Dan. President and CEO. Lake Havasu Convention and Visitors Bureau. Lake Havasu, AZ. November 17, 2004 — telephone conversation regarding the number of annual visitors to the Lake Havasu region.
La Paz County. 2005. La Paz County Comprehensive Plan. Revised March 2005. Adopted April 2005. La Paz County, Parker, AZ.
Lake Havasu City. 2002. Lake Havasu City General Plan 2001 . Revised
December 2004. Partners for Strategic Action, Inc. Lake Havasu City, AZ.
Latta, M. J., C. J. Beardmore, and T. E. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 142. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, Arizona.
Mohave County. 1995. Mohave County, Arizona, General Plan. Kansas City, MO: Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle.
National Interagency Fire Center. 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy January 2001. Available: <http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/history/index.htm>.
Parker Town Council and Staff, Planning and Zoning Commission. 1996. Town of Parker General Plan. Partners for Strategic Action, Inc. Fountain Hills, AZ.
Riparian Habitat Joint Venture. 2004. The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: a Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian Associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Available: <http://www.prbo.org/calpif/riparian.v-2.pdf>.
San Bernardino County. 2001. General Plan. Economic Development and Public Services Group. Land Use Services Department. San Bernardino,
CA.
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2004. Lower Colorado River Multi- Species Conservation Program. Volume I, II, III, IV, and V. Available: <http://www.usbr.gOv/lc/region/g2000/mscpdocs.html>.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
165
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
References
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1964. Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Proposed Statewide LUP Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management. Arizona State Office, Phoenix, AZ.
. 2006. Lake Havasu Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan
and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Lake Havasu, AZ.
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 1997. Cooperative Agreement. ADEZ Contract No. 98-0094. Agreement number 22021. Filed with the Secretary of State November 6.
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, and the California State Water Resources Control Board. 1993. Memorandum of Understanding for Planning and Coordination of Nonpoint Source Water Quality Policies and Activities. 1993. Signed January 27.
U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Game and Fish Department, California Department of Fish and Game, and Anglers United, Inc. 2006. Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Program Partnership 2006 Memorandum of Understanding. BLM Agreement No. AZ-932-0601.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Lake Havasu Field Office (LHFO) Proposed Resource Management Plan. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office. Phoenix, AZ.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Canadian Wildlife Service, SEMARNAP Mexico. 1998. Update North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Washington, D.C.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
166
May 2007
Index
A
Adaptive Management, 14, 45, 128, 129
Administrative Actions, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 (in the Record of Decision); 14, 47, 99, 103, 1 12, 117, 119, 123 see also Appendix B
Alamo Dam, 2, 12, 41, 117
Alamo Lake, 11, 121
Alamo Wildlife Area, 120, 121
Alternatives
Overview
Alternative 1 (No Action), pp. 8-9 (in the Record of Decision)
Alternative 2, p. 9 (in the Record of Decision)
Alternative 3, p. 9 (in the Record of Decision)
Alternative 4, p. 9 (in the Record of Decision)
Proposed Plan, Alternative 5, pp. 9-10 (in the Record of Decision)
American Indian Tribes, see also individual tribes, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 6, 12, 126 Applicable laws, regulations, policy, and planning criteria, see Appendix A Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs), 120, 121, 122
Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and Decision Record (LGNSA), 3 (in the Record of Decision); 1
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), see also Special Designations; Appendix K; Map 28; 4, 5, 9, 11 (in the Record of Decision); 5, 21, 28, 30, 33, 37, 39, 41, 100, 104, 106, 108, 109, 111, 114, 126
Decision Code AC, 106-109
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
167
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Arizona (State and miscellaneous), 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15 (in the Record of Decision); 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 46, 57, 65, 66, 68, 74, 85, 87, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 112, 114, 120, 124, 125, 126
Planning Overview, 1-10
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 12
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), 14 (in the Record of Decision); 6, 7, 39, 122
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGED), 5, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 21, 85, 87, 121, 122
Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (Standards and Guidelines), 12 (in the Record of Decision)
Arizona State Parks, 3, 6, 12, 66, 68, 85, 87
Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative Environmental Impact Statement, 7, 1 1 1
Atlantic and Pacific (A&P) Railroad, 28
Availability of the Plan, p. 14 (in the Record of Decision)
B
Back Country Byways, see also Special Designations; Appendix K; Map 28; 4, 33, 109, 110 Decision Code BB, 109-1 10
Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural ACEC, 43, 106, 108, 109 Beale’s Wagon Road, 107 Big Sandy River, 11, 121 Bighorn sheep, 16, 18, 19, 107, 110, 114 Habitat, see Map 1 0
Bill Williams River, 2, 1 1 , 22, 60, 106, 110, 111, 117, 119 Riparian Zones, see Map 8 Bill Williams River Corridor Steering Committee, 11,12 Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge, 2, 60
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Appendix C
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Decision Code WF, 13, 17-21 Special Status Species Management
Decision Code TE, 13, 21-24, 29 Vegetation and Riparian Management
Decision Codes VM and RP, 15-17 Watershed Management
Decision Code WS, 25
Black Peak Special Cultural Resource Management Area (SCRMA), 28
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
168
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Bonytail chub, 16, 24
Bouse, see also Camp Bouse, 40, 94, 99, 110 Brenda, 99
Bullhead Bajada, 28, 39, 43, 44, 107, 108, 109
Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural ACEC, 39, 43, 44, 107, 108
Bullhead Bajada Special Cultural Resource Management Area (SCRMA), 28
Bullhead City General Plan (2002), 12
Bullhead City, Arizona, 2, 6, 12, 48, 49, 107
Bureau of Land Management
Planning Overview, 1-13 Management Decisions, 19-36
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 14 (in the Record of Decision); 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 22, 28, 107; see also Map 3, Bureau of Reclamation Withdrawn and Acquired Lands
C
California (State and miscellaneous), 3, 11, 12, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10,
12, 13, 16, 21, 22, 30, 40, 57, 72, 101, 1 14, 120
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 6, 8, 21, 72 Camp Bouse, 28
Camping, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 109; as activity in Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), see Tables 7a through 7g, pp. 48-96
Central Arizona Project (CAP), 9, 40 Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, 2, 6 Clarifications, 7-8 (in the Record of Decision)
Clean Water Act, 10, 12 Collaboration/Partnership Relationship, 6 Colorado Desert, 120, 164, 165, 170
Colorado River, 2,3,8, 9, 12, 24, 29, 43,49, 50,51,53,72, 102, 107, 113, 115, 120 Riparian Zones, see Map 7 Colorado River Indian Tribes, 2, 6, 29, 41
Colorado River Nature Center Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), see Table 7a, pp. 48-50, 48, 97, 115
Comments, see also Protest, 2, 5, 9, 1 1 (in the Record of Decision); 4, 5 Communication sites, 37, 41; see also Map 15 and Table 5, p. 41 Compact disc (CD), 113 Concessions, 39, 62, 68, 100
Congress of the United States, 4 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 7, 8, 105, 1 1 1 Cooperating agencies, 7-9
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
169
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Craggy Wash, 8, 102
Crossman Peak, 28, 39, 88, 98, 102, 107, 108, 109
Crossman Peak Scenic ACEC, 39, 107, 108; see also Appendix K,
Culling’s Well, 28
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, see also Appendix E Categories for Cultural Resource Allocation, Table 2, p. 26 Decision Code CL, 26-29 Desired Future Conditions, 26 Land Use Allocations, 26-28 Management Actions, 28-29 Monitoring, 29-30
D
Davis Dam, 2, 8 Department Manual (DM), 8, 9
Department of the Interior (DOI), 12 (in the Record of Decision); 8, 9, 10 Desert bighorn sheep, see Bighorn sheep
Desert tortoise, see Mojave Desert tortoise and Sonoran Desert tortoise; see also Map 1 1
Desired Future Conditions, see individual resource topics
Disposal lands, see Appendix G for legal descriptions; see also Map 14
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), 2, 7, 9, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 5, 130
Draft Resource Management Plan (DUMP), 7, 9, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 5, 130
E
Effectiveness monitoring, see Plan Monitoring
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 USC 1531) et seq., as amended, 6, 10, 22 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 3, 8, 12, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 4, 110, 111 Ephemeral allotments, 46
Extensive Recreational Management Area (ERMA), 47, 96, 97, 99, 103, 1 14; see also Table 7h, p 96 and Map 2 1
F
Federal Highway Administration, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 6, 7
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, 3,4, 10, 11 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 5, 12, 36, 37, 38
Federal Register (FR), 8, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 4, 27 Field Manager recommendation, 15 (in the Record of Decision)
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
170
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 10, 19, 22, 40, 130
FIRE MANAGEMENT, see also Map 13, Vegetation Communities for Fire Management Decision Code FM, 30-34 Desired Future Conditions, 30 Land Use Allocations, 30-31 Management Actions, 31-34 Monitoring, 34 Fire Management Plan, 31 Fish habitat, 1 1, 16, 19, 20, 24, 60, 65, 103
Fisheries, 6 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 6, 11, 14, 20, 24, 57, 101 Fishing, 1 1, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 101 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, 2, 6
G
Gibraltar Mountain Interdisciplinary Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, 9
Gibraltar Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), see Table 7e, pp. 76-85, 98, 102; see also Map 23
Grazing, see Rangeland Management/Grazing; see also Appendix El and Map 19
H
Harcuvar Mountains, 2, 44
Harcuvar Mountain East as Special Cultural Resource Management Area (SCRMA), 28 Harcuvar Mountain West as Special Cultural Resource Management Area (SCRMA), 28 Hardy Toll Road, 28 Hargus Cabin, 28
Havasu-AZ Herd Management Area (HMA), 122 Havasu-CA Herd Management Area (HMA), 120 Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, 2 Havasu Resource Area of the Yuma District, 1
Havasu Urban Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), see Table 7f, pp. 85-91, 98, 102; see also Map 24
Hazardous Materials, 37
Herd Management Areas (HMAs) see Wild burros, individual Herd Management Areas; see also Map 35 and Table 9
Hiking, 1 1 (in the Record of Decision); 101, 109; as activity in Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), see Tables 7a through 7g, pp. 48-96
Hopi Tribe, 2, 6
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
171
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Hualapai Tribe, 2, 6
Hunting, 1 1 (in the Record of Decision); 53, 55, 76, 82, 93, 95, 102, 109, 116
I
Implementation Monitoring, see Plan Monitoring Implementation Decisions, 6 (in the Record of Decision)
Inholdings, 3, 37, 125
Intaglio, 27; see also Appendix E
Intergovernmental, inter-agency, and tribal relationships, 6
Interstate (I) 10, 40
Interstate (I) 40, 40
Issues addressed, 4-5
Issues considered but not further analyzed, 6
J, K
Kingman Resource Area Resource Management Plan (KRMP), 3 (in the Record of Decision); 1
L
La Paz County Comprehensive Plan (March 2005 Revised Draft), 12 La Paz County, Arizona, 1, 6, 12, 76
Lake Havasu, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 (in the Record of Decision); 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,24, 25, 30,31,35,37,38,39, 47, 104, 108, 112, 113, 115, 119, 120, 126, 127, 129, 130; see also Lake Havasu Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA)
Planning Overview, 1-13
Lake Havasu City General Plan (2001), 12, 165
Lake Havasu City, Arizona, 5, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 6, 12, 20, 65, 85, 88, 89, 98,
102, 107, 119, 120, 126
Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area, 10, 11, 14; see also Map 4;
Lake Havasu Convention and Visitor Center, 2
Lake Havasu Coordinated Fisheries Management Plan (January 2005), 13
Lake Havasu Field Office (LHFO), 1, 2, 8, 9, 14, 15 (in the Record of Decision); 1, 4, 6, 7 8, 9,
12, 13, 15, 16, 18,21,22, 23,30,31,35,37,38, 39, 47, 99, 100, 101, 102, 112, 113, 115, 126, 129, 130
Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Scoping Report, 4
Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Partnership, 1 1
Lake Havasu Shoreline Program, 8 (in the Record of Decision)
Lake Havasu Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), see Table 7b, pp. 51-68, 88, 97, 101, 102; see also Map 22
Land status/surface management, see Table 1, p. 3
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
172
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Land use allocations, see individual resource topics Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), 129 Land use plans, see individual plan titles
LANDS AND REALTY PROGRAM, see also rights-of-way, utility corridors. Appendix G Decision Code LR, 28, 29, 37-41 Land Use Allocations, 37-38 Use Authorizations, 38-41 Monitoring, 41
Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Planning Criteria, see Appendix A
LGNSA, see Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and Decision Record
Little Harquahala Herd Area, 120, see also. Appendix M
Livestock grazing, 4, 1 1, 12, 46, 125; see also Rangeland Management/Grazing and Appendix H Long-Term Visitor Areas (LTVAs), 100 Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan, 8
Lower Colorado River Multiple Species Conservation Program (LCRMSCP), 9, 16, 22, 39, 101, 107
Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (LGNMFP); see also Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and Decision Record (LGNSA), 3 (in the Record of Decision); 1
Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (LGSRMP); see also. Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and Decision Record (LGNSA), 3 (in the Record of Decision); 1
M
Management actions, see individual resource topics Management concerns, 9 (in the Record of Decision); 4
Management considerations (in selecting the Approved RMP), 10-12 (in the Record of Decision) Maricopa County, Arizona, 1 McGuffie Cabin, 28
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 6, 16, 22 Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186, 16, 21
MINERAL RESOURCES; see also Maps 16, 17, 18 Decision Code MI, 28, 42-44, 125 Land Use Allocations, 42-44 Monitoring, 44
Reasonable Forseeable Development, 42
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
173
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Mining, 7, 27, 28, 42, 74, 75, 78, 79, 106, 125 Mining Law of 1872, as amended, 42 Mission, 5, 9, 11, 13
Mitigation Measures, 12 (in the Record of Decision)
Modifications, 3, 6, 14 (in the Record of Decision)
Mohave County General Plan (1995), 12 Mohave County, Arizona, 1,6, 12, 89 Mojave Desert tortoise, 16, 22 Habitat, see Map 1 1 Monitoring, see Plan Monitoring Monkey Head, 1 6
Multiple-use management, 9, 35, 109
N
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 2, 3, 4, 12, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 7, 13, 20, 22, 41, 43, 99, 100, 103, 1 15, 1 16, 117, 128, 129
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 1992, 4, 6, 10, 30, 115
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 27, 29, 37, 41, 106, 107, 108
Nature Conservancy, 12, 21
Needles, California, 6
Needles Revegetation Site, 16
Nevada (State and miscellaneous), 2
Notice of Availability, 14 (in the Record of Decision)
Notice of Intent (NOI), 14 (in the Record of Decision); 4
O
Off-highway vehicles (OHV), 2,4, 8,43,51,70, 72, 74, 78, 102, 103, 111, 115, 117; see also Table 7e, pp. 80-83; Table 7f, pp. 85-90; Table 7g, pp. 91-96
Area designations, see Table 8, p. 113 and Map 3 1 Competitive events
Parker 400, 100
Open house meetings, 14 (in the Record of Decision)
P
Paintball, 100
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Decision Code GL, 44-45
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
174
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Desired Future Conditions, 44 Land Use Alloeations, 44-45 Management Actions, 45 Monitoring, 45
Resource Classifications, Table 6, p. 45 Parker 400, see Off-highway vehicles/Competitive events Parker, Arizona, 2, 6, 17, 21, 40, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 72, 97, 98, 100, 101, 110, 115
Parker-Bouse-Swansea, nomination as a National Back Country Byway, p. 110; see also Appendix K
Parker Dam, see also. Appendix J, 2, 21, 60, 61, 97, 110 Parker Dam Road (Back Country Byway), 1 10 Parker Strip Recreation Area, 8, 98, 115 Parker Strip Recreation Area Management Plan, 98, 115
Parker Strip Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), 8 (in the Record of Decision); see Table 7c, pp. 68-73, 68; see also Map 21
Petroglyphs, 27 Pictographs, 27 Plan Evaluation, 128, 129
Plan Maintenance Roster, 8 (in the Record of Decision); 128; see also Appendix O Plan Monitoring, pp. 12-13 (in the Record of Decision)
Implementation Monitoring, pp. 12-13 (in the Record of Decision)
Effectiveness Monitoring, p. 13 (in the Record of Decision)
Validation Monitoring, p. 13 (in the Record of Decision)
Plan Monitoring Roster, 8, 13 (in the Record of Decision); 130; see also Appendix P Plan priorities, see Appendix N Planet Ranch, 1 1 0
Planning area description. Table 1, Map 1 Planning criteria, 5, 13, 125; see also Appendix A Planning process, 7, 9, 14, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 26, 57, 103, 120 Plomosa Mountains, 28, 93, 99
Plomosa Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), see Table 7g, pp. 91-96, 99, 102; see also Map 25
Policies, Laws, Regulations, and Planning Criteria, see Appendix A
Population, 10 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 3, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 48, 52, 55, 120, 121, 122 Preferred Alternative, 2, 9 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 5 Prescribed Recreation Settings, see Map 20
Previous Resource Management Plan and Management Franwork Plan boundaries, see Map 2 Project lands, 7, 8
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
175
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP), 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 19, 22, 40, 130
Protest, 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 (in the Record of Decision); 4
Public health and safety, 11, 47, 99
Public involvement, pp. 13-14 (in the Record of Decision)
Purpose and need, 1-2
Q, R
RANGELAND MANAGEMENT/GRAZING, also, Appendix H, Map 19 Decision Code GM, 45-46 Desired Future Conditions, 45-46 Land Use Allocations, 46 Management Actions, 46 Monitoring, 46
Rawhide Mountain Wilderness, 1 1 1 Razorback sucker, 16, 24
Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP), 5, 25, 35, 36, 38, 100
RECREATION MANAGEMENT, see also. Individual Special Recreation Management Areas; Appendix I; Map 20; Map 27
Decision Code RR, 48-102 Desired Future Conditions, 48-96 Land Use Allocations, 97-99 Management Actions, 99-102 Monitoring, 102-104
Recreation Management Zone (RMZ), 47, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 114, 115; in Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), see Tables 7a through 7g, pp. 48-96
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), 18, 99 Recreational Management Areas, see Map 2 1
Related plans, 16, 129; see also Map 2, Previous Resource Management Plan and Management Franwork Plan Boundaries
Rights-of-way (ROWs) see also. Lands and Realty Program, 9, 26, 28, 37, 38, 39, 40, 116, 119
Riparian resources, see Vegetarian and Riparian Management in Biological Resource Management
Riparian zones. Bill Williams River Management Unit, see Map 8 Riparian zones, Colorado River Management Unit, see Map 7 Rock art, 27
Rockhounding, 51, 72, 74, 80, 88, 90, 95
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
176
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Route designation, 11, 18, 28, 116, 117
Route inventory (existing routes), see Map 30, Map 32
Routes, 2, 1 1, 7, 9, 18, 38, 72, 83, 86, 100, 109, 112, 113, 1 14, 1 15, 1 16, 117, 123, 124
Allocated Competitive Use Routes, see Map 26 ROW corridors designations summary, see Table 4, p. 40
S
Sacred areas/sites, 26, 29
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 2, 6
San Bernardino County Plan (2001), 12
San Bernardino County, California, 1,6, 12
Santa Maria River, 1 1
Schwanbeck’s Store, 27
Scoping process/issues, 4
Seasonal population changes, 2
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), 2, 8, 9, 12
Section 1 10 field inventories, 30
Shoreline fishing, 1 1, 57, 60, 61, 65, 66, 101
Sikes Act, 10
Soil, Water, Air Resources, see Watershed Management in Biological Resources Sonoran Desert, 16, 18, 23 Sonoran Desert tortoise, 22, 107 Habitat, see Map 1 1
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS, see also Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Back Country Byways, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas, and Wilderness Studay Areas, Appendix K, Maps 28 and 29
Congressional Designations, 104-106 Administrative Designations, 106-1 1 1
Special Cultural Resource Management Areas (SCRMAs), 28, 29, 170; see also Map 12 Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), see individual SRMAs Special Recreation Permits (SRPs), 57, 65, 66, 67, 100, 101, 104, 124
Special status species, see Biological Resource Management, Special Status Species Management
Species of concern, see Biological Resource Management, Special Status Species Management
Sport fishery, 21
Stakeholder relationships, 10-12
Standard Operating Procedures, see Appendix B
State Route (SR) 95, 5, 39, 97, 1 19, 120
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
177
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Supplemental rules, see Appendix A
Sustained yield management, 10, 1 1 (in the Record of Decision); 2, 5, 1 1, 45
Swansea Historic District ACEC, 106, 108, 109
Swansea Special Cultural Resource Management Area (SCRMA), 28
Swansea Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), see Table 7d, pp. 74-75, 98, 101
Swansea Townsite, 28, 43, 44, 106, 109, 115
T
Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species, see also Biological Resource Management, Special Status Species Management
Three Rivers Riparian Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), 43, 44, 106, 108, 109 Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, 2
Topock-Needles Special Cultural Resource Management Area (SCRMA), 28 Town of Parker General Plan (June 1996), 12
TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, see also. Appendix L, Map 30, Travel Management Areas and Route Inventory Index
Decision Code TM, 6, 28, 39, 112-117 Desired Future Conditions, 112-113 Land Use Allocations, 113-116 Management Actions, 116-117 Monitoring, 1 1 7
Travel Management Network (TMN), 1 12
Travel Management Plans, p. 2 (in the Record of Decision); 17, 18,21, 110, 112, 114, 115,116,117,125,126
Typical management actions, see Appendix B
U
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 3, 12 U.S. Congress, see Congress of the United States
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 3, 6, 10, 1 1, 12, 16, 19, 22, 32, 33, 34, 72, 85, 87, 121 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 11 United States Code (USC), 7, 37
Utility corridors, 5, 16, 37, 40; see also Map 15, rights-of-way. Lands and Realty Program
V
Validation Monitoring, see Plan Monitoring
Vegetation, see Biological Resource Management, Vegetation and Riparian Management; Appendix F; see also Map 5 and Map 13 and Table 3
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
178
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
Vision, 13
VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM), also Map 33 Decision Code VR, 118-119 Desired Future Conditions, 1 18 Land Use Allocations, 1 19 Management Actions, 119 Monitoring, 1 19
W
Water quality, 15
Water resources, see Appendix D
Watermaster for the Lower Colorado River, 8
Wenden, Arizona, 2
Whipple Mountains, 5 1 , 97
Wild and Scenic Rivers, 15, 16, 39, 110, 111; see also, Special Designations, Appendix K Decision Code WR, 110-111
WILD BURRO MANAGEMENT, see also Appendix M, Map 34, and Map 35 Decision Code HB, 120-122 Desired Future Conditions, 120 Land Use Allocations, 120 Management Actions, 121-122 Monitoring, 122
Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended, 121 Wilderness Areas, 16, 104, 105; see also, Special Designations; Map 29; Appendix K Decision Code WM, 104-105
WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS, also Map 36 Decision Code WC, 6, 123-125 Desired Future Conditions, 123 Land Use Allocations, 123 Management Actions, 123-125 Monitoring, 125
Wilderness Study Area (WSA), 16, 105; see also. Special Designations, Map 29, Appendix K Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA), 2, 16, 18, 22, 38, 39, 1 16; see also. Map 6 Wildlife movement corridors, see Map 9 Wildlife waters, 6, 20, 123
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
179
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Index
X, Y,Z
Yavapai County, Arizona, 1 Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, 2, 6
Yuma District Resource Management Plan as amended (YRMP), 3 (in the Record of Decision); 1,31, 102, 114
Yuma Field Office, 30
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
180
May 2007
Acronyms and Abbreviations
A&P
ACEC
ADOT
AGFD
AML
Approved RMP
ATV
AZLUP
BA
BLM
CAP
CFR
Corps
CS
DM
DPC
DRMP/DEIS
FIS
ERMA
ESA
FAMS
Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Area of Critical Environmental Concern Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Game and Fish Department Appropriate Management Level
Approved Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan
all-terrain vehicle
Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management
Biological Assessment Bureau of Land Management Central Arizona Project Code of Federal Regulations U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Communication Site
Department of the Interior Departmental Manual Desired Plant Community
Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Impact Statement Extensive Recreation Management Area Endangered Species Act Facilities Maintenance Information System
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
181
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Acronyms and Abbreviations
FHA
FLPMA
HA
Havasu-CA HMA
HMA
IBLA
KOP
KRMP
LCRMSCP
LGNSA
LGSRMP
LTVAs
MIST
MOU
mph
MSCP
MWD
NECO Plan
NEPA
NHPA
NRHP
OHV
PRMP/FEIS
PWC
R&PP
RFD
RMIS
RMZ
ROS
ROW
SCRMA
SR
SRMA
SRP
Fish Habitat Area
Federal Land Policy and Management Act Herd Area
California side of the Havasu HMA Herd Management Area Interior Board of Land Appeals Key Observation Point
Kingman Resource Area Resource Management Plan
Lower Colorado River Multiple Species Conservation Program
Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and Decision Record
Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan Long-Term Visitor Areas Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics Memorandum of Understanding miles per hour
Multi-Species Conservation Program Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan
National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act National Register of Historic Places off-highway vehicle
Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement
personal watercraft Recreation and Public Purposes Act reasonable foreseeable development Recreation Management Information System Recreation Management Zone Recreation Opportunity Spectrum right-of-way
Special Cultural Resource Management Area State Route
Special Recreation Management Area Special Recreational Permit
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
182
May 2007
Bureau of Land Management
Acronyms and Abbreviations
|
T&E |
Threatened and Endangered |
|
TMN |
Travel Management Network |
|
TMP |
Travel Management Plan |
|
use |
United States Code |
|
uses |
U.S. Geological Survey |
|
UTV |
utility vehicle |
|
VRM |
Visual Resource Management |
|
WA |
Wilderness Area |
|
WHA |
Wildlife Habitat Area |
|
WSA |
Wilderness Study Area |
|
YCR |
Yuma Clapper Rail |
|
YRMP |
Yuma District Resource Management Plan |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan 1 83
May 2007
; -- •••' ■ rri jftPI ■
List of Preparers
Though individuals have primary responsibility for preparing sections of an RMP, the document is an interdisciplinary team effort. In addition, internal review of the document occurs throughout preparation. Specialists at the BLM’s district, state, and Washington office levels both review the analysis and supply information. Contributions by individual preparers may be subject to revision by other BLM specialists and by management during internal review.
|
Name |
Job Title |
Experience/Expertise |
Primary Responsibility |
|
Adams, Doug |
Fisheries Biologist |
20 years State of LA 4 years BLM |
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources |
|
Allert, Les |
Computer Specialist |
30 years Federal Service 20 years BLM |
Computer Support and GIS Mapping |
|
Barnes, Cindy |
GIS Specialist |
22 years BLM |
RMP Core Team. GIS Specialist; Maps and Data |
|
Bates, Christine |
Renewable Resources Advisor |
25 years Federal Service 6 years BLM |
RMP Core Team. Biological Resources, Biological Assessment |
|
Blomquist, Brad |
Recreation Planner |
24 years BLM, 5 years NPS. Both positions involved law enforcement and outdoor recreation planning/ management. |
Recreation Resource |
|
Bodman, Cory |
Realty Specialist |
1 3 years BLM |
Lands/Realty and Soils |
|
Bouldin, Brent |
Lead Editor |
32 years of experience in technical, environmental, and general publication |
Co-editor |
|
Coyle, Charles |
Editor |
1 1 years of experience in environmental publication |
Co-editor |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan -| 35
Bureau of Land Management
List of Preparers
|
Name |
Job Title |
Experience/Expertise |
Primary Responsibility |
|
De Witt, Peter |
Lake Park Ranger |
Contractor |
Recreation and Travel Management, Field Observations |
|
Dodson, Amanda |
Geologist |
6 years BLM |
Minerals Resources |
|
Gatto, Angela |
Wildlife Biologist |
7 years Federal Service 2 year BEM |
Biological Resources |
|
Henderson, Mike |
Assistant Field Manager, Recreation and Visitor Services |
30 years BEM |
Technical Review |
|
Koch, Kirk |
Lake Havasu Fisheries Program Manager (Special Program Manager) |
28 years BLM in aquatic and water-related resource management |
Water/Soil/Air, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitat |
|
Lichtkoppler, Richard |
Economist, Bureau of Reclamation |
22 years of Federal Service: 1 year, BLM; 3 years. General Services Administration; 9 years, National Park Service; 9 years. Bureau of Reclamation Economics and park planning |
Socio-economics and Environmental Justice |
|
Lovato, Bernadette |
Lead Concession Management Specialist |
16 years Federal Service: 1 5 years experience in Concession Management Programs ( 1 0 years with National Park Service and 5 years with BLM) |
Concessions |
|
McCoy, Myron |
Recreation Planner |
21 years Federal Service: 16 years BLM, 5 years National Park Service |
Recreation Resources, Travel Management |
|
Miller-Allert, Jill |
Recreation Planner, Wilderness |
30 years Federal Service: 17 years BLM, 10 years Corps of Engineers, 3 years National Park Service |
RMP Core Team Special Designations, VRM, and Wilderness Characteristics |
|
Murray, Sarah C. |
Archaeologist |
1 8 years with BLM |
Cultural and Paleontological Resources |
|
Oyler, Roger H. |
Senior Rangeland Management Specialist |
3 1 years BLM |
Range Management and Burro Management |
|
Parry, Bill |
Civil Engineer Tech, Safety Officer |
30 years Federal Service: 20 years BLM, 10 years U.S. Forest Service Fire Dept Training Captain |
Public Health and Safety and Engineering |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan -I86
Bureau of Land Management
List of Preparers
|
Name |
Job Title |
Experience/Expertise |
Primary Responsibility |
|
Rosalez, Maria |
Realty Specialist |
32 years Federal Service; 1 1 years BLM, 21 years NOAA |
Lands/Realty |
|
Smith, Tim |
Field Manager |
28 years BLM |
Management Oversight |
|
Taylor, Patricia |
Assistant Field Manager, Lands and Customer Services |
29 years BLM |
Technical Review |
|
Trafton, Gina |
Planning and Environmental Coordinator |
28 years Federal Service: 6 years BLM Planning, economics, natural resource management |
RMP Team Lead |
|
Williams, Diane |
Public Affairs Specialist |
27 years Federal Service: 12 Congressional, 15 BLM |
Public Affairs, Publications, Outreach, and FOIA |
|
Wilson, Mike |
Recreation Planner |
35 years Federal Service: 15 years National Park Service, 20 years with BLM |
Technical review of recreation analysis |
|
Wolff-White, Catherine |
Environmental Protection Specialist |
23 years Federal Service: Oklahoma RMP Team, Texas RMP Team Plan Amendments |
Public Safety and Hazmat |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
187
May 2007
dot
i!'W
'' ^ " v:
•■i. .-«<4 *
;‘i- 'J
V ''Bii®
: 1:
■■ ' .-.v
r
4
4
\
I
Contents
Appendix A
Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy,
and Planning Criteria
Programmatic Documents A-1
Environmental Laws and Executive Orders A-2
Recreation & Public Purposes Act A-2
Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1 970 and Amendments of 1 977 and 1 990 .. A-2
Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 A-3
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) A-3
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 A-4
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 A-4
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 A-4
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended and supplemented A-5
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 A-5
Arizona Standards and Guidelines A-5
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 A-9
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577) A-10
The Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-628) A-10
The California Desert Protection Act (CDPA) of 1994
(P.L. 103-433) A-11
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968 A-1 1
EO 1 1 988, “Floodplain Management,” May 24, 1 977 A-11
EO 1 1 990, “Protection of Wetlands,” May 24, 1 977 A-11
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 A-1 2
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 A-1 2
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, amended in 1936, 1960,
1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986, and 1989 A-1 2
EO 13186, “Conservation of Migratory Birds,” January 10, 2001 .. A-1 3 EO 11514, “Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality,” March 5, 1970 A-13
EO 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments” A-13
Presidential Executive Memorandum September 23, 2004 A-1 4
Secretarial Order 3206 A-1 4
Economic and Social Factors: Environmental Quality
Improvement Act (EQIA) of 1970 A-1 4
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966,
as amended A-14
Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 A-1 5
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 and
Amendments of 1994 A-1 5
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-i
May 2007
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA) of 1990 A-16
EO 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment,” May 1 3, 1 971 A-1 6
EO 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,”
February 11, 1994 A-16
EO 13007, “Indian Sacred Sites,” May 24, 1996 A-1 7
EO 13287, “Preserve America,” March 3, 2003 A-1 7
Case Law on Supplementation of NEPA A-1 7
Planning Criteria A-17
Supplementary Rules A-19
Supplementary Rules for the Lake Havasu Field Office,
43CFR 8365.1-6 A-19
Part I - September 1 5, 2003 A-1 9
Part II - October 12, 1995 A-19
Part III - Supplemental Rules That Are Still Valid A-20
Part I - September 1 5, 2003 A-20
Part II - October 12, 1995 A-28
Part III - Supplementary Rules Brought forward from Past
Rules That Are Still Valid A-32
Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275, Change 1 A-33
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-ii
May 2007
Appendix A
Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and
Planning Criteria
When considering the affected environment, physical, biological, economic, and social factors must be considered. In addition to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), other environmental laws and Executive Orders (EOs) should be considered when preparing E As and EISs. These laws are summarized below.
Programmatic Documents
A number of existing management plans, programmatic documents, and standards and guidelines were considered in the preparation of the Approved RMP. These documents have been examined not only to assure appropriate integration and compliance, but also to identify information that is still appropriate for inclusion in the Approved RMP and/or decisions that are still valid and can be carried forward into the documents being prepared. Activity plans that have been tiered off these plans have also been considered in this planning effort, but may require revision to be consistent with the Approved RMP.
These documents include:
■ Kingman Resource Management Plan (Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Resource Area Office 1995)
■ Yuma District Resource Management Plan as amended (Bureau of Land Management, Yuma District Office 1987)
■ Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan as amended (Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office 1983)
■ Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and Decision Record (LGNSA) (Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office 2005)
■ Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan as amended (Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office 1988)
■ Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office 1997)
■ Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management (Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office September 2003)
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-1
May 2007
■ Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office 1 994)
Environmental Laws and Executive Orders
Recreation & Public Purposes Act
Recognizing the strong public need for a nationwide system of parks and other recreational and public purposes areas, the Congress, in 1954, enacted the Recreation and Public Purposes Act 68 statute 173; 43 United states Code 896 et. seq.) as a complete revision of the Recreation Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 741). This law is administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
The act authorizes the sale or lease of public lands for recreational or public purposes to state and local governments and to qualified nonprofit organizations. Examples of typical uses under the act are historic monuments sites, campgrounds, schools, firehouses, law enforcement facilities, municipal facilities, landfills, hospitals, parks, and fairgrounds.
Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and Amendments of 1977 and 1990
The CAA recognizes that increases in air pollution result in danger to public health and welfare. To protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources, the CAA authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set six National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs), which regulate carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter pollution emissions. The CAA seeks to reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants at their source, and designates this responsibility to state and local governments. States are directed to utilize financial and technical assistance as well as leadership from the federal government to develop implementation plans to achieve NAAQS. Geographic areas are officially designated by the EPA as being in attainment or non-attainment to pollutants in relation to their compliance with NAAQS. Geographic regions established for air quality planning purposes are designated as Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR). Pollutant concentration levels are measured at designated monitoring stations within the AQCR.
An area is designated as unclassifiable where insufficient monitoring data exists. Section 309 of the CAA authorizes the EPA to review and comment on impact statements prepared by other agencies.
An agency should consider what effect an action may have on NAAQS due to short-term increases in air pollution during construction as well as long-term increases resulting from changes in traffic patterns. For actions in attainment areas, a federal agency may also be subject to EPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations.
These regulations apply to new major stationary sources and modifications to such sources. Although few agency facilities will actually emit pollutants, increases in pollution can result from a change in traffic patterns or volume. Section 1 18 of the CAA waives federal immunity from complying with the CAA and states that all federal agencies will comply with all federal- and state-approved requirements.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-2
May 2007
Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977
The CWA, a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, is administered by the EPA and sets the basic stmcture for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. The CWA requires the EPA to establish water quality standards for specified contaminants in surface waters and forbids the discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. NPDES permits are issued by EPA or the appropriate State if it has assumed responsibility. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a federal program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States. Section 404 permits are issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Waters of the United States include interstate and intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands that are used for commerce, recreation, industry, sources of fish, and other purposes. The objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Each agency should consider the impact on water quality from actions such as the discharge of dredge or fill material into United States waters from construction, or the discharge of pollutants as a result of facility occupation.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
CERCLA authorizes the EPA to respond to spills and other releases of hazardous substances to the environment, and authorizes the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. CERCLA also provides a federal “Superfund” to respond to emergencies immediately. Although the “Superfund” provides funds for clean up of sites where potentially responsible parties (PRPs) cannot be identified, the EPA is authorized to recover funds through damages collected from responsible parties. This funding process places the economic burden for cleanup on polluters. SARA mandates strong cleanup standards, and authorizes the EPA to use a variety of incentives to encourage settlements. Title III of SARA authorizes the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), which requires facility operators with “hazardous substances” or “extremely hazardous substances” to prepare comprehensive emergency plans and to report accidental releases. EO 12856, “Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements,” requires federal agencies to comply with the provisions EPCRA. If a federal agency acquires a contaminated site it can be held liable for clean up as the property owner/operator. A federal agency can also incur liability if it leases a property, as the courts have found lessees liable as “owners.” However, if the agency exercises due diligence by conducting a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, it may claim the “innocent purchaser” defense under CERCLA. According to Title 42 United States Code (USC) 9601(35), the current owner/operator must show it undertook “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice” before buying the property to use this defense.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-3
May 2007
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976
RCRA, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, authorizes the EPA to provide for “cradle-to-grave” management of hazardous waste, and sets a framework for the management of non-hazardous municipal solid waste. Under RCRA, hazardous waste is controlled from generation to disposal through tracking and permitting systems, and restrictions and controls on the placement of waste on or into the land. Under RCRA, a waste is defined as hazardous if it is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic, or listed by the EPA as being hazardous. With the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), Congress targeted stricter standards for waste disposal and encouraged pollution prevention by prohibiting the land disposal of particular wastes. The HSWA amendments strengthen control of both hazardous and nonhazardous waste and emphasize the prevention of pollution of groundwater.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974
The SDWA establishes a federal program to monitor and increase the safety of all commercially and publicly supplied drinking water. Congress amended the SDWA in 1986, mandating dramatic changes in nationwide safeguards for drinking water and establishing new federal enforcement responsibility on the part of the EPA. The 1986 amendments to the SDWA require the EPA to establish Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and Best Available Technology (BAT) treatment techniques for organic, inorganic, radioactive, and microbial contaminants and turbidity. MCLGs are maximum concentrations below which no negative human health effects are known to exist. The 1 996 amendments set current federal MCLs, MCLGs, and BATs for organic, inorganic, microbiological, and radiological contaminants in public drinking water supplies.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976
FLPMA and the regulations contained in 43 CFR Part 1 600 govern the Bureau of Land Management planning process. Land Use Plans ensure that public lands are managed in accordance with the intent of Congress as stated in FLPMA, under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. As required by FLPMA, the public lands must be managed in a manner that protects the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition, that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use by encouraging collaboration and public participation throughout the planning process. In addition, the public lands must be managed in a manner that recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-4
May 2007
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended and supplemented
The Taylor Grazing Act was the federal government’s first effort to regulate grazing on federal public lands. The act established grazing districts of vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved land from any parts of the public domain (excluding Alaska) that are not national forests, parks, and monuments; Indian reservations; railroad grant lands; or revested Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands; and which are valuable chiefly for grazing and raising forage crops. Residents and stock owners pay an annual fee to obtain a grazing permit that is used to manage livestock grazing in established districts. Grazing Administration Regulations (43 CFR 4100) provide for the development of state Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management. The Standards and Guidelines are approved through Bureau of Land Management planning and NEPA processes.
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978
The Public Rangelands Improvement Act was instituted to improve the conditions on public rangelands. Rangelands are defined as lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management or the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service in 16 contiguous western states, including Arizona, on which there is domestic livestock grazing or which the appropriate Secretary determines may be suitable for domestic livestock grazing. Rangeland quality is determined by soil quality, forage values, wildlife habitat, watershed and plant communities, the current state of vegetation in a site in relation to its potential, and the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of vegetation in a plant community resemble the desired plant community. The act requires a national rangelands inventory and consistent federal management policies. In addition, the act provides funding for range improvement projects.
Arizona Standards and Guidelines
Arizona Standards and Guidelines (S&G) for grazing administration have been developed through a collaborative process involving the Bureau of Land Management State S&G Team and the Arizona Resource Advisory Council. Together, through meetings, conference calls, correspondence, and Open Houses with the public, the BLM State Team and RAC prepared Standards and Guidelines to address the minimum requirements outlined in the grazing regulations. The Standards and Guidelines, criteria for meeting Standards, and indicators are an integrated document that conforms to the fundamentals of rangeland health and the requirements of the regulations when taken as a whole.
Upland sites, riparian-wetland areas, and desired resource conditions are each addressed by a standard and associated guidelines.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-5
May 2007
Standard 1: Upland Sites
Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to soil type, elimate and landform (eeological site).
Criteria for meeting Standard 1:
Soil conditions support proper functioning of hydrologic, energy, and nutrient cycles. Many factors interact to maintain stable soils and healthy soil conditions, including appropriate amounts of vegetative cover, litter, and soil porosity and organic matter. Under property functioning conditions, rates of soil loss and infiltration are consistent with the potential of the site.
Ground cover in the form of plants, litter or rock is present in pattern, kind, and amount sufficient to prevent accelerated erosion for the ecological site; or ground cover is increasing as determined by monitoring over an established period of time.
Signs of accelerated erosion are minimal or diminishing for the ecological site as determined by monitoring over an established period of time.
As indicated by such factors as:
■ Ground Cover
□ litter
□ live vegetation, amount and type (e.g., grass, shrubs, trees, etc.)
□ rock
■ Signs of erosion
□ flow pattern
□ gullies
□ rills
□ plant pedestaling
Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable):
■ none
Guidelines:
1-1 . Management activities will maintain or promote ground cover that will provide for infiltration, permeability, soil moisture storage, and soil stability appropriate for the ecological sites within management units. The ground cover should maintain soil organisms and plants and animals to support the hydrologic and nutrient cycles, and energy flow. Ground cover and signs of erosion are surrogate measures for hydrologic and nutrient cycles and energy flow.
1-2. When grazing practices alone are not likely to restore areas of low infiltration or permeability, land management treatments may be designed and implemented to attain improvement.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-6
May 2007
Standard 2; Riparian-Wetland Sites
Riparian-wetland areas are in properly fimctioning condition.
Criteria for meeting Standard 2:
Stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate for proper functioning condition for existing climate, landform, and channel reach characteristics. Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows.
Riparian-wetland functioning conditions assessments are based on examination of hydrologic, vegetative, soil and erosion-deposition factors. BLM has developed a standard checklist to address these factors and make functional assessments. Riparian- wetland areas are functioning properly as indicated by the results of the application of the appropriate checklist.
The checklist for riparian areas is in the Technical Reference 1737-9 “Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition.” The checklist for wetlands is in Technical Reference 1737-11 “Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Conditions for Lentic Riparian- Wetland Areas.” These checklists are reprinted on the pages following the Guidelines for Standard 3.
As indicated by such factors as:
■ Gradient
■ Width/depth ratio
■ Channel roughness and sinuosity of stream channel
■ Bank stabilization
■ Reduced erosion
■ Captured sediment
■ Ground-water recharge
■ Dissipation of energy by vegetation
Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable):
■ Dirt tanks, wells, and other water facilities constructed or placed at a location for the purpose of providing water for livestock and/or wildlife and which have not been determined through local planning efforts to provide for riparian or wetland habitat are exempt.
■ Water impoundments permitted for construction, mining, or other similar activities are exempt.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-7
May 2007
Guidelines:
2-1. Management practices maintain or promote sufficient vegetation to maintain, improve or restore riparian-wetland functions of energy dissipation, sediment capture, groundwater recharge and stream bank stability, thus promoting stream channel morphology (e.g., gradient, width/depth ratio, channel roughness and sinuosity) and functions appropriate to climate and landform.
2-2. New facilities are located away from riparian-wetland areas if they conflict with achieving or maintaining riparian-wetland function. Existing facilities are used in a way that does not conflict with riparian-wetland functions or are relocated or modified when incompatible with riparian-wetland functions.
2-3. The development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and associated resources shall be designed to protect ecological functions and processes.
Standard 3: Desired Resource Conditions
Productive and diverse upland and riparian-wetland plant communities of native species exist and are maintained.
Criteria for meeting Standard 3:
Upland and riparian-wetland plant communities meet desired plant community objectives. Plant community objectives are determined with consideration for all multiple uses. Objectives also address native species, and the requirements of the Taylor Grazing Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and appropriate laws, regulations, and policies.
Desired plant community objectives will be developed to assure that soil conditions and ecosystem function described in Standards 1 and 2 are met. They detail a site-specific plant community, which when obtained, will assure rangeland health. State water quality standards, and habitat for endangered threatened, and sensitive species. Thus, desired plant community objectives will be used as an indicator of ecosystem function and rangeland health.
As indicated by such factors as:
■ Composition
■ Structure
■ Distribution
Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable):
■ Ecological sites or stream reaches on which a change in existing vegetation is physically, biologically, or economically impractical.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-8
May 2007
Guidelines:
3-1. The use and perpetuation of native species will be emphasized. However, when restoring or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands, non-intmsive, non-native plant species are appropriate for use where native species (a) are not available, (b) are not economically feasible, (c) cannot achieve ecological objectives as well as non-native species, and/or (d) cannot compete with already established non-native species.
3-2. Conservation of Federal threatened or endangered, proposed, candidate, and other special status species is promoted by the maintenance or restoration of their habitats.
3-3. Management practices maintain, restore, or enhance water quality in conformance with State or Federal standards.
3-4. Intensity, season and frequency of use, and distribution of grazing use should provide for growth and reproduction of those plant species needed to reach desired plant community objectives.
3-5. Grazing on designated ephemeral (annual and perennial) rangeland may be authorized if the following conditions are met:
■ Ephemeral vegetation is present in draws, washes, and under shrubs and has grown to useable levels at the time grazing begins.
■ Sufficient surface and subsurface soil moisture exists for continued plant growth.
■ Serviceable waters are capable of providing for proper grazing distribution.
■ Sufficient annual vegetation will remain on site to satisfy other resource concerns, (i.e., watershed, wildlife, and burros).
■ Monitoring is conducted during grazing to determine if objectives are being met.
3-6. Management practices will target those populations of noxious weeds that can be controlled or eliminated by approved methods.
3-7. Management practices to achieve desired plant communities will consider protection and conservation of known cultural resources, including historical sites, and prehistoric sites and plants of significance to Native American peoples.
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976
Title I of the Toxic Substance Control Act established requirements and authorities to identify and control toxic chemical hazards to human health and the environment. TSCA authorized the EPA to gather infonnation on chemical risks, require companies to test chemicals for toxic effects, and regulate chemicals with unreasonable risk. TSCA also singled out polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCBs) for regulation, which as a result are being phased out. TSCA and its regulations govern the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, marking, storage, disposal, cleanup, and release reporting requirements for numerous chemicals like PCBs. PCBs are persistent when released into the environment and accumulate in the tissues of living organisms. They have been shown to cause adverse
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-9
May 2007
health effects on laboratory animals and may cause adverse health effects in humans. TSCA Title II provides statutory framework for “Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response,” which applies only to schools. TSCA Title III, “Indoor Radon Abatement,” states indoor air in buildings of the United States should be as free of radon as the outside ambient air. Federal agencies are required to conduct studies on the extent of radon contamination in buildings they own. TSCA Title IV, “Lead Exposure Reduction,” directs Federal agencies to “. . .conduct a comprehensive program to promote safe, effective, and affordable monitoring, detection, and abatement of lead-based paint and other lead exposure hazards.” Further, any federal agency having jurisdiction over a property or facility must comply with all federal, state, interstate, and local requirements concerning lead-based paint.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577)
Established the National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as wilderness areas. These areas should be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a way that will leave them unimpaired for the future use and enjoyment as wilderness, to provide for the protection of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness.
Criteria set by Congress within this Act states that wilderness areas have the following characteristics: (1) Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and confined types of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value. The Wilderness Act also set the accepted uses of designated Wilderness Areas and what uses are prohibited. The act sets special provisions for an agency’s continuing management of existing or grandfathered rights such as mining and grazing and other agency mission related activities.
The provisions of the Wilderness Act were not applied to BLM administered lands when this act was first passed. It was not until the passage of FLPMA in 1976 that the BLM was directed to begin inventories for its lands as possible candidates for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System.
The Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-628)
In furtherance of the purpose of the Wilderness Act, the following public lands in five areas within LHFO were designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System: approximately 14,630 acres as East Cactus Plain Wilderness,
41,600 acres as Rawhide Mountains Wilderness, 25,287 acres as Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness, 18,805 acres as Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness, and 15,755 acres as Swansea Wilderness. The Act also retained 57,800 of public lands as “Cactus Plain Wilderness Study Area,” (WSA). This WSA continues to be managed under section 603 of Federal
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-10
May 2007
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, pertaining to its management in a manner that does not impair its suitability for preservation as wilderness at a later date.
The California Desert Protection Act (CDPA) of 1994 (P.L. 103-433)
This act designated lands in the California Desert as wilderness, established Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks, and established the Mojave National Preserve. The law designated certain lands in the California Desert Conservation Area, and the Yuma District (including LHFO) as three wilderness areas: 1) approximately 70,520 acres, which will be known as the Whipple Mountain Wilderness, 2) approximately 64,320 acres which will be known as the Chemehuevi Mountains Wilderness Area,
3) approximately 48,850 acres which will be known as the Dead Mountains Wilderness. Each wilderness area designated would be administered by BLM in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act, except that any reference to the effective date of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the effective date of this title.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968
By recognizing the outstandingly remarkable values of specific rivers of the Nation, the WSRA provides for a national wild and scenic river system. These selected rivers and their immediate environment are preserved in a free-flowing condition, without dams or other construction. The policy not only protects the water quality of the selected rivers but also provides for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Any river in a free-flowing condition and that has one or more of the outstandingly remarkable values mentioned in the act is eligible for inclusion, and can be authorized as such by an Act of Congress, an act of State legislature, or by the Seeretary of Interior upon the recommendation of the Governor of the State(s) through which the river flows.
EO 11988, “Floodplain Management,” May 24, 1977
EO 1 1988 directs agencies to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in floodplains. An agency may locate a facility in a floodplain if the head of the agency finds there is no practicable alternative. If no practicable alternative is found, the agency must minimize potential hann to the floodplain and circulate a notice explaining why the action is to be located in the floodplain prior to taking action. Finally, new construction in a floodplain must apply accepted floodproofmg and flood protection to include elevating structures above the base flood level rather than filling in land.
EO 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” May 24, 1977
EO 11990 directs agencies to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in wetlands. Federal agencies are to avoid new construction in wetlands, unless the agency finds there is no practicable alternative to construction in the wetland, and the proposed construction incorporates all possible measures to limit harm to the wetland. Agencies should use economic and environmental data, agency mission statements, and any other pertinent information when deciding whether or not to
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-11
May 2007
build in wetlands. EO 1 1990 directs each agency to provide for early public review of plans for construction in wetlands.
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990
The PPA encourages manufacturers to avoid the generation of pollution by modifying equipment and processes, redesigning products, substituting raw materials, and making improvements in management techniques, training, and inventory control. EO 12856, “Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements,” requires federal agencies to comply with the provisions of the PPA and also requires federal agencies to ensure all necessary actions are taken to prevent pollution. In addition, in Federal Register Volume 58 Number 18 (January 29, 1993), the Council on Environmental Quality provides guidance to Federal agencies on how to “...incorporate pollution prevention principles, techniques, and mechanisms into their planning and decision making processes and to evaluate and report those efforts, as appropriate, in documents pursuant to NEPA.”
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973
The ESA establishes a federal program to conserve, protect, and restore threatened and endangered plants and animals and their habitats. The ESA specifically charges federal agencies with the responsibility of using their authority to conserve threatened and endangered species. All federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction of critical habitat for these species, unless the agency has been granted an exemption. The Secretary of the Interior, using the best available scientific data, determines which species are officially endangered or threatened, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) maintains the list. A list of federal endangered species may be obtained from the Endangered Species Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (703-358-2171). States may also have their own lists of threatened and endangered species, which may be obtained by calling the appropriate State Fish and Wildlife office. Some species, such as the bald eagle, also have laws specifically for their protection (e.g.. Bald Eagle Protection Act).
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, amended in 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986, and 1989
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements treaties and conventions between the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Unless otherwise permitted by regulations, the Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not. The Act also make it unlawful to ship, transport or carry from one state, territory, or district to another, or through a foreign country, any bird, part, nest or egg that was captured, killed, taken, shipped, transported or carried contrary to the laws from where it was obtained; and import from Canada any bird, part, nest or egg obtained contrary to the laws of the
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-12
May 2007
province from which it was obtained. The U.S. Department of the Interior has authority to an-est, with or without a warrant, a person violating the Act.
EO 13186, “Conservation of Migratory Birds,” January 10, 2001
EO 13186 creates a more comprehensive strategy for the conservation of migratory birds by the federal government. The Order provides a specific framework for the federal government’s compliance with its treaty obligations to Canada, Mexico, Russia, and Japan. The Order provides broad guidelines on conservation responsibilities and requires the development of more detailed guidance in Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) within 2 years of its implementation. The Order will be coordinated and implemented by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The MOU will outline how federal agencies will promote conservation of migratory birds. The Order will requires the support of various conservation planning efforts already in progress; incorporation of bird conservation considerations into ageney planning, including NEPA analyses; and reporting annually on the level of take of migratory birds.
EO 11514, “Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quaiity,” March 5, 1970
EO 11514 states the President, with assistance from the CEQ, will lead a national effort to provide leadership in protecting and enhancing the environment for the purpose of sustaining and enriching human life. Federal agencies are directed to meet national environmental goals through their policies, programs, and plans. Agencies should also continually monitor and evaluate their activities to protect and enhance the quality of the environment. Consistent with NEPA, agencies are directed to share information about existing or potential environmental problems with all interested parties, including the public, in order to obtain their views.
EO 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, signed on May 14, 1998 and reissued in November 6, 2000 directs federal agencies to respect tribal self-government and sovereignty, tribal rights, and tribal responsibilities whenever they formulate policies “significantly or uniquely affecting Indian tribal governments.” When developing regulatory policies, agencies should provide for “meaningful and timely” consultation with tribes, and must also consider the compliance costs imposed upon tribal governments. The Order further states: “On issues relating to tribal self-government, trust resources or treaty and other rights, each agency should explore and, where appropriate, use consensual mechanisms for developing regulations, including negotiated rule-making.”
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-13
May 2007
Presidential Executive Memorandum September 23, 2004
On September 23, 2004, President George W. Bush issued Executive Memorandum Govemment-to-Govemment Relationship with Tribal Governments recommitting the federal government to work with federally-recognized Native American tribal governments on a govemment-to-govemment basis and strongly supporting and respecting tribal sovereignty and self-determination.
Secretarial Order 3206
On June 5, 1997, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretaries) issued this order pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 USC 1531, as amended (the Act), the federal-tribal trust relationship, and other federal law. Specifically, this Order clarifies the responsibilities of the component agencies, bureaus and offices of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce (Departments), when actions taken under authority of the Act and associated implementing regulations affect, or may affect, Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or the exercise of American Indian tribal rights, as defined in this Order. This Order further acknowledges the trust responsibility and treaty obligations of the United States toward Indian tribes and tribal members and its govemment-to-govemment relationship in dealing with tribes. Accordingly, the Departments will carry out their responsibilities under the Act in a manner that harmonizes the federal tmst responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory missions of the Departments, and that strives to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid or minimize the potential for conflict and confrontation.
Economic and Social Factors: Environmental Quality Improvement Act (EQIA) of 1970
The EQIA ensures that each federal agency conducting or supporting public works activities affecting the environment implements policies that are established under existing law. The EQIA also created the Office Environmental Quality to provide professional and administrative staff for the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Director of the Office of Environmental Quality assists and advises the President on federal policies and programs affecting environmental quality. The Office of Environmental Quality reviews the adequacy of existing environmental monitoring and predicting systems, and assists federal agencies in appraising the effectiveness of existing and proposed facilities that affect environmental quality.
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended
The NHPA sets forth national policy to identify and preserve properties of State, local, and national significance. The Act establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), State Historic Preservation Officers, and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Council advises the President, Congress, and federal
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-14
May 2007
agencies on historic preservation issues. Section 106 of the act directs federal agencies to take into account effects of their undertakings (actions and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for NRHP. Section 1 10 sets inventory, nomination, protection, and preservation responsibilities for federally owned cultural properties. Section 106 of the act is implemented by regulations of the Council, 36 CFR Part 800. The Bureau of Land Management in Arizona complies with Section 106 according to a national Programmatic Agreement dated March 26, 1997, supplemented by a Protocol between the BLM Arizona State Director and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer.
The agency should coordinate studies and documents prepared under Section 106 with NEPA where appropriate. However, NEPA and NHPA are separate statutes and compliance with one does not constitute compliance with the other. For example, actions that qualify for a categorical exclusion under NEPA may still require Section 106 review under NHPA. The agency official is responsible for to identifying properties in the area of potential effects and whether they are included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Section 1 10 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to identify, evaluate, and nominate historic property under agency control to the National Register of Historic Places.
Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979
ARPA protects archaeological resources on public and Indian lands. It provides felony-level penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, damage, alteration or defacement of any archaeological resource, defined as material remains of past human life or activities which are at least 1 00 years old. Before archaeological resources are excavated or removed from public lands, the federal land manager must issue a permit detailing the time, scope, location, and specific purpose of the proposed work. ARPA also fosters the exchange of information about archaeological resources between governmental agencies, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals. ARPA is implemented by regulations found in 43 CFR Part 7.
American Indian Reiigious Freedom Act of 1978 and Amendments of 1994
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 recognizes that freedom of religion for all people is an inherent right, and traditional American Indian religions are an indispensable and irreplaceable part of Indian life. It also recognized the lack of federal policy on this issue and made it the policy of the United States to protect and preserve the inherent right of religious freedom for Native Americans. The 1994 Amendments provide clear legal protection for the religious use of peyote cactus as a religious sacrament. Federal agencies are responsible for evaluating their actions and policies to determine if changes should be made to protect and preserve the religious cultural rights and practices of Native Americans. These evaluations must be made in consultation with native traditional religious leaders.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-15
May 2007
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990
NAGPRA establishes rights of Indian tribes to claim ownership of certain “cultural items,” defined as Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony held or controlled by federal agencies. Cultural items discovered on federal or tribal lands are, in order of primacy, the property of lineal descendants, if these can be determined, the tribe owning the land where the items were discovered, of the tribe with the closest cultural affiliation with the items. Discoveries of cultural items on federal or tribal land must be reported to the appropriate Indian tribe and the federal agency with jurisdiction over the land. If the discovery is made as a result of a land use, activity in the area must stop and the items must be protected pending the outcome of consultation with the affiliated tribe.
EO 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment,” May 13, 1971
EO 11593 directs the federal government to provide leadership in the preservation, restoration, and maintenance of the historic and cultural environment. Federal agencies are required to locate and evaluate all federal sites under their jurisdiction or control that may qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Agencies must allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to comment on the alteration, demolition, sale, or transfer of property that is likely to meet the criteria for listing as determined by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Agencies must also initiate procedures to maintain federally owned sites listed on the National Register.
EO 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” February 11, 1994
EO 12898 directs federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their mission. Agencies must identify and address adverse human health and/or environmental effects its activities have on minority and low-income populations and develop agency- wide environmental justice strategies. The strategy must list “. . .programs, policies, planning and public participation processes, enforcement, and/or rulemakings related to human health or the environment that should be revised to promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority populations and low-income populations, ensure greater public participation, improve research and data collection relating to the health of and environment of minority populations and low-income populations, and identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority populations and low-income populations.” A copy of the strategy and progress reports must be provided to the Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice. Responsibility for compliance with this EO lies with each federal agency.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-16
May 2007
EO 13007, “Indian Sacred Sites,” May 24, 1996
EO 13007 provides that agencies managing federal lands, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not inconsistent with agency functions, shall accommodate Indian religious practitioners’ access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites, shall avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sites, and shall maintain the confidentiality of such sites. Federal agencies are responsible for informing tribes of proposed actions that could restrict future access to or ceremonial use of, or adversely affect the physical integrity of, sacred sites.
EO 13287, “Preserve America,” March 3, 2003
EO 13287 orders the federal government to take a leadership role in protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of historic properties owned by the federal government, and promote intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for preservation and use of historic properties. The order established new accountability for agencies with regard to inventories and stewardship.
Case Law on Supplementation of NEPA
The lead case from the United States Supreme Court on supplementation is Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989). It provides that “an agency need not supplement an EIS every time new infonnation comes to light after the EIS is finalized. To require otherwise would render agency decision-making intractable, always awaiting updated information only to find the new information outdated by the time the decision is made.” Id. at 373.
Rather, to trigger supplementation obligations, the new information must be sufficient to show that the proposed action will affect the quality of the human environment “in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered.” Id. at 374.
Planning Criteria
During preparation of the plan, the BLM with input from the public, develops planning criteria that serves to:
■ Constrain and guide the development of the Plan.
■ Determine how the planning team approaches the development of alternatives.
■ Determine how the planning team approaches selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Additional planning criteria can be added at any point in the planning process.
The following are the Draft Planning Criteria as of the printing of this document:
1. The Plan will be completed in compliance with the Federal Land Management and Policy Act, The Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and all other relevant federal law and executive orders (including wilderness legislation), and management policies of the BLM..
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-17
May 2007
2. The planning team will work collaboratively with the States of Arizona and California, Mohave,
La Paz, Maricopa, Yavapai and San Bernardino counties, tribal governments, municipal governments, other federal agencies and all other interested groups, agencies and individuals.
3. Where planning decisions have previously been made that still apply, those decisions will be carried forward into these Plans.
4. The planning process will include an Environmental Impact Statement that will comply with the National Environmental Policy Act standards.
5. The Plan will set forth a framework for managing recreational activities in order to maintain existing natural landscapes and to provide for the enjoyment and safety of the visiting public.
6. Laws and regulations regulate the management of grazing. The Plan will incorporate the statewide standards and guidelines established by the Arizona Bureau of Land Management State Director and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. It will present out a strategy for ensuring that proper grazing practices are followed while preserving habitats for sensitive plant and wildlife species. Livestock grazing is permitted, pursuant to the terms and conditions of existing permits and leases. Appropriate best management practices will be followed to protect rangeland resources, and where necessary, to mitigate any conflicts with other uses and values. Administrative actions to assure compliance with existing permit/lease requirements, to modify permits and leases, to monitor and supervise grazing use, and to remedy unauthorized grazing use will continue.
7. Consultations will be conducted with American Indian Tribes in accordance with policy and tribal concerns will be given due consideration. The planning process will include the consideration of any impacts on Indian trust assets.
8. Coordination with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be conducted throughout the Plan.
9. The Plan will identify opportunities for using cultural properties for scientific, educational, recreational, or experimental purposes.
10. The lifestyles of area residents, including activities of grazing, hunting, motorized use and recreation, will be recognized in the Plan.
11. The Plan will recognize the State’s authority to manage wildlife, including hunting and fishing, within the planning area in accordance with the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
12. The Plan will address transportation, route management, and access, and identify which routes/roads should remain open to accommodate resource users, recreational users, protection of resource values, and administrative needs.
13. The existing BLM wilderness inventory and vehicle route inventory will provide a basis for consideration of any new wilderness-related proposals. Such proposals will be assessed consistent with appropriate BLM policy and guidance.
14. Lands that will be open to mineral leasing will be identified in the Plan. Where the plan identifies lands as open to mineral leasing, it will also define any constraints to surface use.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-18
May 2007
15. Ecological status and Ecological Site Inventory will be completed as necessary consistent with rangeland management policy.
16. Visual Resource Management classification will be conducted to address the public’s concerns about open space and natural vistas.
17. The Plans will designate which acquired lands currently not segregated from mining by overriding actions (i.e., Wilderness) should be opened to mining location.
18. Consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service will take place throughout the Plan process in accordance with the recent MOU.
19. Minerals management will be consistent with FLPMA and existing policy and regulation including the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Section 102(a)(12) of FLPMA, the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, and current BLM Mineral Resources policy.
20. National, State, and local policy on management of Noxious Weeds will be considered in the plans. Where possible, management practices that control invasive plant species will be emphasized.
2 1 . Management of wild burros within the California portion of the Havasu HMA will be in accordance with the NECO Plan. Management of wild burros within the Arizona portion of the Havasu HMA will be in accordance with the existing Herd Management Area Plan, as amended by subsequent land use plans. Management of the Alamo Herd Management Area will be guided primarily by management prescriptions developed through the Lake Havasu RMP, since Alamo HMA only has an interim Herd Management Area Plan. There are existing monitoring studies on these HMAs and future adjustments in the AML, either up or down, will be based on the monitoring data.
Supplementary Rules
At the time of publication of the Approved RMP, the revised Supplementary Rules
covering the deeisions in the Approved RMP have not been finalized. When the revised
rules become final, they will replace those listed below.
Supplementary Rules for the Lake Havasu Field Office, 43 CFR 8365.1-6
Part I - September 15, 2003
1 . Lake Havasu Shoreline
2. Parker Strip Recreation Area
3. Craggy Wash
Part II - October 12, 1995
1 . Swansea
2. Aubrey Hills Area
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-19
May 2007
3. Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat
Part III - Supplemental Rules That Are Still Valid
1 . BLM lands in Arizona
2. BLM lands in California
3. BLM lands in Yuma, Lake Havasu Field Office, and California Desert District
Part I - September 15, 2003
[Federal Register: September 15, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 178)]
[Notices]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:frl5se03-108]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [AZ-070-07- 1230-00: 8371]
Notice of Final Supplementary Rules for the BLM-Managed Shoreline of Lake Havasu, the Parker Strip Recreation Area, and the Craggy Wash Area, in Mohave and La Paz Counties, AZ and in San Bernardino County, CA
AGENCY: Lake Havasu Field Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.
SUMMARY : This notice contains Supplementary Rules for the BLM-managed shoreline of Lake Havasu, a manmade lake on the Colorado River located in Arizona and California, including the boat-access campsites; supplementary rules for the Parker Strip Recreation Area, located along the Colorado River downstream from Lake Havasu; and supplementary rules for the Craggy Wash area, located north of the Lake Havasu City Municipal Airport (AZ). These supplementary rules are part of the implementation of the ongoing management of the Lake Havasu Shoreline Program. The supplementary rules replace existing rules for the Parker Strip Recreation Area and for the Crossroads and Empire Landing Campgrounds. Heavy visitation during the fall, winter and spring makes new supplementary rules for Craggy Wash necessary. The supplementary rules will help reduce conflicts among a wide variety of multiple users.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 15, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Henderson, Assistant Field Manager, or Bryan Pittman, Field Staff Law Enforcement Ranger, Bureau of Land Management, Lake Havasu Field Office, 2610 Sweetwater Avenue, Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86406, telephone (928) 505-1200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Discussion of Supplementary Rules
III. Procedural Matters
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-20
May 2007
1. Background
The supplementary rules for the Lake Havasu Shoreline areas are part of the ongoing management of the Lake Havasu Shoreline Program. The program, initiated in 1997, manages the shoreline riparian area. It includes the pre-existing shoreline campsites as federal fee recreation sites under the authorities described in 36 CFR part 71. The sites had been developed as designated fee sites by the Arizona State Parks Department while these lands were under a lease administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The lease was voluntarily terminated, leaving the sites to return to the jurisdiction of BLM.
The primary purpose of the Lake Havasu Shoreline Program is to provide areas for boating, camping, and day use. The recreation sites, designated as camp or day use sites, are in most cases the traditional use areas of boat camping visitors. Arizona State Parks selected designated sites using criteria based on visitor use patterns, availability of shoreline access, and a need to establish sanitation facilities along heavily used shoreline areas. This program was established to accommodate the increasing demand for boat accessible site safety and property, to provide natural resource protection through improved management of the camping use and the riparian area. The designation of fee campsites assures that specific locations are available for such use year after year.
The Parker Strip Recreation Area is a heavily used area that contains campgrounds, day use areas, boat ramps, picnic areas, concession operated resorts, and a National Backcountry Byway. Authority for the designation of fee campsites is contained in Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, part 8360, subpart 8365, sections 2 and 2-3. Authority for the payment of fees is in 36 CFR, subpart 71. Authority for including this program in the Fee Demonstration Pilot Program was contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66) and the FY 1996 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 104-134).
The Craggy Wash area is located north of the Lake Havasu City Municipal Airport and east of State Route 95. It is a heavily used dispersed camping area during the cooler part of the year. The area is also frequented by target shooters, off-road vehicle operators, sightseers, bicyclists, and hikers. More than 300 people may be present at the same time on frequent occasions.
The Proposed Supplementary Rules for the BLM-Managed Shoreline of Lake Havasu, the Parker Strip Recreation Area, and the Craggy Wash Area, in Mohave and LaPaz Counties, AZ, and San Bernardino County, CA, were published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2003. Changes in the proposed rules to the final rules resulted from internal review of comments received from the Arizona Game and Fish Department. These changes related to the distance (one-quarter mile) from occupied recreation sites that firearms may be discharged (Rules 14 and 27); and that except in designated OHV Open areas, vehicles must be operated on existing roads, trails, and washes (Rule 31).
II. Discussion of Supplementary Rules
The final supplementary rules for Lake Havasu Shoreline supercede the Rules for Lake Havasu Shoreline, published on May 21, 1998 (63 FR 27995). The shoreline supplementary rules would apply to the BLM-managed lands located within 1,000 linear feet of the high water mark (450 foot elevation line) of Lake Havasu, located in Mohave and La Paz Counties, Arizona and in San Bernardino County, California. These rules
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-21
May 2007
also apply to the portions of Lake Havasu located within 500 linear feet of designated campsites, day use sites, boat ramps, fishing docks, boat docks and swimming beaches. Included in this are the following currently designated campsites listed generally from North to South:
Bluebird 1, 2
Wren Cove 1, 2, 3
Mallard Cove 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Teal Point 1, 2
Widgeon Key 1, 2, 4
Road Runner 2, 3, 4
Solitude Cove
Balance Rock Cove
Friendly Island 1, 2, 3, 4
Goose Bay 1, 2
Pilot Rock 1, 2, 3
Steamboat Cove 1, 2, 3, 4
Buzzard Cove
Eagle Cove
Eagle Point
Ewe Camp
Rachel’s Camp
Burned Camp
Linda’s Camp
Sand Isle 1, 2, 3, 4
Standard Wash 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Echo Cove 1, 2, 3, 4
Coyote Cove 1, 2
BLM 1, 2
Whyte’s Retreat 1, 2
Rocky Landing 1, 2, 3, 4
Satellite Cove 1, 2, 3
Hum Hum Cove 1 , 2
Cove of the Little Foxes
Disneyland 1, 2, 3, 4
Gnat Keys 1, 2, 3, 4
Hi Isle 2, 4,5,6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15
Big Horn 1, 3, 4
Bass Bay 1, 2
Lamed Landing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Bill Williams 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
The final supplementary mles for the Parker Strip Recreation Area supercede Rules for Parker Strip Recreation Area, published on October 12, 1995 (60 FR 53194), and mles for Empire Landing and Crossroads Campgrounds, published on May 18, 1998 (63 FR 27316). The Parker Strip mles apply to the Parker Strip Recreation Area, which is defined as follows:
Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona
■ TUN, R18W, Sec. 15, 16, 22, 28, and 34.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-22
May 2007
■ TION, R18W, Sec. 5 (Wl/2, NWl/4, SWl/4), Sec. 6, Sec. 7, Lots 1-4, (NEl/4, Nl/2, SEl/4, SWl/4, SEl/4), Sec. 18 (Lot 1, NWl/4, NEl/4).
■ TION, R19W, Sec. 12, Sec. 13 (Nl/2, Nl/2, Nl/2, SWl/4, NEl/4, NWl/4,
SEl/4, NEl/4, Nl/2, SEl/4, NWl/4, SWl/4, NWl/4, Wl/2, SWl/4), Sec. 14, 22 and 23. Section 24 (Wl/2, NWl/4).
San Bernardino Meridian, California
■ T2N, R27E, all.
■ T2N, R26E, Sec. 1 , 1 1 - 1 5, 2 1 -27 and 34-36.
■ TIN, R26E, Sec. 2, 3, 10, and 11.
The final supplementary rules for Craggy Wash dispersed camping area would be new, made necessary by heavy visitation during the fall, winter, and spring. The Craggy Wash area is defined as public lands located with the following legal description;
■ TUN, R20W, sec. 4 (Nl/2), sec. 3 (Nl/2), sec. 2 (Nl/2).
■ T15N,R20W, sec. 33,34, 35, 36.
BLM has developed the shoreline, Parker Strip, and Craggy Wash supplementary rules to manage continued multiple use of the sites. These rules will be available in the Lake Havasu Field Office, and BLM will post them at the sites affected. Most of the shoreline supplementary rules that follow were first published in 1998. We have expanded the area of applicability to include all of the BLM-managed shoreline of Lake Havasu in Arizona and California. The previous supplementary rules applicable to the lake shoreline were limited to the areas in the vicinity of the shoreline campsites. The term “recreation site” includes any developed campsite, day-use site, or similar recreational development. The supplementary rules that follow also apply to the surface of Lake Havasu located within 500 linear feet of designated campsites. Acts occurring in that portion of the lake have a direct impact on, and connection with, public safety and resource protection of the campsite areas.
III. Procedural Matters
The principal author of these supplementary rules is Bryan Pittman, Field Staff Law Enforcement Ranger, BLM Lake Havasu Field Office.
Regulatory Planning and Review (EO 12866)
These supplementary rules are not significant and are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
(1 ) These supplementary rules will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. They will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-23
May 2007
(2) These supplementary rules will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) These supplementary rules do not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
(4) These supplementary rules do not raise novel legal or policy issues.
The supplementary rules will not affect legal commercial activity, but merely contain rules of conduct for public use of a limited selection of public lands.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that these supplementary rules will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 USC 601 et seq.). The supplementary rules will not affect legal commercial activity, but will govern conduct for public use of a limited selection of public lands.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
These supplementary rules do not constitute a major rule under 5 USC 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
These supplementary rules:
■ Do not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. (See the discussion under Regulatory Planning and Review, above.)
■ Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
See the discussion above under Regulatory Flexibility Act.
■ Do not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. -based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
These supplementary rules do not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The supplementary rules do not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The supplementary rules have no effect on governmental or tribal entities. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 USC 1531 et seq.) is not required.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the supplementary rules do not have significant takings implications. The enforcement provision in the supplementary rules does not include any language requiring or authorizing forfeiture of personal property or
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-24
May 2007
any property rights. EO 12630 addresses eoncems based on the Fifth Amendment dealing with private property taken for public use without compensation. The land covered by the supplementary rules is public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management; therefore, no private property is affected. A takings implications assessment is not required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, BLM finds that the supplementary rules do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The supplementary mles do not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The supplementary rules do not preempt state law.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that these supplementary rules do not unduly burden the judicial system and meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175)
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have found that this final rule would not include policies that have tribal implications. The supplementary rules would not affect lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These supplementary rules do not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act
These supplementary rules do not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1 969 is not required.
Under the authority of 43 U.S.C. 1733a and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, BLM establishes the following supplementary rules.
Dated; August 4, 2003.
Elaine Y. Zielinski, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona.
Supplementary Rules for Lake Havasu Shoreline Area
1 . You must purchase a permit in order to use a designated recreation site, including occupying a site for any use exceeding 20 minutes.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-25
May 2007
2. You must not moor any watercraft or floating platform at a recreation site or offshore in the vicinity or cove of any such site for more than 20 minutes without purchasing a permit. The fee for a use permit will be in accordance with the fee schedule, requirements, and procedures that BLM established under the Recreation Fee Demonstration Pilot Program, and are payable in U.S. funds only.
3. You must present the appropriate use permit upon demand to any authorized BLM official inspecting the site. If you are away from the campsite, the permit must be visibly displayed in accordance with posted instructions, or in the manner directed by a BLM official.
4. You must not reassign or transfer your permit to another individual or group and/or campsite(s).
5. Any authorized BLM official may revoke your permit, without reimbursement, if you violate any BLM rule or regulation. If BLM revokes your permit, you must remove all personal property and leave the recreation site within one hour of notice.
6. A recreation site is considered occupied after you have paid the appropriate permit fee, you have taken possession of the site by placing personal property at the site, and the permit is displayed in accordance with written instructions or as directed by a BLM official. You must not occupy a site in violation of instructions from a BLM official, or when there is reason to believe that the unit is properly occupied by another person or persons.
7. Except for authorized federal, state, or local personnel, during the commission of their duties, a permitted site cannot be occupied by other visitors without the consent of the permittee.
8. You must not occupy a site designated as “day use” between sunset and sunrise.
9. A single vessel and its occupants may not occupy more than one site.
10. During the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., in accordance with applicable state time zone standards, you must maintain quiet within normal hearing range of the designated recreation sites.
11. You must not cut or collect any firewood, including dead and down wood and all other vegetative material.
12. You must not moor vessels to vegetation, signs, shade ramadas, tables, grills or fire rings, toilets, trash receptacles, or other objects or structures not designed for such use.
13. You must not beach or moor a vessel in excess of posted time limits.
14. You must not discharge or use firearms or projectile weapons inside or within a quarter-mile of any occupied recreation site.
15. You must not discharge or possess any fireworks.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-26
May 2007
1 6. You must keep the site free of litter and trash during the period of occupancy. You must remove all personal property, and the site must be clean, upon your departure.
17. You must keep pets on a leash no longer than six (6) feet.
18. You must not leave pets unattended, and you must remove pet waste from the site or dispose of it in available trash receptacles.
19. You must not violate any provisions of boating laws as described in Title 5, Chapter 3, of the Arizona Revised Statutes or in the California Harbors and Navigation Code (as applicable).
20. Possession of alcoholic beverages by a person under the age of 21 years is prohibited.
21. Consumption of alcoholic beverages by a person under the age of 21 years is prohibited in the portions of the affected area that are located within Arizona.
22. You must not possess glass beverage containers on land or in the water. You may possess glass beverage containers only within the confines of a vessel.
23. Reserving recreation sites in any manner, including leaving personal property unattended overnight, is prohibited.
24. Recreation sites used for camping activities must be occupied overnight by the permittee.
25. You must not leave personal property unattended for more than 24 hours. Personal property left unattended beyond such time limit is subject to disposition under the Federal Property and Administration Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 484(m)).
Supplementary Rules for the Parker Strip Recreation Area
Rules number 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 25 of the Lake Havasu
Shoreline Supplementary Rules also apply to the Parker Strip Recreation Area. In
addition, the following rules apply to the Parker Strip Recreation Area:
26. You must not park or operate vehicles in violation of posted restrictions.
27. Except in designated OHV Open areas, you must operate vehicles only on existing roads, trails, and washes.
28. Vehicles operated between Parker Dam Road and the Colorado River in California must be legal for highway operation. You may operate non-highway legal golf carts in this area only within concession resorts and facilities, and within BLM-managed campgrounds.
29. Within one-half mile of Parker Dam Road, you may camp only in designated campsites.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-27
May 2007
30. Disorderly conduct is prohibited.
31. You must not discharge or use firearms in California within 1 mile of Parker Dam Road. In Arizona, you must not discharge or use firearms within one quarter-mile of any occupied recreation site or residential structure.
32. In BLM-managed campgrounds, no more than 8 persons may occupy a single campsite.
Supplementary Rules for Craggy Wash
From October 1 through April 30 of each year, the following supplementary rules are in effect:
1 . You must maintain your campsite free of trash and litter.
2. You must not discharge a firearm for the purpose of target practice or plinking. You may engage in legitimate hunting activities.
3. You must not operate a motor vehicle at a speed greater than 1 5 mph.
4. You must maintain quiet within hearing range of any other person or camp unit between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. You must not operate a generator during these hours.
5. You must not collect firewood, including any dead and down wood, or any other vegetative material.
6. You must restrain a pet with a leash not longer than six (6) feet.
7. You must not leave a pet unattended.
8. You must not possess or discharge fireworks.
9. You must not leave personal property unattended for more than 24 hours.
Penalties
The authority for these supplementary rules is provided in 43 CFR 8365.1-6. Persons who violate these rules are subject to arrest, and upon conviction may be fined up to $100,000 and/or imprisoned for not more than 12 months, as amended by 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 18 U.S.C. 3581.
Part II - October 12, 1995
[FR Doc. 03-23445 Filed 9-12-03; 8:45 a.m.]
Billing Code 4310-32-P
[Federal Register: October 12, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 53194-53195]
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-28
May 2007
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Aeeess [wais.aeeess.gpo.gov] [DOCID;frl2oe95-67]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [AZ-050-05- 12 10-00; 8365]
Arizona: Establishment of Supplementary Rules for the Parker Strip Reereation Area, Swansea Townsite, Aubrey Hills, and Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing Grounds
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Publieation of supplementary rules for the Parker Strip Recreation Area, Swansea Townsite, Aubrey Hills, and Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing Grounds.
SUMMARY: To implement decisions of the Yuma Resource Management Plan and the Parker Strip Recreation Management Plan, to protect valuable and fragile natural and cultural resources, and to provide for public safety and enjoyment, the following supplementary rules are established for the lands described.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Allert, Outdoor Recreation Planner or Mark Harris, Ranger, Havasu Resource Area, 3189 Sweetwater Avenue, Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86406, telephone (520) 855-8017.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To protect valuable and fragile natural and cultural resources and to provide for public enjoyment the following supplementary rules are established for the areas described.
Parker Strip Recreation Area
This section is replaced by Supplemental rules in Federal Register: September 15, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 178).
Swansea Townsite
The following rules apply within the Swansea Townsite area, which is described as follows:
Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona T. ION., R. 15 W.,
Sec. 28, Wl/2 SWl/4;
Sec. 29, Sl/2;
Sec. 32,Nl/2;
Sec. 33, Wl/2 NWl/4.
Vehicles
Taking any vehicle through, around, or beyond a restrictive sign, recognizable barricade, fence, or traffic control barrier is prohibited. Operation of a vehicle in a wash, off a roadway, or on an unsigned historic roadway is prohibited.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-29
May 2007
Camping
Camping is permitted only at designated sites. Camping stay is limited to 3 days in any 30-day period.
Wood Collection
No wood collection is permitted within the Townsite, including but not limited to dead and down wood, live plants, and lumber from historic structures.
Collection of Artifacts
No item may be collected or removed from the Townsite without the written permission of the Havasu Resource Area Manager. This includes but is not limited to old cans, nails, lumber, bricks, or glassware, whole or broken.
Safety
Climbing, leaning, sitting, or walking on the remains of the walled structures at Swansea inherently damages the structures, is unsafe, and is therefore prohibited. No person shall enter into any fenced area, shaft, tunnel, or structure.
Fires
Fires are allowed only at the designated sites and must be located in the fire ring provided. Construction of new fire rings is prohibited.
Aubrey Hills Area
The Aubrey Hills Area is defined as that public land south of the Lake Havasu City limits, west of Highway 95, east of the Colorado River, and north of the Bill Williams River, not including the area of SARA Park. No motorized vehicles are allowed off paved roads. This does not include authorized agency service vehicles for authorized rights-of-way or for ownership access to private land.
Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing Grounds and Year Long Use Areas
The following rules apply to public lands during the period of January 1 through June 30 in any year in all bighorn sheep lambing grounds and year-round use areas whose boundaries are defined as follows.
Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona
North Mohave Mountains T. 15N.,R. 20 W.,
Sec 4, 5, 8-10, 15, 16, 20-22, 28, & 29;
Sec 27 NWl/4.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-30
May 2007
Crossman Peak T. 14N., R. 18 W„
Sec 7 Wl/2 Wl/2;
Sec 17 SWl/4;
Sec 18-20.
T. 15N., R. 18 W„
Sec 31 SWl/4.
T. 14N., R. 19 W„
Sec 1 Wl/2 Wl/2;
Sec 2-4;
Sec 5 El/2;
Sec 9-16.
T. 15 N., R. 19 W.,
Sec 28, 30, & 32-36.
T. 15N., R. 20 W.,
Sec 25 NEl/4.
Paloma Wash T. 12 N., R. 17 W.,
Sec 17 Sl/2 Sl/2;
Sec 19NE1/4;
Sec 21 SWl/4;
Sec 27 SWl/4 SWl/4;
Sec 33 N1/2N1/2;
Sec 34NW1/4NW1/4.
Little Black Mountains T. 11 N., R. 17 W.,
Sec 3, 10, 11, 14, 15,22, 23, & 26; Sec 12 Wl/2, Wl/2 SEl/4;
Sec 13 Wl/2, Wl/2 El/2;
Sec 21 El/2;
Sec 25 Wl/2;
Sec 27 NEl/4.
T. 12 N., R. 17 W.,
Sec 34 SEl/4;
Sec 35 SWl/4 SWl/4.
The North Mesa T. 11 N., R. 17 W.,
Sec 19 SWl/4;
Sec 28 SWl/4;
Sec 29 Sl/2;
Sec 30 all;
Sec 31 Nl/2;
Sec 32 Nl/2;
Sec 33 Nl/2.
T. 11 N., R. 18 W.,
Sec 22 NEl/4;
Sec 23-26;
Sec 27 El/2 El/2;
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-31
May 2007
Sec35Nl/2Nl/2;
Sec36Nl/2,Nl/2 SEl/4.
No motorized vehicles are allowed off paved roads. This does not include authorized agency service vehicles for authorized rights-of-way or for ownership access to private land.
Authority: The authority for establishing supplementary rules is contained in Title 43 Subpart 8365, Section 1-6. These rules will be available in the Havasu Resource Area Office, which manages these lands. A violation of a supplementary rule is punishable as class A misdemeanor.
Dated: October 2, 1995.
Judith I. Reed, District manager
[FR Doc. 95-25208 Filed 10-11-95; 8:45 a.m.]
Billing Code 4310-32-P
Part III - Supplementary Rules Brought forward from Past Rules That Are Still Valid.
See attached Federal Regulations as sited after each rule.
All BLM Lands in Arizona
1 . Minor in possession of alcohol is prohibited. Minor consumption of alcohol is prohibited. FR 98-21831
This rule went into effect October 1, 1998.
All BLM Lands in California
1 . Minor in possession of alcohol is prohibited. FR 93-761 1 This rule went into effect April 2, 1993.
All BLM Lands in the Yuma and Lake Havasu Field Offices and the California Desert District
1 . Camping is restricted to 14 days within any period of 28 consecutive days. After the 14th day campers must move outside of a 25-mile radius of the previous location.
FR 64-30021
This rule went into effect July 30, 1964.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-32
May 2007
Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275, Change 1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
October 23, 2003
In Reply Refer To: 1610 (210) P Ref IM No. 2003-195 IM No. 2003-274 IM No. 2003-275
EMS TRANSMISSION 10/23/2003
Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275 - Change I
Expires: 09/30/2004
To: All State Directors
From: Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning
Subject: Consideration of Wilderness Characteristics in Land Use Plans
(Excluding Alaska)
Program Area: Land Use Planning
Purpose: This Instruction Memorandum corrects the reference to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) used twice in the “Reviewing New Information” section of Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275. No other changes to Instmction Memorandum No. 2003-275 have been made.
This Instruction Memorandum (IM) provides guidance regarding the consideration of wilderness characteristics in the land use planning process. In addition the IM sets forth policy to comply with the settlement in Utah v. Norton and the decision to apply the terms of the settlement Bureau-wide, excluding Alaska. The IM applies to all other public lands, except approximately 6.5 million acres of public land designated by Congress as wilderness, 15.5 million acres of wilderness study areas (WSAs) already established by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or Congress, and any other lands not designated by Congress but subject to specific provisions of law that direct BLM to manage those lands as if they were congressionally designated wilderness or WSAs. The IM also modifies the Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1 601-1) to delete a statement that land use plan decisions include designation of WSAs.
Background: The BLM submitted wilderness suitability recommendations to Congress pursuant to Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) by October 21, 1993. BLM, however, continued to inventory for wilderness characteristics under the authority of
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-33
May 2007
Section 201 of FLPMA and made formal determinations regarding wilderness character consistent with the definition of wilderness as described in Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The BLM assumed that Section 202 of FLPMA authorized designation, through the land use planning process, of additional WSAs. These Section 202 WSAs, according to the BLM’s Interim Management Policy (IMP), as modified in 1995, would be managed to retain their suitability as wilderness (non-impairment provision) until Congress designated them as wilderness or they were made
available for other land uses by the decisions resulting from a new land use planning process.
In Utah V. Norton, the State of Utah, Utah School and Institutional Trust Land Administration, and the Utah Association of Counties filed suit challenging the authority of the BLM to conduct wilderness inventories after completion of the Section 603 identification, study, and recommendation processes. The Department of the Interior and the plaintiffs agreed to a settlement in April 2003.
The settlement acknowledges: (1) that the BLM’s authority to conduct wilderness reviews, including the establishment of new WSAs, expired no later than October 21, 1993, with the submission of the wilderness suitability recommendations to Congress pursuant to Section 603 of the FLPMA; and (2) that the BLM is without authority to establish new WSAs. The settlement did not, however, diminish the BLM’s authority under Section 201 of the FLPMA to inventory public land resources and other values, including characteristics associated with the concept of wilderness, and to consider such information during land use planning.
Consistent with the settlement, the BLM rescinded the Wilderness Inventory and Study Procedures Handbook (H-1630-1). See IM-2003-I95, dated June 20, 2003. It is, therefore, no longer BLM policy to continue to make formal determinations regarding wilderness character, designate new WSAs through the land use planning process, or manage any lands - except WSAs established under Section 603 of the FLPMA and other existing WSAs - in accordance with the non-impainnent standard prescribed in the IMP.
Refer to IM 2003- 274 for general guidance regarding interpretation of the Utah v. Norton wilderness lawsuit settlement.
Policy/Action:
Nothing in this guidance changes current policy on the management of designated wilderness and existing WSAs. The BLM will continue to protect and manage congressionally designated wilderness and existing WSAs according to the provisions of applicable laws and the BLM’s wilderness program policies. Those lands designated as WSAs in the BLM’s land use plans after October 21, 1993, may continue to be managed consistent with the decisions contained in the approved land use plan.
The BLM will not designate new WSAs through the land use planning process. In addition, the BLM will not allocate any additional lands to be managed under the non-impairment standard prescribed in the IMP. Instead, the BLM may consider information on wilderness characteristics, along with information on other uses and values, when preparing land use plans. Wilderness characteristics are features associated with the concept of wilderness that may be considered in land use planning (see Attachment #1).
The BLM will involve the public in the planning process to determine the best mix of resource use and protection consistent with the multiple-use and other criteria established in the FLPMA
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-34
May 2007
and other applicable laws, regulations and policies. Lands with wilderness characteristics may be managed to protect and/or preserve some or all of those characteristics. This may include protecting certain lands in their natural condition and/or providing opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfmed types of recreation.
The BLM can make a variety of land use plan decisions to protect wilderness characteristics, such as establishing Visual Resource Management (VRM) class objectives to guide the placement of roads, trails, and other facilities; establishing conditions of use to be attached to permits, leases, and other authorizations to achieve the desired level of resource protection; and designating lands as open, closed, or limited to Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) to achieve a desired visitor experience.
The BLM also has authority to designate Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important cultural, historic, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. To qualify for consideration of the ACEC designation, such values must have substantial significance and value, with qualities of more than local significance and special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern. Where ACEC values and wilderness characteristics coincide, the special management associated with an ACEC, if designated, may also protect wilderness characteristics. See BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, for more information.
See the Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1 601-1, Section II, Land Use Plan Decisions and Attachment #1 of this IM for more information about making land use plan decisions to accomplish goals and objectives for resource management.
Considering wilderness characteristics in the land use planning process may result in several outcomes, including, but not limited to; 1) emphasizing other multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics; 2) emphasizing other multiple uses while applying management restrictions (conditions of use, mitigation measures) to reduce impacts to some or all of the wilderness characteristics; 3) emphasizing the protection of some or all of the wilderness characteristics as a priority over other multiple uses (though the area will not be designated a WSA).
The BLM is authorized to implement current land use plans until those plans are revised or amended (if appropriate), provided the implementation actions conform to the approved plans and are supported by adequate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, usually an environmental assessment (EA), environmental impact statement (EIS), or Categorical Exclusion (CE).
If the BLM determines that an area has wilderness characteristics that warrant consideration in the land use planning process, the BLM may initiate a plan amendment (or revision) with an accompanying NEPA document (EIS or EA) to consider changes to the current land use plan decisions. A decision regarding the timing of the plan amendment (or revision) is at the discretion of the State Director, and depends on the level of public interest, the position of State and local governments and cooperators, the adequacy of available information, funding, and other factors.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-35
May 2007
BLM Wilderness Inventories and Public Wilderness Proposals
Typically, the resource information contained in the BLM wilderness inventories was collected to support a land use planning process. Public wilderness proposals represent a land use proposal.
In either case, the BLM is authorized to consider such information during preparation of a land use plan amendment or revision. For example, information contained in BLM wilderness inventories and public wilderness proposals may be considered when developing the affected environment section of the NEPA document that accompanies the land use plan. The information may also be used to develop the range of alternatives or to analyze the environmental impacts to the various natural, biological, and cultural resources-such as air, soil, water, vegetation, cultural, paleontological, visual, special status species, fish and wildlife-as well as resource uses- such as forestry, livestock grazing, recreation, lands and realty, coal, and fluid minerals. Refer to the Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1, Appendix C, for guidance concerning the resources and resource uses to be considered in land use plans.
Alternatives are developed to reflect a reasonable range of management options considering all applicable information sources, such as the results of scoping, coordination with cooperating agencies, and practicality of management. The boundary of an area being considered in the land use plan for management of wilderness characteristics, therefore, is dependent on many factors and may or may not exactly follow the boundary of previous inventory areas.
Reviewing New Information
When implementing land use plans, the BLM must, as with any new information, determine if the BLM wilderness inventories or public wilderness proposals contain significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or impacts that have not previously been analyzed. Since every land use plan and supporting NEPA document is different, this determination will need to be done on a case-by-case basis. New information or changed circumstances alone, however, or the failure to consider a factor or matter of little consequence, is not a sufficient basis to require additional NEPA consideration prior to implementing a previously approved decision.
If the new information is sufficient to show that the action will affect the quality of the human environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered, then a supplemental NEPA document shall be prepared (40 CFR 1502.9).
To help determine whether the new information or circumstances are significant, the BLM should look at the definition of “significantly” at 40 CFR 1508.27, which requires consideration of both context and intensity. See Attachment 2 for more information regarding the review of new wilderness information during plan implementation.
The analysis of new information and the BLM’s determination regarding its significance should be documented, using, as an example, the Documentation of Land Use Plan Conformance and NEPA Adequacy (DNA) worksheet.
It is important to note that the BLM must review the new information only when it is relevant to a pending decision or its environmental effects. When no action is being considered, the BLM may defer the reviews until a more appropriate time, such as when preparing a land use plan amendment or revision.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-36
May 2007
Using New Information on Lands with Wilderness Characteristics to Implement Approved Land Use Plans
The BLM wilderness inventories and public wilderness proposals may contain new information on land and resource conditions that can be used in a variety of day-to-day operations. Examples of using the new infonuation in day-to-day operations include applying new mitigation measures to on-the-ground projects; establishing reclamation standards; updating the BLM’s resource databases; refining previously approved plan decisions (plan maintenance) to correct data, typographical, or mapping errors in the planning records; or implementing the decisions of the land use plan, such as when selecting routes in areas designated as limited to OHV travel.
When preparing NEPA documents for actions that implement the approved plan, the BLM may also use the information on lands and resources contained in BLM wilderness inventories and public wilderness proposals to describe the affected environment, and environmental impacts to the various natural, biological, and cultural resources. For example, information on naturalness may help describe the condition and trend of important wildlife habitat and could be included in the affected environment discussion if applicable. Similarly, information on the presence of roads and other facilities may be used to describe the current status of visual resources as well as the potential for the proposed action to affect those resources. Provided relevant new infonnation is considered in the NEPA document in this fashion, it is not necessary to analyze impacts to the area identified by BLM wilderness inventories or public wilderness proposals as having wilderness characteristics.
If a NEPA document is being prepared for an action affecting lands with wilderness characteristics, and those characteristics are currently being considered in an on-going land use planning process, the BLM may acknowledge the status of the planning process and describe how the proposed action might affect future management considerations.
This may be accomplished in the discussion of the no action alternative or in the section of the NEPA document on plan conformance. The fact that the BLM is considering alternative management goals for the affected lands in a pending land use plan revision or amendment, however, does not change the management or use of those lands during the interim. The BLM is authorized to implement current land use plans until those plans are revised or amended, if appropriate, and may acknowledge on-going planning efforts to ensure that the decision-maker and the public are fully informed of the consequences of the proposed action.
Effect on On-going plans
This policy may require some BLM Field Offices to modify current Resource Management Plan (RMP) efforts. For RMPs where a Draft RMP/EIS has not been issued. Field Offices must ensure that the Draft RMP/EIS is consistent with this IM. If the BLM has already discussed or identified possible WSA designations with the public, BLM must explain the change in policy. There is no requirement, however, to reinitiate scoping or provide an additional comment period before releasing the Draft RMP/EIS since the public will be provided an opportunity to comment on the draft, including the range of alternatives and proposed management prescriptions.
For Draft RMP/EISs already issued that include designation of new WSAs in an alternative, it will be necessary to modify the Proposed RMP/Final LIS. If the effects of an alternative modified to comply with this policy are within the range of alternatives already analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS, preparing a supplement to the Draft RMP/EIS is not necessary. Each affected Field Office must determine the need for a supplement in consultation with WO-210.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-37
May 2007
After receiving this guidance, State and Field Offices have 45 days to consider the implications of this IM in coordination with WO-210. In addition, within 45 days. State Directors will review and update their existing State and field office policies and other guidance and make necessary modifications to comply with the terms of this IM.
Timeframes: This policy is in effect immediately.
Budget Impact: This policy is expected to increase slightly the costs of ongoing planning efforts as modifications are made to planning documents to comply with this IM. For all other land use plans the policy should result in diminished costs.
Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: That sentence in the Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1, Appendix C, Part lII.B.l.a, Page 18) that directs BLM to “Designate WSAs to be managed under the interim management policy (H-8550-1),” is hereby deleted. No other portions of H-1601-1 are affected.
The Wilderness Inventory and Study Procedures Handbook (H-63I0-1) was rescinded in “Rescission of National Level Policy Guidance on Wilderness Review and Land Use Planning” (IM-2003-195).
Coordination: This guidance was coordinated with WO- 170, WO-200 and WO-300.
Contact: For further information, contact Mike Mottice at (202) 452-0362 or Geoff Middaugh at (202) 785-6592.
Signed by:
James G. Kenna Acting Assistant Director Renewable Resources and Planning
2 Attachments
1- Definitions of Wilderness Characteristics for the Purpose of Land Use Planning and Management Considerations to Accomplish Plan Goals and Objectives (1 p)
2- Review of New Wilderness Information during Plan Implementation (2 pp)
Authenticated by;
Barbara J. Brown
Policy & Records Group, WO-560
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-38
May 2007
Attachment 1
Definitions of Wilderness Characteristics for the Purpose of Land Use Planning and Management Considerations to Accomplish Plan Goals and Objectives
Definitions:
Wilderness Characteristics. Features of the land associated with the concept of wilderness that may be considered in land use planning when BLM determines that those characteristics are reasonably present, of sufficient value (condition, uniqueness, relevance, importance) and need (trend, risk), and are practical to manage.
Naturalness. Lands and resources exhibit a high degree of naturalness when affected primarily by the forces of nature and where the imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable. BLM has authority to inventory, assess, and/or monitor the attributes of the lands and resources on public lands, which, taken together, are an indication of an area’s naturalness. These attributes may include the presence or absence of roads and trails, fences and other improvements; the nature and extent of landscape modifications; the presence of native vegetation communities; and the connectivity of habitats.
Solitude and Primitive/Unconfined Recreation. Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfmed types of recreation when the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or infrequent, where visitors can be isolated, alone or secluded from others, where the use of the area is through non-motorized, non-mechanical means, and where no or minimal developed recreation facilities are encountered.
Management Considerations:
A decision to protect or preserve certain lands in their natural condition, if appropriate, or provide outstanding opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfmed types of recreation may be made at the conclusion of the land use planning process. Land use plan decisions may include establishing goals and objectives that describe the desired future condition of the land and resources, desired outcome of the recreation experience, and allowable uses. BLM may also identify the management actions necessary to achieve the intended goals and objectives, including the conditions of use that would be attached to permits, leases, and other authorizations to avoid or minimize impacts to the affected natural, biological, and cultural resources and other land uses. In some cases, when BLM determines that certain uses of the land could be incompatible with the achievement of other desired goals and objectives, those uses could be conditioned to the extent necessary to reach the necessary level of resource protection.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-39
May 2007
Attachment 2
Review of New Wilderness Information during Plan Implementation
The Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) provides some criteria to use when reviewing new information. Other factors to consider when reviewing new information contained in BLM wilderness inventories or public wilderness proposals that may be relevant to an implementation action are:
1. Was the information on land and resource conditions available to the BLM and adequately considered within the range, scope, and analysis of the alternatives in the plan/EIS or other NEPA document, and is there adequate documentation to that affect?
2. Does the new information suggest significant changes in land and resource conditions have occurred since the plan/EIS or other NEPA document was completed?
3. Though BLM may not have formally disclosed in existing NEPA documents the impacts to the wilderness characteristics that have been identified in new inventories or public wilderness proposals, did BLM reasonably consider the environmental effects to the lands and resources that contribute to the wilderness characteristics in relevant NEPA documents?
4. Does the new information suggest that the impacts to those lands, if analyzed today, would be significantly different than the impacts already disclosed in the plan EIS or other NEPA document(s)?
5. Can BLM condition use of the lands for which new information exists in such a way that the effects of the action would not be significantly different from the effects already described?
6. Is the information at such a scale that BLM would ordinarily use the new information to make land use plan level decisions or is it more appropriate to consider for implementation level decisions?
New information or changed circumstances alone, however, or the failure to consider a factor or matter of little consequence, may not be sufficient basis to require additional NEPA consideration prior to implementing a previously approved decision. For example, the fact that roads and trails have become overgrown since previous inventories were completed represents a changed circumstance. Such change is most likely the result of natural environmental processes and, alone, may not be sufficient to require the preparation of additional NEPA documentation. The fact that BLM did not specifically analyze impacts of the proposed action on wilderness characteristics identified since the current land use plan or NEPA document was prepared is not an omission that, alone, would indicate that additional NEPA consideration is required. In all cases then, BLM should evaluate: 1) the extent to which the new information presents potential significant environmental consequences associated with the proposed action that were not analyzed in the previous NEPA analysis; and 2) whether those consequences are of significant gravity in context or intensity.
Case Law on Supplementation of NEPA
The lead case from the United States Supreme Court on supplementation is Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989). It provides that “an agency need not supplement an EIS every time new information comes to light after the EIS is finalized. To require otherwise would render agency decision-making intractable, always awaiting updated information only to find the new information outdated by the time the decision is made.” Id. at 373.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-40
May 2007
Rather, to trigger supplementation obligations, the new information must be sufficient to show that the proposed action will affect the quality of the human environment “in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered.” Id. at 374.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
A-41
May 2007
Contents
Appendix B
Administrative Actions and Standard
Operating Procedures
Air Quality B-1
Standard Operating Procedures B-1
Biological Resources B-2
Administrative Actions B-2
Standard Operating Procedures B-7
Cultural Resources B-12
Administrative Actions B-12
Fire Management Response B-14
Standard Operating Procedures B-14
Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area B-1 5
Administrative Actions B-1 5
Land Tenure B-16
Standard Operating Procedures B-16
Law Enforcement B-1 8
Standard Operating Procedures B-1 8
Mineral Resources B-21
Standard Operating Procedures B-21
Paleontological Resources B-23
Administrative Actions B-23
Public Education and Interpretation B-24
Standard Operating Procedures B-24
Rangeland Management/Grazing B-25
Standard Operating Procedures B-25
Recreation Management B-26
Administrative Actions B-26
Standard Operating Procedures B-37
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-i
May 2007
Special Designations B-40
Administrative Actions B-40
ACECs B-40
Wilderness B-41
Wild and Scenic River Management B-41
Travel Management B-41
Administrative Actions B-41
Standard Operating Procedures B-43
Visual Resource Management B-45
Standard Operating Procedures B-45
Water Resources B-46
Standard Operating Procedures B-46
Wild Burro Management B-47
Administrative Actions B-47
Standard Operating Procedures B-47
Wilderness Characteristics B-48
Administrative Actions B-48
Standard Operating Procedures B-48
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan g-jj
Appendix B
Administrative Actions and Standard Operating Procedures
This appendix includes Administrative Actions and Standard Operating Procedures by program area. The information that follows pertains to BLM-administered public lands in the Lake Havasu Field Office area, except as noted. The BLM will maintain the practices, procedures, and policies listed below.
Administrative Actions are not land use plan decisions. However, these are day-to-day non- ground disturbing activities and are an important component when considering program activities. These activities are often required by FLPMA and do not require NEPA analysis or a written decision by a responsible official to be accomplished. Examples include mapping, surveying, inventorying, monitoring, and collecting information needed such as research and studies.
Standard Operating Procedures are based on laws, regulations, executive orders, BLM planning manuals, policies, instruction memoranda, and applicable planning documents.
Air Quality
Standard Operating Procedures
The Clean Air Act of 1970 and the 1990 amendments govern air quality. The objective of the LHFO air resource program is to maintain and/or improve air quality as established by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, achieve State Implementation Plan goals for non-attainment areas, and reduce emissions from point/non-point sources. The Mohave Desert Air Quality Management District covers the California lands within the planning area. Within Arizona, air quality in various portions of the planning area is regulated as follows:
Open Areas, Dry Washes, and Riverbeds: The control of airborne dust from open areas, dry washes, and river beds is addressed in Arizona Rules and Regulations for Air Pollution Control, R9-3-404 A-C.
Roadways and Streets: Regulation R9-3-405 A prohibits the use, repair, building, or rebuilding of roadways without taking reasonable dust abatement measures.
Mineral Tailings: Regulation R9-3-408 addresses prohibition on permitting or allowing construction on mineral tailings piles.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-1
May 2007
Fire Management: Regulations R9-3-402 and 403 direct BLM to follow permitting procedures before conducting any prescribed burning projects, to ensure that smoke from fires does not degrade air quality. Section 1 18 of the Clean Air Act (49.501 of the Arizona Laws Relating to Environmental Quality) charges ADEQ to protect the health and welfare of Arizona residents from adverse impacts of air pollution. Those wishing to conduct prescribed bums must contact ADEQ.
Biological Resources
Administrative Actions Vegetation and Riparian Management
■ All riparian areas including springs within the WHAs will be assessed to achieve proper functioning condition or desired plant community composition for native species (see Maps 6, 7, and 8 in the Approved RMP).
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management
■ Mitigate adverse effects on migratory species habitat.
■ Replace the quality and quantity of important migratory bird habitat that is lost due to the BLM permitted activities.
■ Initiate, collaborate, and/or support projects related to conservation measures set forth in the following plans: the Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186, Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan, Partners in Flight Desert and Riparian Bird Conservation Plans, USFWS North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and LCRMSCP.
■ Identify potential bird conservation projects and seek grant funding.
■ No net loss of Category I and II Sonoran Desert tortoise habitat.
■ In Category I and II Sonoran Desert tortoise habitat, only range improvements that will not conflict with tortoise populations will be allowed (see Map 1 1 in the Approved RMP).
■ Implement and/or support desert tortoise research and studies, especially relating to management issues and overall population viability.
■ Manage tortoise habitats using an ecosystem management approach with emphasis on maintaining or restoring natural biological diversity.
■ Institute a “no net loss” in quantity or quality of desert tortoise habitat especially in Category I and II habitat.
■ Implement conservation strategies and recommendations in the Sonoran Desert Tortoise Conservation Strategy (in preparation) by the Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team.
■ Recognize Key Habitat Areas designated by the Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team and institute Management Actions that protect or enhance the viability of these areas.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-2
May 2007
■ Develop and implement land acquisitions and disposals strategies that use the best available information to provide habitat to sustain viable populations of tortoises throughout their range.
■ Enhance and restore habitat corridors that connect significant desert tortoise subpopulations.
■ Coordinate and support efforts from AGED and other agencies in the planning and implementation of strategies designed for long-term survival of tortoise populations.
■ Incorporate information from current and future research and studies into short-term and long-term planning, especially new information on genetics, dispersal corridors, connectivity, and population viability.
■ Habitat management categories and boundaries will be revised as new scientific population information becomes available.
■ The BLM will address and include restoration measures in decision documents to offset the loss of quality or quantity of Category III tortoise habitat.
■ In Category I and II tortoise habitats, all motorized and non-motorized competitive events will be restricted between March 3 1 and October 15; all other use requests will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Compensation for conflicts may be required to achieve protection of quantity or quality of desert tortoise habitat.
■ Desert tortoise Management Actions appropriate to each category goal will be applied to habitat areas, consistent with the current desert tortoise management plan.
■ Provide access to and promote awareness of opportunities for the public participation and enjoyment of U.S. recreational fishery resources.
■ Support outreach programs designed to stimulate angler participation in the conservation and restoration of aquatic systems.
■ Achieve habitat quality and quantity of riparian areas within the foraging range of bald eagles to maintain nesting and wintering birds within the Bill Williams and Colorado River drainages (see Maps 7 and 8 in the Approved RMP).
■ Coordinate with the Southwestern Bald Eagle Management Committee to continue implementation of the guidelines set forth in the Arizona Conservation Assessment and Strategy Plan for the bald eagle in Arizona.
■ Continue to support federal and state agencies efforts to protect and enhance Bald eagle breeding areas on all BLM lands.
■ In cooperation with the AGED, initiate winter bald eagle counts on the Lower Colorado River in areas not currently covered by the AGED.
■ Wildlife habitat improvement projects will be implemented where necessary to stabilize or improve unsatisfactory or declining wildlife habitat condition. These projects will be identified through habitat management plans (under the Sikes Act), Inter-agency cooperative resource management plans (e.g., AGED, CDEG, USEWS plans, etc.), and/or interdisciplinary coordinated resource management plans (e.g., ACEC, Wilderness).
■ The BLM will manage fish and wildlife habitats in cooperation with stakeholders to sustain diversified multiple-use habitat benefits in the planning area.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-3
May 2007
■ Existing aquatic habitat improvements will be monitored periodically to document long-term durability and fishery results.
■ The BLM will cooperate with other agencies to actively manage for native fish populations and habitat.
■ The facility known as Partners Point will be retained and maintained by the BLM and cooperating parties to facilitate aquatic habitat management and other BLM management requirements.
Special Status Species Management
■ Comply with Section 7 (a) of the Endangered Species Act by carrying out positive actions promoting and the recovery of listed and proposed populations, and by assuring that BLM actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the Mojave desert tortoise.
■ Maintain stable, viable populations, and protect existing tortoise habitat values and increased populations where possible. Retain all-natural shelter sites, caliche caves, or similar features used by Mohave desert tortoises for sheltering and maintain unfragmented habitat.
■ When possible employ a precautionary principle in Sonoran desert tortoise habitat management using the best available information until site-specific research can be conducted.
■ To the extent possible avoid and minimize impacts on the Mojave Desert Tortoise (LCRMSCP).
■ Protect existing occupied Mohave desert tortoise habitat (LCRMSCP).
■ No disposal of known oecupied Mohave desert tortoise habitat.
■ Avoid impacts on individual tortoise and their burrows.
■ Develop increased awareness of tortoise resources on the public lands.
■ Establish manageable boundaries for the two designated OHV areas. Cross Roads and Copper Basin. The BLM will survey the OHV area boundaries and record unauthorized access into closed areas. If the annual surveys indicate that current boundary management is not preventing access into protected Mojave Desert tortoise habitat, more secure boundary management such as fencing will be implemented.
■ Assure that all personnel working within desert tortoise habitat on public lands are knowledgeable about the tortoise and its resource.
■ Develop a strong awareness of tortoises and their habitats, particularly in the BLM planning, environmental assessment and budget processes.
■ Record and document all Mojave Desert tortoise sightings (tortoises and sign) into appropriate special status species databases for future work.
■ Provide and protect adequate habitat and sufficient range for all life stages of endangered fish to support survival of recovering populations.
■ Investigate habitat requirements for all bonytail chub and razorback sucker life stages and provide those habitats where feasible.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-4
May 2007
■ Minimize the risk of hazardous materials spills and/or releases by BLM approved activities.
■ Provide leadership to cooperatively quantify water-quality problems and affect long- term improvement.
■ Provide for the long-term management and protection of bonytail chub and razorback sucker populations and their habitats beyond delisting (i.e., conservation plans).
■ Minimize the threats and adverse impacts to the bonytail chub and their habitats.
■ Participate in an education program to increase public awareness of bonytail chub and razorback sucker.
■ Participate with other agencies in the recovery, conservation, research, management and monitoring activities.
■ Provide leadership with other agencies to ensure adequate protection from over- utilization of identified bonytail chub and razorback sucker habitat.
■ Minimize the threats and adverse impacts to the razorback sucker and their habitats.
■ Aggressively work with all federal agencies to identify and minimize conflicts between recreational fisheries and their respective responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
■ Preserve and maintain breeding habitat to support populations of Yuma Clapper Rail within Lake Havasu Field Office.
■ Maintain existing important YCR habitat areas.
■ Preserve winter habitat of the Yuma Clapper Rail within the Lake Havasu Field Office.
■ Carry out a program of public conservation, education, and planning directed towards preservation of rail habitat.
■ Avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate to the extent possible disturbance in occupied Yuma clapper rail territories during the breeding and molting seasons (March 15- September 1).
■ Assure implementation of laws, policies, and agreements that benefit the flycatcher.
■ To the extent practical, avoid and minimize disturbance of the Southwestern willow flycatcher during the breeding season (May 1 through September 30).
■ Review and evaluate existing USFWS riparian restoration programs within the Lake Havasu Field Office to determine how these programs may be modified to maximize conservation for the SWWF.
■ Avoid intense and repeated human disturbance from Western yellow-billed cuckoo nesting areas especially from May 20 through September 1 .
■ Increase cooperation between state and federal agencies and private organizations regarding Western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat.
■ Establish riparian corridors and “island” habitats to allow natural dispersal and recolonization of historic Western yellow-billed cuckoo habitats.
■ Establish areas near existing Western yellow-billed cuckoo occupied habitat for restoration, before focusing on areas further away.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-5
May 2007
■ Apply the conservation measures for Southwestern willow flycatcher for potential or suitable Western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat.
■ Removal of state-listed protected plants will be in accordance with state law and will only be authorized through state permit. Additional restrictions will include: collection within a sample population will not exceed 20% (Way et al. 2002) of any one species, and collection of dead and down ironwood and cactus skeletons under a state permit will be limited to an approximate combined weight not to exceed
10 pounds per year.
■ Natural open space will be maintained for special status species (e.g., burrowing owls and other migratory species) in the planning for new facility development and these species will be considered when issuing authorizations for public lands.
■ The BLM will cooperate with other authorities in the recovery strategies found in the Management Plan for the Big-River Fishes of the Lower Colorado River Basin, as approved in 2005.
□ Management strategies intended to contribute to and assist with basin-wide recovery of the bonytail chub, razorback sucker, and other endangered fishes of the Lower Colorado River will be adopted.
■ Acquisition of non-federal lands will be prioritized based on the potential to enhance the conservation and management of threatened or endangered species habitat, riparian habitat, desert tortoise habitat, key big game habitat, or improve the overall manageability of wildlife habitat.
■ Based on changes in species density and/or habitat quality Sonoran Desert tortoise habitat will be compensated in accordance with the Management Plan for the Sonoran Desert Population of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona 1996 or future updates.
■ The BLM will cooperate with other agencies to actively manage, protect, and/or improve special status species habitat to maintain and/or increase populations to achieve common goals and objectives. Wildlife habitat, both aquatic and terrestrial, will be managed in cooperation with the state and federal wildlife agencies and other interested parties to conserve or improve the habitat of all sensitive species, all native species, and those resident species that have recreational value.
■ Conduct surveys in all Mojave Desert tortoise habitats in the planning area to determine population density estimates. Coordinate with the survey protocols being evaluated and developed by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan Assessment Committee, to determine which survey protocol will be most appropriate for this area.
Invasive or Noxious Species Management
■ The BLM will cooperate on a landscape basis with other authorities to educate the community to the risks to the environment from invasive and noxious species. In cooperation with other authorities the BLM will research the means of control, monitor the resources affected, and implement control actions when needed.
Riparian, wetland areas, shoreline, and all springs (see Maps 7 and 8 in the Approved RMP) will be evaluated and invasive or noxious species will be eradicated if possible. Areas from which the invasive or noxious species are removed will subsequently be re-vegetated with suitable bank-stabilizing species.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-6
May 2007
■ To help stop the spread of invasive or noxious weeds, the BLM will provide ediieational material to equestrian users on the use of certified weed-free hay, straw, pellets, hay cubes, and processed grains.
Watershed Management
■ Identify recreational fishing opportunities that are limited by water quality and habitat degradation and promote restoration to support viable, healthy, and, where feasible, recreational fisheries.
■ The BLM will work with local agencies and private entities through public outreach to minimize the risk of hazardous spills that occur on BLM lands. Operations to assure that the Colorado River meets water quality standards for fish and wildlife species will be actively reviewed.
■ The BLM will coordinate and collaborate in the management of the Bill Williams River below Alamo Dam with neighboring landowners and appropriate state and federal agencies to sustain the river flow, vegetation and wildlife diversity, and wild and scenic outstandingly remarkable values.
■ The BLM will cooperate with appropriate interests to develop a cooperative watershed program to assure the use of best management practices in the watershed to safeguard against pollutant sediments degrading aquatic habitat conditions.
■ The BLM will quantify, file for, and protect water rights, including those for instream flows, on streams, springs, and other water sources important to wildlife, fish, and riparian values.
Standard Operating Procedures
The LHFO planning area provides unique habitat for federally listed and special status species. This diversity of habitats also supports a wide variety of more common game and non-game fish and wildlife species. If not properly managed, other uses of the public lands can damage wildlife habitat. The BLM’s Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 CFR 4180) addresses habitats that have been restored or may make significant progress towards restoration, as well as those that are actively being maintained for federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, and other special status species. The BLM Arizona’s Standards for Rangeland Health include provisions for ensuring that productive and diverse upland and riparian wetland plant communities of native species exist and are maintained.
No activities or projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered plant or wildlife species, or species proposed for listing (see table 3-3), will be permitted on BLM-administered lands.
Vegetation and Riparian Management
Standard operating procedures and treatment methods will be used in a vegetation treatment program. BLM policies and guidance for public land treatments will be followed in implementing all treatment methods.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-7
May 2007
■ Impacts to vegetation from construction, recreation, and other activities will be minimized or avoided. Unavoidable impacts will be mitigated. Where impaets to vegetation occur beyond approved boundaries, vegetative rehabilitation with suitable seed mix or root stock will follow.
■ Where plants will normally be lost due to development or disturbance of public land, salvage of useable native plants and parts of plants will be permitted. Plants and parts of plants will be removed from public land pursuant to applicable state law and federal regulations governing sale and/or transportation of plants.
■ All future activity-level plans will identify desired plant communities on a site-by- site basis. Existing and potentially suitable riparian habitat will be occupied by native trees and other woody species. Available and current information will be utilized (e.g.. National Resource Conservation Service site guides).
■ Riparian, wetland areas, and all springs will be evaluated and rehabilitated to achieve proper functioning condition.
■ Practice will continue to adhere to the guidelines provided in BLM Manual Handbook H- 1740-1, Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatment Guidelines and Procedures (1987).
■ Programmatic documents such as the BLM’s Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments, Watersheds and Wildlife Habitats on Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the Western United States, Including Alaska (1991) will be followed as will other general and specific program policy.
■ Management and implementation of all resource programs will comply with the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (1997).
■ The desired plant community standard for upland sites will provide native vegetation for adequate wildlife habitat and improved watershed function based on monitoring and ecological site potential. Upland sites include 5% or greater dry-weight composition of native perennial grass, as limited by the potential of the ecological site as described by National Resource Conservation Service Ecological Site Guides.
■ The desired plant community for upland sites will have long-term, stable populations of cacti and agaves where the sites have the potential for such plant communities.
■ The desired plant community standard for riparian areas will consist of streambanks dominated (>50%) by native species from the genera Scirpus, Carex, Juncus, and Eleocharis. The size class distribution of native riparian obligate trees will be >15% seedlings, >15% mid-size, and >15% large size (dependent of the existing conditions and potential of the site). Size classes are defined as follows: seedlings are < 1 inch basal diameter, mid-sizes are 1-6 inches in basal diameter, and large sizes are
>6 inches in basal diameter.
■ Allowable use livestock grazing within the ranges of the Southwestern willow flyeatcher will conform to the guidelines described in the “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” section of Guidance Criteria for Determinations of Effects of Grazing Permit Issuance and Renewal on Threatened and Endangered Species (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona and New Mexico, 1999), or any subsequent agreed-upon amendment to these guidelines.
■ Adverse impacts to natural plant and animal communities associated with invasive species will be reduced. Efforts to control or eradicate invasive wildlife species will
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-8
May 2007
be carried out in cooperation and collaboration with AGFD. A monitoring, management, and educational program will be established to reduce the insurgence of plants classified as invasive by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
■ The use and perpetuation of native plant species will be emphasized. However, when restoring or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands, non-intrusive, non- native plant species are appropriate for use where native species: (a) are not available, (b) are not economically feasible, (c) cannot achieve ecological objectives as well as non-native species, and/or (d) cannot compete with already established non-native species.
■ The evaluation of vehicle routes, in conjunction with the route designation process, will consider the effect on wildlife habitat values. Routes that conflict with maintenance of sensitive wildlife habitat values will be mitigated. Mitigation could include, but will not necessarily be limited to: route closure, seasonal use restriction, rerouting, vehicle type restrictions, vehicle speed restrictions, or other mitigation measures appropriate to the nature of the conflict.
■ Additionally, in coordination with AGFD, the BLM will develop specific drought policy for LHFO to address continued livestock grazing impacts on wildlife habitat values during drought. This policy will address the need for timely response, sufficient vegetation recovery periods, indicators of drought recovery, and appropriate Management Actions.
Vegetation Treatment
Standard operating procedures and treatment methods will be used in a vegetation treatment program. BLM policies and guidance for public land treatments will be followed in implementing all treatment methods. Many guidelines are provided in BLM Handbook H- 1740-1, Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatment Guidelines and Procedures (1987); in BLM Arizona’s Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (1997); in programmatic documents such as BLM’s Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments, Watersheds and Wildlife Habitats on Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the Western United States, Including Alaska (1991); and in other general and specific program policy, procedures, and standards pertinent to implementation of renewable resource improvements. The manual, chemical, mechanical, biological, and/or fire treatment methods described in Appendix F, Vegetation Treatments, would be used for all alternatives.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management
Fish
In 1993, Lake Havasu Lisheries Improvement Program Environmental Assessment (No. AZ-050-92-013) approved the enhancement of 875 acres of fish habitat in 42 separate coves and approved rearing 30,000 endangered razorback sucker and 30,000 endangered bonytail chub to 300 millimeters in length for population augmentation into Lake Havasu. The Environmental Assessment was supported by Yuma RMP decisions to improve wildlife habitat where needed. The seven-member Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Partnership was formed through a Memorandum of Understanding to
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-9
May 2007
accomplish these two deeisions and to develop at least six barrier-free shoreline fishing facilities on Lake Havasu (Bureau of Land Management 1993a).
By the end of 2001, a total of 30,017 razorback sueker had been stocked to Lake Havasu, and by August 2004 more than 24,000 bonytail chub had been released into the lake.
Fish habitat improvement goals on Lake Havasu were aceomplished in November 2002.
On December 5, 2003 the Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Partnership dedicated the fifth barrier-free shoreline fishing facility on Lake Havasu.
The Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Partnership is eommitted to achieving the 30,000 bonytail ehub stocking goal and constructing the sixth recreational shoreline fishing site as soon as possible. The Partnership is also eommitted verbally to maintaining these improvements for publie safety and functionality, and to monitoring fish populations within the lake to achieve the best possible understanding of population dynamics and habitat needs for all fish in the reservoir.
LHFO/BLM will utilize the following guidance as common to all alternatives:
■ Ensure that all proposed BLM aetivities and authorizations in the planning area are reviewed and conducted in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Federal and state-listed species and critical habitats are protected by requiring site-specifie evaluations and clearanees. The findings of these evaluations may result in mitigation and/or some restrictions to plans or even disallow use and occupancy that would be in violation of the ESA by detrimentally affecting endangered or threatened species or their habitats. Any action that may affect federally listed speeies also requires consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of ESA.
■ Provide opportunities for training and utilization of volunteers.
■ Coordinate with state governments, tribes, and other governmental entities (under existing agreements and any new arrangements deemed necessary) to disseminate and exchange information and cooperate in Management Actions, consistent with applieable legal authorities and other direetives.
■ Establish collaborative research partnerships with academic institutions, professional and non-profit organizations, and other governmental entities.
■ Evaluate needs for new data regarding population, distribution, and habitat requirements for special status species.
■ Implement actions identified in reeovery plans for listed species and proteetion of critical habitat. Monitoring of bonytail chub and razorback sucker populations will be eonducted, in eooperation with the Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Partnership.
■ Ensure that decisions are being implemented as scheduled and provide continuing evaluation of eonsisteney with state and local plans and programs.
■ Protect water quality to meet federal and state standards, and ensure the needs of fish and wildlife resources are met along with the needs of people.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-10
May 2007
Wildlife
Wildlife habitat use of riparian lands is managed in a manner consistent with BLM Manual 6740 (Wetland-Riparian Area Protection and Management), Federal floodplain management regulations, Reclamation needs, and floodway clearance obligations of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
The State wildlife agencies of California and Arizona establish regulations and enforcement concerning fish and wildlife on all lands administered by the LHFO.
Nothing will be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the State agencies on these lands. Fishing, hunting and trapping are allowable activities on these lands.
The BLM will provide diverse and high-quality habitats by restoration and maintenance of the native diversity, natural distribution, and abundance of wildlife species within the LHFO planning area, with sufficient resources and in a manner that perpetrates naturally functioning ecosystem processes.
The BLM will conserve, enhance, and restore wildlife habitats, including conservation of natural springs, wetlands, and streams through cooperative partnerships with the federal, state, county, city, and private entities.
The BLM will identify, minimize, and mitigate for wildlife habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation.
The BLM will coordinate and cooperate with federal and state agencies, along with partners, to assess the need to maintain, improve, and/or adjust the density or distribution of wildlife waters throughout the planning area to maintain the presence of water for wildlife populations across their range.
The development of springs and seeps, or other projects affecting water and associated resources, will be designed to protect ecological functions and processes and to continue to provide habitat at the source for endemic invertebrates that may be present.
Water developments for purposes other than wildlife will include design features that will ensure safe and continued access to water by wildlife.
Special Status Species Management
Consistent with requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, LHFO will continue an active program to benefit endangered species and to ensure that no activities funded, authorized, or carried out by the BLM jeopardize the continued existence of any listed wildlife species or their essential habitats. The BLM will not dispose of lands occupied by species that are listed or proposed to be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
The BLM will utilize all means available to identify, protect, and conserve special status species habitat, then manage these habitats in consultation with authorities and in conformance with recovery and conservation management plans.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-11
May 2007
The BLM will cooperate with other appropriate authorities to achieve desired populations for special status species.
Wind turbines, transmission lines, and telecommunication sites will conform with guidelines developed by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to minimize impacts to special status species.
The BLM will follow the Department of Interior’s Rangewide Plans for Special Status Species on Public Lands.
Cultural Resources
Administrative Actions
■ Design and maintain facilities in a manner that preserves the visual integrity of cultural resource settings and cultural landscapes, in accordance with Visual Resource Management (VRM) objectives established in this Approved RMP.
■ Avoid the disturbance or removal of Native American human remains and associated items to the extent possible. Avoid directing site visitors toward areas where these items could be observed or disturbed.
■ Implement physical and administrative protection measures to stop, limit, or repair damage and vandalism to sites. On a site-specific basis, these measures may include route closures, route realignment, restrictions on grazing or other uses, construction of fences or other types of barriers, construction of erosion control measures, backfilling or stabilization of structures, or placement of signs.
■ Maintain the placement and condition of fiberglass post signs with the message of the Arizona Site Steward Program on sites that are vulnerable to vandalism. Install protective signs in a manner that avoids drawing attention to sites.
■ Include stipulations in special recreation permits to ensure that commercial tour operations will not damage cultural resources. Require tour operators to report any new vandalism or damage to sites.
■ Ensure that all undertakings and authorizations for land and resource use are reviewed and conducted in compliance with Section 106 of NHPA, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and other applicable laws.
■ Complete Class II (sample) and Class III (intensive) field inventories to identify cultural resources and evaluate the condition of sites, in accordance with Section 1 10 of NHPA. Seek to inventory 100 - 400 acres per year for cultural values. Use the information obtained through these archaeological surveys to allocate sites to appropriate use categories, develop protection measures, and integrate survey results into research designs and interpretation efforts.
■ Complete documentary research and oral histories to gain a better understanding of cultural resources associated with homesteading, mining, ranching, and other historical period activities.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-12
May 2007
■ Establish collaborative research partnerships with academic institutions, professional and non-profit organizations, and advoeational organizations. Provide opportunities for volunteer training and participation in site documentation, research, protection, and educational projects.
■ Continue to consult with the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and other interested Indian tribes to identify places of traditional importance and associated access needs. Develop measures for management and protection of such places that may be identified by tribes during the life of the Approved RMP.
« Honor tribal requests to protect the confidentiality of sensitive information to the extent permitted by law.
■ Restrict public information about the specific locations of sites that are not allocated to public use (selected for interpretive and educational uses).
■ Coordinate with state governments, tribes, and other governmental entities (under existing agreements and any new arrangements deemed necessary) to disseminate and exchange information and cooperate in Management Actions consistent with applicable legal authorities and other directives.
■ Provide opportunities for Native American participation in research and interpretation.
■ Continue to participate in educational outreach efforts that highlight the values of cultural heritage resources and the need to protect the resources.
■ Implement procedures for systematic monitoring of all sites developed or authorized for public visitation.
■ Require that holders of special recreation permits provide site visitors with appropriate educational information on archaeological site etiquette and resource conservation.
■ Continue support of the Site Steward Program.
■ Develop cultural resource protection systems for selected cultural resources that have either a high level of significance or a history of vandalism.
■ Reduce or eliminate indirect impacts of land uses on cultural resources as identified through study plots.
■ Provide immediate and long-term in-place preservation and protection of selected cultural resources that are threatened or deteriorating.
■ Specific management prescriptions for the sites managed for Traditional Use will be developed in consultation with the Indian tribes to which they are culturally important.
■ The BLM will identify sacred areas in consultation with Indian tribes and, where practicable, limit land uses to those that do not conflict with ascribed values.
■ The BLM will identify sacred areas or sites within the Crossman Peak Natural Scenic Area or ACEC in consultation with Indian tribes and, where practicable, limit land uses to those that do not conflict with ascribed values.
■ Nominate eligible properties to NRHP.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-13
May 2007
■ All previously submitted NRHP nominations will be evaluated, and those that merit listing will be resubmitted.
■ Additional sites determined to be significant will be nominated to NRHP. Possible sites include petroglyphs, pictographs, previously unidentified intaglios, and large habitation sites.
■ Conduct mapping and site documentation prior to interpretive development or use for commercial tours to the extent needed to preserve archaeological data, plan for interpretive facilities, and provide a baseline condition assessment for monitoring changes associated with visitor use.
■ Identify priority areas for inventory.
■ Define priority areas for new field inventories (Section 110 surveys) based primarily on imminent threats or land use conflicts in areas having a relatively high probability for significant sites.
■ If appropriate and feasible, amend the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) leases to preserve and protect any identified significant cultural resources.
In accordance with 60 FR 53194-53195, the BLM will:
■ Limit camping and fires at Swansea Townsite to designated campgrounds.
■ Prohibit firewood collection within the town site at Swansea.
■ Prohibit driving in Swansea Townsite except on designated open and signed routes.
Fire Management Response
Standard Operating Procedures
The appropriate management response concept represents a range of available management responses to wildland fires. Responses range from full fire suppression to managing fires for resource benefits (fire use). Management responses applied to a fire will be identified in the fire management plans and will be based on objectives derived from the area’s land use allocation, as determined in the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management (Bureau of Land Management 2003); relative risk to resources, the public, and firefighters; potential complexity; and the ability to defend management boundaries. Any wildland fire can be aggressively suppressed and any fire that occurs in an area designated for fire use can be managed for resource benefits if it meets the prescribed criteria from an approved fire management plan.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-14
May 2007
Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area
Administrative Actions
Because of the multi-jurisdictional nature of the issues, and the complexity of management on Lake Havasu, the BLM recognized the need for collaboration. However, many issues are beyond the scope of this plan. To facilitate regional collaboration, BLM identified the Lake Havasu/Colorado River Management Area (see Map 4 in the approved RMP). A coordinated Lake Management Plan should be completed for the Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area that would engage all of the involved jurisdictions and stakeholders on a voluntary basis. This plan would be a multi- year, multi-agency coordinated effort with the mission of defining the issues, responsibilities, and action items required to maintain a quality lake recreation experience, properly functioning habitat (both terrestrial and aquatic), and common management relationships and goals among the jurisdictions. This is not plan allocation of any sort, nor is it a proposed management action.
■ Consensus will be sought with other jurisdictions and resource stakeholders to cooperatively manage the identified area with agreed vision and objectives to foster improvement of all resource values.
■ Partners, agencies, and other organizations will cooperate to create dynamic management systems for the future of the Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area.
■ Each resource or resource use, whether part of the social, economic, or environmental setting will be given emphasis in the planning and management of the area.
■ The public will see the cooperative management of the area and understand the importance of each resource and how the resources and resource uses are inseparably intertwined.
■ The BLM will work cooperatively with local and regional plans to monitor lake issues within the BLM’s authority.
■ Management to provide compatibility across the Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area will be developed between jurisdictions and will address the multitude of issues that affect the region.
■ A strategy will be created that recognizes the importance of each individual resource and the strong links among them in maintaining the unique environment. Planning concerning this area will be interdisciplinary, cooperative in nature, and provide balanced management to specific areas within the Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area.
■ The creation of a Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area board, council, and/or friends group will be supported in the interest of gaining partners to collaboratively approach the management of the area for the benefit of all resource stakeholders
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-15
May 2007
■ A communication model (e.g., informational and interpretive media) will be fashioned that will address common and needed visitor services across the Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area and between jurisdictions.
Land Tenure
Standard Operating Procedures
Acquisition
Land and Water Conservation Fund: Congressionally appropriated funds are provided for conservation of significant resources within designated project areas.
Baca Bill: The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000, commonly referred to as the Baca Bill, amended FLPMA to allow a percentage of receipts from qualifying land sales and equalization payments from qualifying exchanges to be returned to the BLM. Acquisition of lands using Baca receipts is limited to the purchase of private and state parcels within the boundaries of Special Designations (such as, but not limited to ACEC, Wilderness, WSA, and Wild and Scenic River etc.) as designated in this Approved RMP.
Easements: The BLM acquires two basic types of easements: conservation easements for the protection of resources and access easements to enhance the ability of the public to use and enjoy the public lands.
Exchanges (43 CFR 2200) are generally undertaken at the request of an external customer or proponent. The BLM must make a determination of public interest before processing an exchange. The regulations require that an exchange proponent cover at least half the processing costs of an exchange if the BLM decides to pursue the action.
Disposal
FLPMA Sales: Sales are discretionary actions undertaken by the BLM either in response to a request from an external customer or in furtherance of land use plan decisions to dispose of lands no longer needed by the federal government. If a determination is made that there are no known mineral values, or where a reservation of the minerals to the United States would interfere with or preclude non-mineral development and the non-mineral development is a more beneficial use of the land than the mineral development, the BLM will not dispose of the surface and mineral estates.
BLM policy requires the use of competitive sale procedures unless the authorized officer determines the public interest will be best served by modified competitive bidding or direct (non-competitive) sale. In no case may the lands be sold for less than fair market value.
Baca Sales: Baca sales are processed the same as FLPMA sales but the receipts are returned to the BLM and can be used for enhancement of resource programs and/or purchase of high-value resources. Lands considered Baca sale lands are those that were
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-16
May 2007
identified for disposal by sale in land use plans in place at the passage of the Baca Legislation, P.L. 106-248 (July 25, 2000).
Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act Patents: R&PP actions are externally generated actions typically requested in support of community development. Normally, lands are leased until substantially developed as intended, and then a patent can be issued. However, in situations where there is potential for contaminants to create a liability for the government, lands are transferred without first requiring the lease, and the reversionary provision of the transfer is limited to lands that have not been contaminated. Even after lands are patented, the BLM has a continuing responsibility for ensuring compliance with the terms of the patent. If the patented lands are not used as described in the Plan of Development, the land could revert to the U.S. Government.
Split Estate: Landowners or prospective landowners may request purchase of the minerals underlying their surface estate when there are no known mineral values, or where the reservation of the minerals interferes with or precludes appropriate non- mineral development and such development is more beneficial use of the land than the mineral development. Split estate also occurs when the federal government owns the surface and the minerals are owned by a private entity. This type of split estate is addressed in the Mineral Resources section of this appendix.
Public lands have potential for disposal when they are isolated and/or difficult to manage. Disposal actions are usually in response to a public request or application that results in a title transfer, wherein the lands leave the public domain. The lands are sold at their fair market value. All public lands will be retained unless specifically identified for disposal.
Leases/Permits
BLM will review all leases and permits prior to land use adjustments.
Withdrawal
LHFO will continue to review existing withdrawals periodically to ensure that the reasons for the withdrawal are still valid and that only the acreage needed is retained in withdrawn status. LHFO policy will be to continue to minimize the amount of land withdrawn (particularly from mining and mineral leasing) in favor of leases, permits, or cooperative use agreements, which are more flexible.
Use Authorization
Rights-of-Way
Under the authority of FLPMA and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the LHFO grants ROWs and temporary use permits to qualified individuals, businesses, and government entities for use of public lands. LHFO processes ROW applications for access, oil and gas, pipeline, power line, water line, telephone lines, fiber optic lines, communication sites, etc. All ROW applications will continue to receive environmental review on a case-by-case basis. The public may use motorized vehicles on existing and future road
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-17
May 2007
ROWS unless they are specially closed by a mitigation stipulation(s) or other designations such as ACEC, Wilderness etc. The use of these ROWs does not give the public the right to enter or use private property without the permission of the landowner.
Specific proposals for ROWs within corridors will still be required to go through the environmental and permitting process.
Corridors/Communication Sites
To the extent possible, new ROWs will be located within or parallel to existing ROWs or ROW corridors to minimize resource impacts. Designated corridors will be the preferred location for major utility ROWs.
Leases/Permits
Permits or leases issued under the 43 CFR 2920 regulations will not be issued for less than fair market value rent.
Renewable Energy
The BLM will consider the need for the production and distribution of energy and the need to encourage the development of renewable energy sources. Future applications will undergo site-specific environmental analysis as part of the ROW or commercial lease process.
Law Enforcement
Standard Operating Procedures
FHFO presently has two law enforcement rangers who report to the Field Office Manager. The current table of organization approved for FHFO includes one Field Staff Ranger and one Field Ranger.
The priorities of the law enforcement program include drug interdiction, homeland security, vandalism, illegal dumping, closure violations, occupancy trespass, wilderness violations, camping limit violations, arson, archaeological and historical site damage, vegetative damage and theft, OHV use violations, and human-caused wildland fires. The majority of the law enforcement activities are associated with the area’s highly active recreation program and its year-round visitor use.
FHFO manages areas of important wildlife habitat that are a primary law enforcement concern. The protection of these resources includes monitoring camping activities, investigating human-caused wildland fires, enforcing seasonal closures of bighorn sheep habitat, and enforcing OHV restrictions. Thefts of cacti occur periodically in the Alamo Fake area. FHFO also maintains revegetation sites, habitat mitigation areas, and grow- out coves for endangered fish.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-18
May 2007
Law enforcement priorities are accomplished by rangers through routine patrols of high- use areas and known locations of repeated violations. Reports of violations by resource specialists and the public result in a significant portion of the investigative leads and enforcement actions by the ranger staff.
Numerous other agencies with law enforcement missions cooperate with BLM rangers on a wide variety of enforcement actions. These agencies include, but are not limited to, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the California Highway Patrol, Bullhead City and Lake Havasu City Police Departments, Mohave and La Paz County Sheriffs Departments, San Bernardino County Sheriff s Department, USFWS, National Park Service, AGFD, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and Arizona State Parks Department. Reclamation law enforcement authority for all U.S. Bureau of Reclamation lands (613 DM 1) has been delegated to the BLM.
The following topics represent program priorities that are present and of special significance to the law enforcement program. The list is not all-inclusive and is subject to change as conditions and emphases evolve.
Employee and Public Safety
Increased pressure from urban interface, growth in visitor use at recreation sites, and the escalation of anti-government sentiment has heightened the awareness of possible conflict in the field.
Confrontations between public land users are becoming more frequent. Gang activities in the recreation sites and back country areas have increased as evidenced by incidents of vandalism and graffiti at facilities and back country areas, by law enforcement .contacts and third party reports. Public lands near urban areas provide relative isolation and have experienced an increase in criminal activities, including homicides, stolen vehicles, and the illegal disposal of household and commercial wastes.
The Lower Colorado River corridor has received a steady increase in boating and camping recreation. This increase has been reflected in a growing number of boating accidents and problems related to alcohol and drug use. Increased use of the boat-in campsites has significantly increased the number of incidents involving alcohol, drug use, and natural resource destruction, requiring response from law enforcement.
With its warm weather and southern travel route, the Lower Colorado River has a large transient population. These individuals commonly have criminal histories and present a threat to any public land users who might encounter them. The problem of transients has increased in past years in the Lake Havasu City, Needles, and Bullhead City areas.
Drugs and Controlled Substance Manufacture
LHFO has not had a significant drug problem relating to public lands. Waste from methamphetamine lab operations has been recovered on public lands, and occasional reports of marijuana cultivation have been received. In a 5-year period, one such site was located. However, the remote nature of the managed lands combined with infrequent patrols presents a significant opportunity for drug operations to exist without detection.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-19
May 2007
There is also personal use of drugs by public land users in both developed and undeveloped recreation sites within the LHFO management area. This problem is dealt with as encountered in the routine ranger patrols of these areas.
Hazardous Materials
The BLM will comply with all federal, state, and local environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations governing storage, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and/or waste.
BLM employees or the public may encounter solid waste and hazardous materials while on BLM-administered lands. Such materials or waste may include clandestine drug lab waste, unexploded military ordnance, mining wastes, domestic solid waste dumping, and transportation accidents, including hazardous material incidents on ROWs. BLM employees who may encounter such situations while in the field will be trained as mandated by the BLM and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements to recognize, retreat, and report any discovery. The BLM will notify state and federal agencies responsible for hazardous materials or waste responses and cleanups.
■ The BLM will educate the public about the risks associated with abandoned mine land sites and unexploded ordnance through signs, bulletin boards, and/or kiosks.
■ When the current cleanup of hazardous materials sites is completed including Pacific Gas and Electric Company Topock and Big Bend Resort leaking underground storage tank, the BLM will continue to monitor sites for residual hazardous conditions as needed.
■ The BLM will clean up any hazardous materials that are illegally dumped on public land.
Abandoned Mine Lands
As funding is available, the Management Actions listed below will continue:
■ Inventory abandoned mine lands in high-use areas to determine mines that pose the greatest risk to public health and safety, and identify the sites that should be closed to protect biological and cultural resources. Through the information gathered from the inventories, the BLM will attempt to close all mines within 0.25 mile of developed recreation areas, campgrounds, access roads, and trails that pose the greatest risk to visiting public and mines that have significant cultural and biological resources.
■ Assess the impacts to waters of Arizona and California from abandoned mines, tailings, or mineral deposits within 1 mile of surface waters and reclaim sites presenting water quality concerns.
■ Method of closure will vary and be identified during site-specific NEPA analysis.
■ LHFO will inspect abandoned mine land sites to identify all physical hazards presenting a safety risk to the public and take appropriate action to mitigate any hazards.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-20
May 2007
■ Take steps to prevent public access to abandoned mine land contaminated areas.
■ Notify the public of the conditions at an abandoned mine land site in close proximity to populated areas.
■ Where surveys indicate the potential for important bat habitat, the BLM and its partners will take appropriate actions, such as bat gates, to preserve the habitat while addressing the public hazards.
■ In cases where abandoned mine land remediation actions may affect biological, cultural, or historical resources, the impacts are mitigated by recording the resources, relocating the resources, or stabilizing significant resources, consistent with reducing the threat to public health and safety.
Mineral Resources
Standard Operating Procedures
Acquired lands (excluding lands acquired by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation]) will be opened to mineral entry unless critical resource values — including but not limited to special status species, eligible archeological sites, riparian habitat — or public health and safety require mineral withdrawal.
Post mining use should be determined by the prevailing land use before the disturbance or as deemed appropriate by the authorized officer.
The BLM will not normally allow mineral material disposal without the surface owner’s consent when the BLM owns the mineral estate but not the surface estate. Where private surface has been developed for non-mineral use, the BLM will limit or forego mineral materials sales and will seek the consent of the surface owner. On split estate lands, the BLM will not normally manage for solid mineral development without surface owner consent, unless it is determined to be detrimental to the public interest.
Locatable Minerals
Regulations contained in 43 CFR 3715 and 43 CFR 3809 provide for the management of surface disturbance associated with mineral exploration and development, including mining claim use and occupancy. The BLM reviews mining notices and plans in the time allotted as identified in the regulations. For notice-level operations, if time permits, a site visit will be conducted for lands identified in a mining notice by the geologist and an archeologist and biologist, if available. A site visit will always be conducted by the BLM during the processing of a Mining Plan of Operations. Mining plans and notice-level operations when mining claim occupancy is proposed will be assessed for impacts to desert tortoise habitat and will be mitigated to the extent allowable in 43 CFR 3809 regulations.
Mining plans and notice-level operations when mining claim occupancy is proposed are required to have the proper NEPA documentation prepared. The BLM will work with operators to ensure that notices and plans are processed efficiently and in a timely manner. Reclamation plans and bonds are required for each notice and plan per
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-21
May 2007
regulation. The amount of such bonds is for the full amount required to complete 100% of the required reclamation as if the BLM were required to hire independent contractors to do the work.
In addition to the requirements of 43 CFR 3715 and 43 CFR 3809, state and federal laws provide for numerous other permits, including but not limited to an Aquifer Protection Permit and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Act (NPDES) permit, both issued by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ); a Section 404 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and a flood control permit issued by the applicable county. Also, Arizona state law requires mining claimants to keep mining property in a safe condition. The State Mine Inspector’s office is responsible for enforcing this law. The BLM will cooperate with all interested agencies to ensure that operations conducted on BLM-administered lands are in full compliance with all federal, state, local health and safety, and environmental laws as required by 43 CFR 3715.5.
All occupancy of mining claims must meet the requirements of 43 CFR 3715 and must meet the specific requirements of 43 CFR 3715.2. At a minimum, all occupancies will meet the requirements and standard stipulations contained in the BLM Arizona’s 1997 Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Mining Claim Use and Occupancy.
In designated wilderness, any disturbance greater than casual use will be grounds for initiating a validity examination. Mining in wilderness is allowed only on claims with a valid discovery and location existing before designation. Before the BLM can approve Mining Plans of Operations submitted for work in a designated WA, a BLM mineral examiner must verify that a valid claim exists. The mineral examination and mineral report must confirm that minerals have been found and the evidence is of such character that a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of her or his labor and means with a reasonable prospect of success in developing a valuable mine.
Saleable Minerals
The Material Sale Act of 1947 and 43 CFR 3600 provide for the disposal and regulation of mineral materials. Mineral material disposals will be administered on a case-by-case basis. Saleable minerals are sold at appraised value. Free use permits will continue to be issued to state and federal agencies, local communities, and nonprofit organizations as the need arises. Compensation will be required for new or expansions of mineral material disposal sites within desert tortoise Category I, II, and III habitat. Disposals from lands withdrawn or acquired on behalf of BOR are allowed pursuant to a March 25, 1983, Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and Reclamation, which has administrative and surface management responsibility for disposal and use of mineral materials on project lands. Reclamation also has authority to allocate mineral materials for its own use.
Leasable Minerals
The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, and 43 CFR 3100- 3500 provide the regulatory framework for issuing mineral leases. These regulations apply where public interest exists for the development of oil, gas, sodium, potassium, and geothermal energy. Where the need is identified in this Approved RMP, stipulations
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-22
May 2007
intended to mitigate impacts to special status species, cultural areas, and other resources susceptible to impacts from leasing-related activities will be attached to leases where impacts could occur to sensitive species. Site-specific use authorization stipulations to protect sensitive resources may be required prior to approval of specific proposals. All leases will be subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form.
The BLM will manage leasable minerals on all Reclamation withdrawn and acquired lands that are open to the mineral leasing laws. The BLM will request Reclamation’s consent and/or comments as to whether leasing is acceptable and, if so, any terms and conditions deemed necessary to protect the use for which the lands were withdrawn or acquired.
No leasing is permitted on lands with federal surface ownership and state or private subsurface ownership. If subsurface ownership is acquired, the lands will become available to leasing subject to the same stipulations that are placed on the surrounding lands.
Lands with state or private surface ownership and federal subsurface ownership are open to leasing. In such cases, the BLM requests the lessees to indicate that they have reached an agreement with the surface owners prior to entertaining these lands for oil and gas exploration or development activities.
Lands that have been segregated from entry prior to disposal (e.g., R&PP lease and/or patent or sales) are open to oil and gas leasing unless specifically restricted in their classification.
Paleontological Resources
Administrative Actions
■ When evaluating proposed actions on public lands, apply the following goals and objectives:
□ Identify areas and geological units (e.g., formations, members) containing paleontological resources.
□ Evaluate the potential of these areas to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy invertebrate or plant fossils.
□ Develop management recommendations (including mitigation measures in specific locations) to promote the scientific, educational, and recreational uses of fossils on public lands.
■ Develop a monitoring program on public lands where important paleontological localities have been identified.
■ The BLM will identify and protect significant fossil resources and allow for scientific research at paleontological sites, in accordance with the applicable permitting procedures.
■ The BLM will include paleontological resources in its cultural resources public education programs. These programs will provide information directly related to
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-23
May 2007
procedures to be followed if fossilized items are found, and will specify fines for removing fossilized items from BLM-administered lands.
■ Newly identified vertebrate localities will be evaluated to assess their importance and the potential threat of loss. These findings will be used to determine an adequate monitoring program.
■ A records search for paleontological resources will be conducted on all major land use actions as appropriate. Surveys prior to, or monitoring during, ground-disturbing land uses will be conducted as necessary to protect significant paleontological values.
■ The BLM will survey for paleontological resources in Class 4 areas as funding becomes available.
■ The Golden Shores mammoth site will be monitored annually. Other localities with scientifically important fossils will be monitored annually or as needed to address potential threats.
■ Preserve and protect scientifically significant paleontological resources for scientific, educational, and recreational uses.
■ Ensure that all land use authorizations consider and are consistent with objectives for proactive use of scientifically significant paleontological resources.
Public Education and Interpretation
Standard Operating Procedures
General information on the planning area may be obtained from LHFO. Some information is also presented in cooperatively funded maps and brochures. Supplies of brochures at visitor centers vary throughout the year. The current trend is to scan all brochures and maps onto computers, allowing information to be printed from computer web sites to replace material traditionally printed. The public is increasingly accessing these sites. The public generates significant amounts of information on the planning area through internet sites, guide books, and other publications. The exact amount, accuracy, or contents of such information is unknown, nor is it known if this information supports management objectives.
The public may also obtain OHV maps and general guides by mail or by picking up copies at LHFO, which is located at 2610 Sweetwater Avenue, Lake Havasu City,
AZ 86406. Brochures or maps are occasionally available at the historic Swansea Townsite or given out by volunteers. The main information source for most visitors to the planning area consists of displays on kiosks.
LHFO presents informal and formal interpretive/educational programs for schools, universities, professional, and other groups. Often the requesting parties are professional organizations conducting seminars, field trips, or large conferences. Many informal requests for presentations are received with little notice, and BLM specialists may deliver formal or informal presentations depending on the time available for preparation.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-24
May 2007
Rangeland Management/Grazing
Standard Operating Procedures
Desired plant eommunity objeetives will be quantified for each allotment through the rangeland monitoring and evaluation process. Ecological site descriptions available through the National Resource Conservation Service and other data will be used as a guide for addressing site capabilities and/or potentials for change over time. These desired plant community objectives are vegetative values that the BLM is managing over the long term. Once established, desired plant community objectives will be updated and monitored based on indicators for Land Health Standard 3. This standard is derived from the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health, developed through a collaborative process with the Arizona Resource Advisory Council, and identifies the characteristics of and management actions needed to promote and sustain healthy ecosystems on public lands.
Monitoring studies will be used to determine conformance with the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. Monitoring studies generally include actual use, utilization, trend, and climate. The three management categories will be used to set priorities. These studies will be analyzed through the evaluation process to determine management actions needed to achieve standards and meet multiple-resource management objectives.
Typical Range Improvements
Following is a discussion of typical design features, construction practices, and implementation procedures for range improvements that could be constructed. The extent, location, and timing of such actions will be based on allotment-specific management objectives adopted through the evaluation process, interdisciplinary development and analysis of proposed actions, and funding.
Fences
All new fences will be built to BLM manual specifications. Fences will normally be constructed to provide exterior allotment boundaries, divide allotments into pastures, protect streams or other riparian areas, and control livestock. Most fences will be three- wire or four-strand with steel posts spaced 16.5 feet apart with intermediate wire stays. Existing fences that create wildlife movement problems will be modified. Proposed fence lines will usually not be bladed or scraped. Gates or cattle guards will be installed where fences cross existing roads.
All new or reconstructed fences in big game habitat, including desert bighorn sheep habitat, will meet specifications in BLM Handbook 1741-1 or be designed to allow for the movement of big game, including desert bighorn sheep. The BLM will consult with AGFD on the design and location of new fences.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-25
May 2007
Pipelines
Wherever possible, water pipelines will be buried. The trench will be excavated by a backhoe, ditch witch, or similar equipment. Plastic pipe will be placed in the trench and the excavated material will be used to backfill. Most pipelines will have water tanks spaced as needed to achieve proper livestock distribution.
Reservoirs
Stock pond sites will be selected based on available watershed and hydrologic infomiation. All applicable state laws and regulations will be followed.
Wells
Well sites will be selected based on geologic reports that predict the depth to reliable aquifers. All applicable state laws and regulations that apply to groundwater will be observed.
Supplemental Feed Authorization
Supplemental feed must be authorized in advance. Supplemental feed means a feed that supplements the forage available from the public lands and is provided to improve livestock nutrition or rangeland management.
If used, salt should be placed at least 0.25 mile from water sources to disperse impacts.
Management actions outlined in the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration will be applied to identify and correct potential erosion problems that could negatively impact other resources. Prioritized emphasis will be placed on those sites that might directly impact species that have been listed as threatened, endangered, or candidate species by USFWS.
Recreation Management
Administrative Actions
■ On-the-ground presence will be used to provide the delivery of visitor services, information, interpretation, and stewardship as a tool to protect public land resources.
■ Coordination will be conducted with general public, federal and state agencies, county and local governments, and Tribes in recreation planning and travel management. Working partnerships will be developed and sustained to this end.
■ “Tread Lightly, and Leave No Trace” travel and camping techniques will be encouraged throughout the lands managed by LHFO.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-26
May 2007
■ All recreational shooting-related materials will be required to be removed upon competition of the activity. In addition, paintball ammunition must be classified biodegradable by the manufacturer.
■ Organized, competitive, and/or commercial specialized vehicle recreation activities will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of an SRP process.
Activity Planning Framework
An activity planning framework outlines the direction and essential structure to attain management objectives and setting prescriptions for the ERMA and SRMA (with RMZs) identified in this plan. This guidance is intended to provide over-arching direction to future activity level plans that will be developed to implement the Approved RMP. This conceptual framework covers Management, Marketing, Monitoring, and Administrative measures to be addressed.
Lake Havasu Field Office Extensive Recreation Management Area
An activity level plan will not be written for the ERMA. Rather the LHFO will follow the structure established below to maintain the continuity of prescriptions found in the Prescribed Recreation Settings (see Map 20 in the Approved RMP). These actions are common to all of the ERMA unless otherwise noted.
Management:
■ LHFO will limit management to custodial actions that would improve visitor safety and decrease user and resource conflicts.
■ Recreational opportunities and benefits will be maintained to meet the specific ROS settings as inventoried.
■ BLM may develop facilities such as trailheads, parking areas, bulletin boards, trails, and/or restrooms, consistent with public demand and as long as the action is environmentally sound and appropriate to the ROS setting.
Marketing:
■ Focus visitor information services and products on dispersed recreation opportunities, resource protection, and public safety.
■ LHFO will incorporate “Tread Lightly” and/or “Leave No Trace” programs in all visitor related media.
Monitoring:
■ ERMA will be monitored to insure that the environmental prescriptions and social outcomes are being met for the specific ROS settings previously inventoried.
■ Monitoring will be done by BLM staff through observations/studies of environmental conditions and by visitor service personal contacts with public land users.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-27
May 2007
A dm in is tra tive:
■ Visitors will realize the experience and benefits of the ERMA with little on site management controls and services other than signing for route designation and resource protection.
■ Organized, competitive, and/or commercial specialized vehicle recreation activities will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of an SRP process.
Colorado River Nature Center Special Recreation Management Area
An inter-disciplinary and -agency activity level plan will be developed for the SRMA
covering the River Side and Southern Bluff RMZs. The River Side RMZ will be
managed consistently with AGFD’s property along the river, west of the RMZ. The
following actions are common to all RMZs unless otherwise noted.
Management:
■ Make local partnerships a high priority to develop and maintain the SRMA.
■ Work with AGED to create ponds/wetland areas.
■ Maintain the SRMA as day-use area.
■ Develop and maintain nature trails, which provide for public education, use and protect resources within the SRMA.
■ Limit vehicle use to one maintained access route in River Side RMZ and only administrative use of routes in the Southern Bluff RMZ.
■ Rehabilitate closed roads that have no administrative benefits in the Southern Bluff RMZ.
■ Contain parking facilities and roadways to prevent encroachment.
Marketing:
■ Develop comprehensive interpretive plan, which includes all aspects of interpretation, education, and public outreach.
■ Strive to involve user groups, volunteers, and other interested members of the public to help maintain resources through partnerships, adoption programs, special events, and/or a “friends group.”
■ Work with AGED and Bullhead City to create on-site interpretive media within River Side RMZ.
■ Work with local schools and teachers to create materials and/or curriculum to be used when visiting the nature center.
Monitoring:
■ Assure objectives are being met and setting prescriptions are maintained.
■ Monitor implemented actions and evaluate effectiveness.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-28
May 2007
■ Monitoring will be done by observations and visitor service personnel contacts with users.
■ Evaluations by the partners will, at minimum, be done annually or as needed.
A dm in is tra tive:
■ The BLM in collaboration with partners will establish a strong visitor services presence within the SRMA.
■ Work with Bullhead City Police, Mohave County Sheriff to assure the public safety is maintained within the SRMA.
Lake Havasu Special Recreation Management Area
A multi-jurisdictional cooperative management plan will be written for the LHSRMA and the eight associated RMZs (Whipple Mountains, North Aubrey, Aubrey Hills, AZ Shoreline, Havasu Springs, CA Shoreline, North Lake Havasu, and South Lake Havasu). Partnerships and collaboration with other jurisdictions on the lake including but not limited to the U.S. Coast Guard, County Sheriffs, BOR , ADGF, tribes and other federal, state and local entities will be sought to improve recreational management of the lake for sustainable environmental health and customer satisfaction. The following actions are common to all RMZs unless otherwise noted.
Management:
■ Make local partnerships a high priority to develop and maintain the SRMA.
Including working with Tri-State Water Ways Inter-agency Group and the Lake Havasu Fisheries Partnership to meet management objectives for the SRMA.
■ The BLM will, when practical, implement agreements with other political entities or private sector operators for the shared installation, operation, or maintenance of new developed recreation facilities under conditions appropriate to its agency mission and consistent with public demand.
■ On the AZ Shoreline RMZs, additional facilities could only be developed where there is a public demand and where the actions are environmentally sound and meet the ROS setting, experiences and benefits (DEC) set for the specific RMZs in the Approved RMP. On the CA Shoreline RMZs facilities will only be considered as a tool to manage user conflicts, protect natural resources, and assure public safety.
■ The BLM will identify, with signs and maps, those areas of undeveloped shoreline were camping will be allowed. Campfire rings will not be allowed and fires limited to developed sites where barbeques are provided.
■ The BLM will continue leadership of the Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Partnership, aiming to cooperatively manage the diverse, and healthy native and sport fishery, while working to maintain and enhance free public shoreline angling access.
■ Shoreline development will be through a coordinated approach, reviewed and approved through the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure compatibility with Parker Dam and Lake Havasu project’s uses as well as the Lower Colorado River Multiple Species Conservation Program.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-29
May 2007
■ Develop and maintain non-motorized trails in the North Aubrey and Aubrey Hills for non-motorized recreational opportunities near an urban area. This would include a trail that would connect BLM Lands with Lake Havasu City Parks, State Parks Lands, and the Wildlife Refuges.
■ Restore closed roads that have no administrative benefits with in North Aubrey, Aubrey Hills, and Whipple Mountains RMZs.
■ Information and orientation materials dealing with recreation, maps, safety, and resource concerns will be posted on kiosks located at all primary access points and at critical areas within the SRMA.
■ Increase law enforcement patrols on the Lake during high use weekends and periods.
■ The BLM, in collaboration with partners, will establish a strong visitor services presence within the SRMA. Example; Visitors will see park rangers, maintenance workers, and law enforcement officers on a regular basis. Visitor services will be provided in accordance with desired ROS settings.
■ The BLM will continue leadership of the Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Partnership, and will continue to support the five existing handicapped-accessible shoreline fishing facilities constructed on Lake Havasu, plus those yet to be constructed. The five facilities are Mesquite Bay, Site Six, Bill Williams Refuge, Havasu Springs Resort, and Take-off Point.
Marketing:
■ Develop comprehensive interpretive plans that will provide a unified interagency approach to all aspects of interpretation, education, and public outreach.
■ Provide high profile presence on the lake, through the use of visitor contact areas/facilities. Including use of mobile contact stations such as boats or trailers during high use periods.
■ Strive to involve user groups, volunteers, and other interested members of the public to help maintain resources through partnerships, adoption programs, special events, and/or a “friends group.”
■ Information and orientation materials dealing with recreation, maps, safety, and resource concerns will be posted on kiosks located at all primary access points and at critical areas within the SRMA.
Monitoring:
■ In coordination with multi-jurisdictional partners, the BLM will participate in formal visitor demand, satisfaction, use, and preference surveys.
■ Resources will be evaluated to ensure that there be no net loss of quality regarding the recreation or natural resources that provide the targeted benefits and opportunities using the date of the adoption of this plan as a baseline.
■ Maintenance of resource and recreational benefits sustainability shall be paramount in all monitoring activities.
■ Monitoring will be accomplished formally using the best available science and techniques.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-30
May 2007
■ At least on a monthly basis monitoring of all developed sites will be aceomplished by staff to assure site conditions meet public health and safety requirements.
■ In coordination with multi-jurisdictional partners, the BLM will participate in natural resource monitoring activities and share that information in formal and informal cooperative groups to better understand “health of the river” objectives and applicable laws.
A dm in is tra five:
■ The BLM, in collaboration with partners, will establish a strong visitor services presence within the SRMA.
■ Work with law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction on the lake to assure the public safety is maintained within the SRMA.
■ Use thresholds will be determined from research and monitoring. Actions such as closures and use allocation will be considered to maintain sustainability of both the recreational opportunities and of natural resource condition.
■ The BLM will charge a day use/camping fees for BLM-developed sites within the area.
■ The BLM will work to coordinate the fee structure and collections with other agencies, primarily Arizona State Parks within the Lake Havasu SRMA.
■ The BLM will work to coordinate organized events with partners. The BLM will require special recreational permits (SRPs) for organized events and activities that impact public lands comprising the lake bottom and shoreline.
Parker Strip Special Recreation Management Area
The 1993 Parker Strip Recreation Management Plan will be updated to assure that the
SRMA with its three RMZs (Parker Strip Urban, Crossroads and Copper Basin, and the
Parker Strip Backcountry) complies with the Approved RMP. The BLM, working
closely with concessionaires, will ensure that the Plan’s objectives are being met. Listed
below are only those implementation actions that are not covered by the current plan.
These actions are common to all RMZs unless otherwise noted.
Management:
■ The BLM will, when practical, implement agreements with other political entities or private sector operators for the shared installation or operation of new developed recreation facilities under conditions appropriate to its agency mission and consistent with public demand. All new concession facilities will be limited to east of the Back Country Byway.
■ The Parker Strip RMZ will be managed to provide a full array of facilities striving to meet the targeted benefits and desired outcomes for both its aquatic and terrestrial resources.
■ Update the Back Country Byway Kiosks as needed.
■ Manage Parker Strip Backcountry RMZ to provide open space and targeted benefits.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-31
May 2007
■ Manage the Crossroads and Copper Basin open areas, in partnership with the California State Park’s OHV Grant Programs with an emphasizing responsible OHV use, appreciation of natural resource values and public safety.
Marketing:
■ The Rock House Information Center and Boat Ramp will serve as a central location to provide information which will help enhance the physical, social and a recreational setting for the wide spectrum of Parker Strip visitors.
■ Pursue local partnerships and cooperate with local agencies, chambers of commerce, and concessionaires to market the recreation opportunities in the Parker Strip RMZ to local, regional, national, and international visitors.
Monitoring:
■ Monitoring will be performed by evaluating visitor use through traffic counters, recreation use permits, amount and types of revenue generated, and observations by site host volunteers, LE rangers, recreation and maintenance staff
■ Employ visitor demand and preference surveys for visitors and concession customers to determine their level of satisfaction with existing facilities.
A dm in is tra tive:
■ The BLM, in collaboration with partners, will establish a strong visitor services presence within the SRMA.
■ Continue to manage concessionaires through existing use authorizations. Maintain the front country experience through the use of law enforcement, visitor services, and fees.
■ Coordinate with the San Bernardino County Sheriffs office on issues and concerns relating to public safety.
Gibraltar Special Recreation Management Area
The 200 1 Gibraltar Mountain Interdisciplinary Plan will be updated to ensure that the
total SRMA with its five RMZs (Gibraltar Wilderness, Cienega, Shea Hills, Buckskin
Mesa, and the Shea Road/Osbome Wash RMZs) comply with Approved RMP decisions.
Portions of the Shea Road/Osbome Wash were not covered in the planning area for
Gibraltar Mountain Interdisciplinary Plan. These actions are common to all RMZs unless
otherwise noted.
Management:
■ Make local partnerships a high priority to develop and maintain the SRMA.
■ The BLM will continue to maintain bulletin boards and kiosks containing maps and information on natural, cultural, historical, and local features as well as public safety. Locations would be near main intersections, remote recreation areas, and popular sites.
■ Maintain wilderness boundary signs and maps.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-32
May 2007
■ Manage Shea Road/Osbom Wash RMZ for intensive OHV and dispersed camping.
■ The BLM will clearly establish the boundaries of Shea Road/Osbom Wash RMZ to contain OHV “freeplay” use to within the RMZ.
■ The BLM will establish non-motorized trailheads to discourage vehicle trespass into the Wilderness Area or the Wilderness Study Area.
■ If use analysis determines that visitor levels have increased and that dispersed camping presents significant conflicts with other resource values, the BLM may develop campgrounds or designate camping sites within the SRMA to manage those conflicts.
Marketing:
■ Will be directed to local/regional users.
■ The BLM, in collaboration with partners, will establish a strong visitor services presence within the Gibraltar SRMA. Example: Visitors will see park rangers, maintenance workers, and law enforcement officers on a regular basis. Visitor services will be provided consistent with the ROS setting, experiences and benefits (DEC) set for the specific RMZs in the Approved RMP.
■ The BLM will provide a presence in Shea Road/Osbome Wash RMZ during high use periods through the use of mobile contact stations.
■ Strive to involve user groups, volunteers, and other interested members of the public to help maintain resources through partnerships, adoption programs, special events, and/or a “friends group.”
■ Information and orientation materials dealing with recreational, maps, safety, and resource concerns will be posted on kiosks located at all primary access points and at critical areas within the SRMA.
Monitoring:
■ Monitoring will be done by observations and visitor service contacts with users.
■ Resources will be evaluated to ensure that there be no net loss of quality regarding the recreation or natural resources that provide the targeted benefits and opportunities using the date of the adoption of this plan as a baseline.
■ At a minimum OHV use will be monitored monthly and more frequently if necessary, during the high use period.
A dm in is tra tive:
■ The BLM in collaboration with partners will establish a strong visitor services presence within the SRMA.
■ Coordinate with the La Paz County Sheriffs Office on matters relating to public safety within this SRMA.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-33
May 2007
Havasu Urban Special Recreation Management Area
An inter-disciplinary activity level plan will be written for Crossman Peak ACEC and
this SRMA covering the three RMZs (Standard Wash, Crossman Peak, and Havasu
Urban Interface). These actions are common to all RMZs unless otherwise noted.
Management:
■ A task force of stakeholders will be established to coordinated an approach to managing the Havasu Urban SRMA to maintain the Lake Havasu view shed and desired ROS setting, experiences and benefits (DFC) set for the specific RMZs in the Approved RMP.
■ The BUM will, when practical, implement agreements with other political entities or private sector operators for the shared installation or operation of new developed recreation facilities under conditions appropriate to its agency mission and consistent with public demand.
■ The BUM will maintain bulletin boards and kiosks containing maps and information on natural, cultural, historical, and local features as well as public safety. Locations will be near main intersections, and remote popular recreational sites.
■ The BUM near developed communities will increase signage and enforcement of pertinent laws and regulations to manage camping and other recreation use.
■ Uncontrolled recreational shooting within the SRMA will be discouraged though increased patrols and ethics programs.
■ Implementation-level planning will make determinations as to where specific trails, trailheads, facilities and kiosks will be needed in conjunction with cultural and biological resource needs and mitigations.
■ Non-motorized use will be encouraged within the SRMA, by the establishment of trails and trailheads.
■ Dispersed camping will be discouraged with the Havasu Urban Interface RMZ. If use analysis determines that levels have increased, and that dispersed camping present significant conflicts with other resource values or with local community interfaces, the BUM will develop a campground or designate camping sites within the SRMA to manage those conflicts.
Marketing:
■ Marketing will be regional in nature and would be commensurate with the ability of the area to maintain its ROS setting and provide the recreational experiences and benefits set for each RMZ.
■ Strive to involve user groups, volunteers, and other interested members of the public to help maintain resources through partnerships, adoption programs, special events, and/or a “friends group.”
■ Information and orientation materials dealing with recreation, maps, safety, and resource concerns will be posted on kiosks located at all primary access points and at critical areas within the SRMA.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-34
May 2007
Monitoring:
■ Resources will be evaluated to ensure that there be no net loss of quality regarding the recreation or natural resources that provide the targeted benefits and opportunities using the date of the adoption of this plan as a baseline.
■ Monitoring will be done through observations and by visitor service contacts with users.
A dministra five:
■ The BLM in, collaboration with partners, will establish a strong visitor services presence within the SRMA.
■ Coordinate with the Mohave County Sheriffs Office and other local enforcement agencies on issues and concerns relating to public safety within this SRMA.
Plomosa Special Recreation Management Area
The 1997 La Posa Interdisciplinary Management Plan covered much of the area within
this SRMA. This plan will be used as a framework, and updated to ensure that the
SRMA with its three RMZs (Back Country Byway, Plomosa Mountains, and Bouse
Plain) comply with the Approved RMP. These actions are common to all RMZs unless
otherwise noted.
Management:
■ Co-manage the area with Yuma Field Office to meet DFC set in this Approved RMP and goals and objectives set in the 1997 La Posa Interdisciplinary Management Plan.
■ Cooperate with AGFD regarding sensitive species and their habitat.
■ Establish partnerships with La Paz County, the communities of Bouse and Quartzsite and others to nominate the Plomosa Road within the Back Country Byway RMZ as a Department of the Interior Back Country Byway.
■ Make determinations as to where specific trails, trailheads, facilities and kiosks will be needed in conjunction with the proposed Back Country Byway, and cultural and biological resource needs and mitigations.
■ Bouse Plain RMZ will continue to provide opportunities for dispersed recreation.
Marketing:
■ Strive to involve user groups, volunteers, and other interested public to help maintain resources through partnerships, adoption programs, special events, and/or a “friends group.”
■ Marketing will be commensurate with the ability of the RMZ to maintain the experience and recreational benefits, which are described in the DFC (Table 2-22 of the PRMP/FEIS).
■ Marketing for the Plomosa Road Back Country Byway will be regional in nature and in response to local visitation.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-35
May 2007
■ In the Plomosa Mountains RMZ, no marketing will be done until use analysis determines that levels have increased, that recreation and tourism present significant conflicts with other resource values or that unforeseen recreation activities have emerged which present unique management challenges.
■ Tread Lightly travel and camping techniques will be encouraged throughout the lands managed by LHFO.
Monitoring:
■ Resources will be evaluated to ensure that there be no net loss of quality regarding the recreation or natural resources that provide the targeted benefits and opportunities using the date of the adoption of this plan as a baseline.
■ Dispersed camping areas in the Bouse Plain will be monitored for the total number of conflicts with other resources and the ability to provide the targeted benefits.
■ Monitoring will be done through observations, visitor service contacts, site stewards, AGFD personnel and volunteers and using traffic counters, GPS and photo-telemetry.
Administrative:
■ The BLM, in collaboration with partners, will establish a strong visitor services presence within the SRMA, especially with AGFD.
■ Coordinate with the La Paz County Sheriffs Office on matters relating to public safety within this SRMA.
Swansea Special Recreation Management Area
The implementation of recreation management for this SRMA will be incorporated into the implementation plan for the Swansea Historic District ACEC. The activity planning framework for this SRMA also incorporates the 1 997 Swansea Historic District Cultural Resources Management Plan. These actions are covering all of the SRMA unless otherwise noted.
Management:
■ Additional SRMA facilities will be considered to manage conflicts between visitor use and cultural resources or public and/or to maintain the identified recreational experiences and benefits for the public.
■ The BLM will continue working with volunteers such as the Friends of Swansea to maintain and enhance the cultural resources and educate the public.
■ Temporary closures will be utilized in parts of the Swansea SRMA while stabilization/preservation work and maintenance is completed, if necessary, for the protection of the work site and/or resources.
■ The current supplemental rules 43 CFR 8365. 1-6 part 2 would be maintained, rules covering;
□ Camping limitations (to developed sites campsites for no more than 3 days).
□ Fire restrictions.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-36
May 2007
□ No collecting - fire wood or other items.
□ Safety closures of structures.
■ Except for legal hunting, the BLM will enforce the area as a no recreational shooting zone.
■ Interpretive trails will continue to be developed and maintained.
■ Existing motorized route designations will be valid and incorporated into the ACEC and TMP plans. The BLM will rehab non-designated routes and trails.
Marketing:
■ Develop opportunities to maintain resources through information/education to the public about cultural resources.
■ Pursue local partnerships with La Paz County and others to market the SRMA to local, regional, and national visitors.
■ Marketing will be commensurate with the ability of the area to maintain its remote setting.
Monitoring:
■ Maintenance of resource and recreational benefits sustainability shall be paramount in all monitoring activities.
■ Resources will be evaluated to ensure that there be no net loss of quality regarding the recreation or cultural resources that provide the targeted benefits and opportunities using the date of the adoption of this plan as a baseline.
■ Monitoring will be accomplished formally and informally using the best available science and techniques.
A dministra tive:
■ The BLM, in collaboration with partners and friends group, will establish a stronger visitor services presence within the SRMA.
■ SRP will be limited to those activities and events that will help public recognize the identified recreational experiences and benefits. No SRP for competitive events will be issued.
■ Coordinate with the La Paz County Sheriffs Office on issues and concerns relating to public safety within this SRMA.
Standard Operating Procedures
FLPMA provides for management of outdoor recreation resourees on public lands. Section 202(c) (9) calls for land use planning consistent with Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (1989, 1994, 2003). Other national laws that govern the management of recreation in LHFO include the National Trails System Act of 1968, as amended; the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964, as amended; the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended; and the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-37
May 2007
Public lands along the Colorado River are to be managed in conformance with the Colorado River Floodway Protection Act of October 8, 1986 (Public Law 99-450) as amended 1994.
Generally, the goal of the LHFO outdoor recreation program is to ensure the continued availability of public land for a diverse array of quality outdoor recreation opportunities. Recreation use is managed to protect the health and safety of visitors; to protect natural, cultural, and other resource values; to stimulate enjoyment of public lands; and to resolve user conflicts. Visitor demands for new recreation will continue to influence the nature of recreational opportunities on publie lands.
Most public lands are managed to maintain a freedom of recreational choice with a minimum of regulatory constraints. Where the nature of the resource and visitation dictates, public lands can be managed as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA). Primary concerns in recreation management planning are for resource protection, public health and safety, and enjoyment.
LHFO will continue using the following guidanee to manage recreational use:
■ Concession leases are considered when necessary to provide developed commercial recreation opportunities in appropriate settings when and where it would not be feasible for the BLM or other government agencies to do so. These leases authorize the construction and/or implementation of long-term facilities and services that will require a substantial financial investment by private business or other non- governmental entities.
■ Universal designs to facilitate needs of the physically challenged will be used in all or part of new construction or rebuilt BLM facilities.
■ The BLM will provide law enforcement rangers to protect natural and cultural resources and help provide for public health and safety.
■ The BLM will strive to make available staff members to provide visitor serviees, interpretive programs and maintain an ageney presence within SRMAs. Their mission will be regularly to contact the public for resource information and environmental education. These staff members will be additional to law enforcement rangers.
■ The BLM will fully support Arizona Revised Statute 17-308, Unlawful Camping (no camping within 0.25 mile of natural or human-made water hole).
Special Recreation Permits
Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) are authorizations allowing specific recreation uses of public lands and related waters. SRPs are issued to manage visitor use and protect natural and cultural resources while avoiding user conflicts. The legal authorities are the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 USC 1701 e/ seq., and the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended, 16 USC 460/-6a. BLM Handbook H-2930-1 Recreation Permit Administration application process contains applicable laws, policy, rules and regulations and eonformance with resouree planning deeisions. The decision to authorize a proposed use depends on potential resource impacts, conflicts with other users, any public health and safety issues, past or present performance of the applicant
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-38
May 2007
with the BLM or other agencies, and LHFO receiving a complete SRP application in a timely manner to process and administer the permit.
Types of Permits
1 . Commercial Use: recreational use of the public lands and related waters for business or financial gain.
2. Competitive Use: any organized sanctioned or structured use, event or activity on public land and related waters in which two or more participants compete and
(a) participants register, enter and/or complete an application; (b) a predetermined course or area is designated; or (c) participants contest an established record such as speed or endurance.
3. Organized group activity or event: a structured, ordered, consolidated, or scheduled event or occupation of public lands for recreational purposes not considered commercial or competitive.
4. Vending Use: use permitted to market, sell, or rent recreation-related goods or services including but not limited to, food, beverages, clothing, firewood, tool or equipment repair on public lands or related waters.
Vending on Public Lands
Vending is the marketing or sale of approved products or services to members of the public by a person or persons authorized by the BLM.
Such sales may occur on concessions by parties to whom a concession lease has been issued. Concession leases are ordinarily utilized by the BLM where long-term operations are desired and where a sizeable investment by a non-government or private party is required to furnish real property improvements.
Vending may also occur on a more restricted basis, for temporary or short periods at narrowly prescribed locations. For discussion in this plan, a vending permit is either a Special Recreation Permit or a Land Use Permit (43 CFR 2920, Leases, Permits and Easements), which may allow specific individuals commercial rights to sell services or items on public lands for a specified time period. Vending on Lake Havasu is included insofar as the vendor will anchor or operate within BLM-managed areas.
The BLM will charge for its vending permits, and will never receive less than full fair value, which at a minimum will be its cost to issue and administer the vending permit. The BLM may submit vending endeavors to a competitive bidding process and/or such other requirements it deems necessary to ensure minimum impact on the resource, minimum commercial intrusion on visitors to public lands, and to ensure that maximum quality, safety, and value are offered to the public when vending operations are necessaiy and appropriate.
Necessary means that the proposed vending contributes to visitor understanding and enjoyment of Lake Havasu, and that it enhances visitor experiences consistent with BLM resource values. Necessary also means that vending assists in managing visitor use and is
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-39
May 2007
an essential service or facility not available within a reasonable distance in the established business community.
Appropriate means the proposed vending activity is consistent with resource management laws, regulations, and policies applicable and that it does not compromise public health and safety or significantly impact or impair resources or values. Appropriate also means that the proposed vending activity does not unduly conflict with other uses or provide unfair or undue competition with existing similar businesses. Vending also will not exclude the general public from participating in recreational opportunities.
Vending authorizations are a privilege and revocable without compensation under conditions named by the BLM. The BLM has no obligation to issue or to renew a vending permit of any kind to any party. Vending permits are further managed according to BLM Handbook H-2930-1, Recreation Permit Administration (2003).
Some commercial and organized group uses requiring Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) have little to no resource impacts, user conflicts, or health and safety concerns, and usually require little monitoring. Examples of such uses are hunting outfitter and guide operations, motorized tours, photography tours, nature hikes, dual-sport rides, horseback rides, and organized club campouts. Special stipulations for SRPs have been developed to protect natural resources, reduce user conflicts, and minimize health and safety risks. These stipulations are included with all authorized SRPs and must be followed to keep the permit valid (see Appendix I).
Final decisions for permit issuance will be based on other valid concerns, including the following:
■ performance
■ other conflicting activities such as hunting seasons
■ the BLM’s ability to process the permit
■ other unforeseen circumstances
The permittee must also comply with any special allocations or restrictions. Proposed uses that do not meet the above criteria will be subject to further environmental analysis.
Special Designations
Administrative Actions
ACECs
■ Partnerships will be sought to provide for cooperative management of the ACEC including but not limited, other agencies, city municipalities, and other interested stakeholders, e.g., Beale Slough.
■ The BLM will work with partners, local, state, and private landowners to secure conservation easements where necessary to protect designating values of ACEC.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-40
May 2007
Wilderness
■ Provide guidance for the application of nonconforming but accepted uses permitted by the Wilderness Act and subsequent laws. This guidance will be established in the following plans:
□ The East Cactus Plain Wilderness will be managed under the 1994 East Cactus Plain Wilderness Management Plan', this plan will be updated as needed.
□ Gibraltar Mountain WA will be managed under the 2001 Gibraltar Mountain Interdisciplinary Management Plan and updated as needed.
□ Segments of the Dead Mountains Wilderness, Chemehuevi Mountains Wilderness, and Whipple Mountains Wilderness plans will be completed in conjunction with the Needles Field Office.
□ An interdisciplinary plan will be developed for the Bill Williams River area, which will incorporate the Rawhide Mountains and Swansea WAs.
□ Harcuvar Mountains WAs will be managed under the East Harcuvar Mountains Interdisciplinary Management Plan, which is now in preparation.
■ Reduce unauthorized vehicle use in all WAs through use of visitor education outside of wilderness, construction of trailheads, and development of barriers and/or restoration of closed vehicle trails.
■ Sign wilderness boundaries along boundary roads at least every 0.2 mile or at specific sites of vehicle intrusion.
Wild and Scenic River Management
■ Instream flow will be monitored to establish the minimum flow necessary to protect the outstandingly remarkable values.
Travel Management Administrative Actions
■ The BLM will identify a Travel Management Network (TMN) through the development of an activity-level plan(s).
■ Area designations (e.g., open, closed, and limited) set in the Approved RMP will not be changed by the activity-level plan without an amendment to the Approved RMP.
■ Public scoping meetings will be held in local communities on the proposed TMN (route designations).
■ The BLM will evaluate the TMN as needed, and proposed new routes (motorized and non-motorized) will be considered during development of the TMP.
■ All routes will be analyzed during the route evaluation process, considering all uses and resources within the area. No use or resource will automatically predetermine a route decision.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-41
May 2007
■ The BLM will continue to work with state or local agencies to provide necessary public access from their public roads to the secondary routes on public lands.
■ The BLM will help inform the public about requirements for access on or across private and state lands adjacent to LHFO lands. Any designated routes would not include non-BLM lands.
■ California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)’s and AGFD’s use of motorized and mechanized equipment off designated routes is considered an administrative use and will be allowed in suitable locations (as agreed to by BLM, CDFG, and AGFD) for such purposes as the following;
□ water supplementation
□ collar retrieval
□ capture and release of wildlife
□ maintenance, repair, and building or rebuilding of wildlife
The goals of the TMP will be in concurrence with BLM’s 2001 National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands. The plan(s) will:
■ Use the six Travel Management Areas (TMAs) to develop the TMP (see Map 30 in the Approved RMP). These areas are consistent with LHFO access guides, providing for more public familiarity. When establishing these TMAs, LHFO considered public use patterns on routes around local communities or other major recreational destinations, and other resource program goals and objectives.
■ Identify trails, ways, and routes in the LHFO planning area intended for motorized and non-motorized travel on public lands.
■ Improve legal access to public lands by identifying access needs across non-federal lands and recommend acquisifion and funding strategies.
■ Provide reasonable access to private inholdings surrounded by public lands.
■ Be consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and develop greater access for the physically challenged.
■ Set guidelines for managing roads and trails to protect resource values, promote public safety, and improve public compliance on designated routes.
■ Develop monitoring procedures sufficient to detect and evaluate related public safety or natural resource impacts so that management changes could occur, if needed.
■ Create an implementation schedule that must cover public education, mapping, signing of designated trails and routes, rehabilitation of closed routes, law enforcement, and maintenance.
■ Incorporate the effective use of volunteers to provide “on the ground” information and route marking/signing for the public.
■ Increase public involvement in the establishment, monitoring, and protection of routes/trails on public lands.
■ Set timelines for monitoring and plan review.
Cross-country motorized use will be prohibited, except in designated open areas and for authorized administrative uses.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-42
May 2007
standard Operating Procedures
Public lands managed by the BLM are intemiingled with other federal agencies, eounty, state, and private lands. Managing aceess to and across public lands is a vital task for the BLM. This authority ineludes but is not limited to items listed below.
■ Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 USC 1701 et seq.)
■ Endangered Species Act ( 1 6 USC 1531 et seq. )
■ National Trails System Aet (16 USC 1241 et seq.)
■ Amerieans with Disabilities Act
■ Executive Order 1 1644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Publie Lands
■ Exeeutive Order 1 1989, Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Amendment to E.O. 11644)
■ FLPMA Title 5 rights-of-way
■ Revised Statute (RS) 2477 roads
■ National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehiele Use on Publie Lands (2001)
■ National Mountain Bicycle Strategic Action Plan (2002)
From IMAZ-2005-007:
“Permittees (e.g., for hunting, wood gathering, livestock operators) shall comply with field office route designations. Exceptions may be authorized on a case-by-case basis.” “Outside of National Monuments and National Conservation Areas, motorized vehicles may be allowed through a resouree management plan level deeision to pull off a designated route 100 feet either side of centerline. This use shall be monitored on a continuing basis. If monitoring results show effeets that exceed limits of acceptable change, motorized vehieles would not be allowed to pull off a designated route 100 feet either side of centerline.”
“BLM would not develop, endorse, or publish road or trail ratings. BLM may describe physieal eharacteristics of a route.”
“Technieal Vehicle Specialized Sport Site - could be managed as a Recreation Management Zone (RMZ), but not part of the travel management network.”
Travel Management Network
All paved roads and gravel/dirt roads maintained by a state, county, or city will automatically be ineluded as open or limited in the TMP.
All other routes, including roads, trails, ways, or navigable washes shown on the existing inventory will be designated by the plan as either an open route, a limited route by type of use or season, or a route closed to motorized use.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-43
May 2007
Each route would be evaluated by a BLM interdisciplinary team using the criteria derived from Exeeutive Order 11644. Routes previously designated in an activity-level plan (e.g., Parker Strip Recreation Area Management Plan, Gibraltar Mountain Interdisciplinary Management Plan, and La Posa Interdisciplinary Management Plan) will not be affected. New route numbers may be assigned to previously designated routes to incorporate them into the TMN. Individual routes within these areas may be reevaluated only if it ean be shown that sensitive resources or recreational opportunities are impacted by the earlier designation.
While areas of publie lands designated as open will be exempt from route designation, specific routes crossing open areas may be identified as part of the TMN.
On public lands designated as closed (e.g., WAs), no roads or trails will be designated open for motorized travel. Roads and trails may be designated limited by type of use (horse, hiking, or administrative) or by season of use such as seasonal restrictions to minimize disturbance to wildlife during the times of the year when they are rearing young.
Revisions to the TMP would follow the same process described above, including public notification within the LHFO planning area, and will be subject to NEPA review and analysis.
Legal decisions can conceivably have an effect on the designation of routes.
Restoration of Closed Routes
The BLM’s strategy for restoring closed routes or trespasses will be accomplished as rapidly as funding permits. Sensitive resources in immediate danger, or those that have been damaged by vehicle trespass would be a high priority for restoration. Typically, the restoration will be limited to that portion of the route or trespass that is in line of sight from an open route. The proposal for restoration will include:
■ Not repairing washed-out routes.
■ Using natural barriers, sueh as large boulders.
■ Using rocks and dead and down wood to obscure the route entry way.
■ Employing vertical mulching and pitting.
■ Ripping up the route bed and reseeding with vegetation natural to that area.
■ Utilizing fences or barriers.
■ Providing signage, including information to OHV users, on the need and value of resource protection.
■ Leaving the first 1 00 feet from the centerline of an open route unrestored to provide pullout areas or camping opportunities intended to discourage or prevent new ground disturbance elsewhere.
Each route will be evaluated, and the least intrusive method will be used based on geography, topography, soils, hydrology, and vegetation.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-44
May 2007
Overflights
Aircraft overflights, including low-level helicopter and fixed-wing overflights by other agencies and other use of the airspace over public lands, are not regulated by the BLM. These uses occur now and would continue.
Visual Resource Management
Standard Operating Procedures
Class objectives will help the BLM apply visual design techniques to ensure that surface- disturbing activities are in harmony with their surroundings. A visual contrast rating process will be used for analysis, which involves comparing the project features with the major features in the existing landscape using the basic design elements of form, line, color, and texture. Visual design consideration will be incorporated into all surface- disturbing projects regardless of size or potential impact. Emphasis is placed on the BLM providing inputs during the initial planning and design phase to minimize costly redesign and mitigation at later phases of a project. The overall goal of VRM analysis is to minimize visual impacts through development of mitigating measures.
The BLM will analyze all surface-disturbing projects according to the guidelines and procedures provided in BLM Manual 8431-1, Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Visual simulations could be used in evaluating the visual resource effects of a project. These projects will be assessed for the degree of visual contrast from the landscape using the elements of form, line, color, and texture. Proposed surface-disturbing projects, will be evaluated from Key Observation Points for the following factors;
1. distance (project from Key Observation Points)
2. angle of observation
3. length of time the proposed project would be in view
4. relative size or scale
5. season of use
6. light conditions
7. recovery time
8. spatial relationships
9. atmospheric conditions
10. motion
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-45
May 2007
Water Resources
Standard Operating Procedures Watershed Management
FLPMA defines the BLM’s multiple-use management mission to include protection of watersheds. FLPMA requires that public lands be managed to protect scientific, environmental, air and atmospheric, and water resources. FLPMA also requires that the BLM develop land use plans to guide the Management Actions on these lands, and that land use plans comply with state and federal air, water, and pollution standards. In addition, BLM Manual 7000 and executive orders provide field guidance in managing soil, water, and air.
FLPMA requires compliance with the following laws:
■ Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935
■ Watershed Protection and Flood Control Act of 1954
■ Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974
■ Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968
■ National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
■ Federal Pollution Control Act with amendments of 1972
■ Clean Water Act of 1989
■ Safe Drinking Water Act of 1 977
Water Resource Management Program
The BLM’s water resource program consists of the following mandates:
■ To ensure the physical presence and legal availability of water on public lands.
■ To ensure that those waters meet or exceed federal and state water quality standards for specific uses.
■ To mitigate activities to prevent water quality degradation.
The water resource program is divided into three parts: water inventory, water rights, and monitoring.
BLM policy is to inventory all water resources on public lands it administers and to document and store this data in its Water Data Management System.
BLM policy on water is to file for water rights on all water sources on public and acquired lands in accordance with State of Arizona or California water laws. This water policy also requires the BLM to file a request for a recommendation for use of the waters of the Lower Colorado River with either the State of Arizona or the Colorado River
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-46
May 2007
Board of California. Upon receiving a positive recommendation, the BUM will enter an Interagency Agreement with BOR to legalize its use of Colorado River water. The Secretary of the Interior has given BOR authority to enter Colorado River contracts along the Lower Colorado River.
BLM policy is to monitor water quality to assess resource impacts from specific activities and to obtain baseline resource information.
Non-point source pollution abatement authority is addressed in Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 and the State of Arizona Environmental Quality Act of 1986. The BLM has agreements with both Arizona and California environmental departments regarding non-point source pollution controls and assures attainment of water quality to meet all designated beneficial uses. ADEQ monitors conditions and bi- annually publishes the status of water quality and any impaired waters.
Wild Burro Management Administrative Actions
Burro information will be included on bulletin boards and kiosks within HMAs.
Standard Operating Procedures
The BLM will coordinate with AGED and other affected interests during its evaluation of any proposed decisions or actions concerning burro management.
The BLM will work with AGFD to determine if Land Health Standards are being met and if any additional monitoring is needed to make such a determination.
All burro-related activities will be conducted in a manner that ensures the safety of the burros and personnel involved.
The BLM will continue to work collaboratively with AGFD to resolve burro-related issues.
Wild Burro Removals
All wild burros that are removed are made available for adoption through the Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Program.
Wild burros will be removed as nuisance animals whenever a safety problem becomes apparent (such as burros crossing highways, burro-related vehicle accidents, etc.). Removal of nuisance burros from private land is required when requested in writing from the landowner. Excess wild burros will be removed from the HMAs when the population exceeds the Appropriate Management Level (AML), as set by the Herd Management Area Plans.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-47
May 2007
Burros continuing to use public lands, even outside of a HA or HMA, as any part of their habitat remain protected under the Wild Horse and Burro Act. These burros will be removed by the BLM when requested, or when a regular removal is scheduled.
Methods for burro removal include bait or water trapping, roping, helicopter drive trapping, and helicopter-assisted roping. The method will vary with the situation. Helicopter drive trapping is usually required for gathering larger numbers of wild burros. Bait trapping is normally used for private land removals or when smaller numbers are planned for removal.
Wilderness Characteristics
Administrative Actions
■ Sites and areas affected by human activities will be reclaimed when such locales or sites are no longer needed by authorized land uses.
■ At time of renewal of any existing ROWs, the BLM will discuss with the grant holder the possibility of relocating the ROW outside of lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. Remove facilities that are no longer used.
■ Existing and new operations for locatable mining will be regulated using the 43 CFR 3809 regulations to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the lands.
■ AGFD’s use of motorized and mechanized equipment off designated routes is considered an administrative use and will be allowed in suitable locations (as agreed to by the BLM and AGFD) for such purposes including but not limited to:
□ Water supplementation.
□ Collar retrieval.
□ Capture and release of wildlife.
□ Maintenance, repair, and building or rebuilding of wildlife waters.
□ Discretionary surface-disturbing activities would be addressed as provided for in Management Actions.
Standard Operating Procedures
The BLM will review, through this land use planning process, lands within the planning area that may possess wilderness characteristics, but that are not currently designated WAs or WSAs. Consistent with the Secretary of the Interior letter to Senator Robert Bennett, dated April 11, 2003, the settlement in the case of Utah v. Norton, dated April 14, 2003, and IM No. 2003-275 - Change 1, Consideration of Wilderness Characteristies in Land Use Plans, dated October 23, 2003, the BLM has the authority to address wilderness characteristics and describe management prescriptions in the Approved RMP. In keeping with the public involvement process that is part of all land use planning efforts, the BLM is committed to considering public input regarding wilderness characteristics through the land use planning process. Where appropriate, the BLM may specify in the Approved RMP areas to be managed for maintenance or
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-48
May 2007
enhancement of their wilderness characteristics. However, also consistent with the documents cited above, the BLM will not establish new WSAs, manage any lands not already established as WSAs prior to April 2003 under the FLPMA Section 603 non- impairment standard, or report such areas to Congress. Where lands having resource values meeting the relevance and importance criteria necessary to establish an ACEC coincide with the presence of wilderness characteristics, the special management associated with an ACEC, if designated, may also protect wilderness characteristics.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
B-49
May 2007
cj( 'MLiaiL'' *icj
* . ... -
.■ ' •'-’y* ' ........ 'I
winu t-Ma'i rc^r»i0>v<i
^ " !' *
':, •'■ 'A;-' ■' .'-■' \"y.' : ' 'f' >. ' "' . ■ *“
,m<% jnattn^^a to >i liikyii
- ^10^ n)iik‘i' 'i ^
!'.,^;s3s|k
A'i,'" ’ *w;;', • ’< ' :‘7xASL^snfVM..u^crilk^'iis ,s>Jk ,.•■ mH
I i A ’ *.'.•
■I' ' ,
•I •, ,';.l
.■ i/‘ i
’Vfsi:’^/,
If r... x.i
..'■' ',•*■■ • ■*■■ , •-.* •' . .„
,'..V ._.•;■ ., ,' X.; :' >. i.&.i/'A
,Q'
I . '
_ ...fe-ill «.g Pn’^gcl'clu res
'" ' i^;4^
T A:
Appendix C
Biological Resources
The species listed in the following tables come from personal staff observations, information provided by partnering agencies, and texts listed in the reference section.
Vegetation
Table C-1: Vegetation Communities within LHFO Boundaries
|
Vegetation Community |
Acres |
LHFO Land |
Plant Growth Form |
Dominant Species |
Elevation (Feet) |
Climate |
Precipitation (inches) |
|
Lower Sonoran Desertscrub |
567,107.08 |
41.74% |
Shrub- microphyllous |
Creosotebush {Larrea tridentata) |
<3,000 |
Subtropical |
2-9 |
White bursage
{Ambrosia
dumosa)
Ocotillo
{Fouquieria
splendens)
Brittlebmsh
(Encelia
farinose)
Fourwing saltbrush {A triplex canescens)
Blue palo verde
(Parkinsonia
florida)
Foothill palo verde
{Parkinsonia
microphylla.)
Saguaro
{Carnegiea
gigantea)
Mesquite {Prosopis sp.)
Ironwood {Olneya tesota)
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-1
May 2007
Vegetation Acres LHFO Plant Growth Dominant Elevation Climate Precipitation Community Land Form Species (Feet) (inches)
Catclaw acacia
(Acacia
greggii)
Smoketree
(Psorothamnus
spinosus)
Big galleta grass
(Pleuraphis rigida thurb)
|
Upper 621,834.72 45.8% |
Shrub- |
Blue palo verde |
984- |
Subtropical 3-10 |
|
Sonoran |
microphyllous |
(Parkinsonia |
3,280 |
|
|
Desertscrub |
florida) |
Foothill palo verde
(Parkinsonia
microphyUa.)
Ironwood (Olneya tesota)
Creosotebush
(Larrea
tridentate)
White bursage
(Ambrosia
dumosa)
Ocotillo
(Fouquieria
splendens)
Jojoba
(Simmondsia
chinensis)
Cholla
(Opuntia spp.)
Fish-hook
pincushion
(Mammillaria
grahamii)
Compass cactus
(Ferrocactus
cylindracens)
Saguaro
(Carnegiea
gigantea)
|
Mohave 73,519.24 5.4% |
Shrub |
Creosotebush |
980- |
Warm- |
|
Desertscrub |
microphyllous |
(Larrea tridentatd) |
4,000 |
Temperate |
|
Joshua tree ( Yucca brevifolia) |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-2
May 2007
|
Vegetation Community |
Acres LHFO Plant Growth Dominant Elevation Climate Precipitation Land Form Species (Feet) (inches) |
|
Great Basin Pinyon- Juniper Woodland |
All-scale atriplex {Atrip lex plycarpa) Brittlebush (Encelia farinosd) Desert holly {Atripex hymenelytra) White burrobrush {Hymenolea salsola) Shadescale {Atriplex confertifolia) Blackbrush {Coleogyne ramosissima) Engleman hedgehog {Echinocereus engelmannii) Silver cholla {Opuntia echinocarpa) Mojave pricklypear {Opuntia phaeacantha) Beavertail cactus {Opuntia basilaris) Many-headed barrel cactus {Echinocactus polycephalus) Big galleta grass {Pleuraphis rigida) Numerous ephemeral forbs 254.53 0.02% Tree-Conifer California 5,000- Warm- 5-15 juniper 5,100 Temperate {Juniperus californica) |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-3
May 2007
|
Vegetation Community |
Acres LHFO Plant Growth Dominant Elevation Climate Precipitation Land Form Species (Feet) (inches) |
|
Interior Chaparral |
Singleleaf pinyon pine {Finns monophylla) Big sagebrush {Artemisia tridentata) Snakeweed ( Gutierrezia sarothrae) Rabbitbush {Ericameria spp.) Winterfat {Ceratoides lanata) Cliffrose {Purshia Stans buriana) Apache plume {Fallugia paradoxa) Blue gramma {Bouteloua gracilis) Galleta grass {Pleuraphis jamesii) Indian rice grass {Achrathernm hymenoidesi) Western wheatgrass {Agropyron smithii) Several muhleys {Muhlenbergia sp.) Dropseeds {Sporobolns sp.) 35,139.24 2.48% Shrub- Shrub live oak 3,280- Warm- 5-15 sclerophyll {Quercus 6,070 Temperate turbineUa) |
Skunkbush
sumac
(Aromatica
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-4
May 2007
Vegetation Acres LHFO Plant Growth Dominant Elevation Climate Precipitation Community Land Form Species (Feet) (inches)
vartrilobata)
Silktassel {Garry a fJavescens)
Desert
ceanothus
{Ceanothus
greggii)
Cliffrose
(Purshia
stansburiana)
Arizona rosewood ( Vauquelina californica)
Sideoats
gramma
{Bouteloua
curtipendula)
Hairy gramma
{Bouteloua
hirsute)
Plains
lovegrass
{Eragrostis
intermedia)
Wolftail
{Lycurus
setosus)
Single
threeawn
{Aristida
schiedeana).
|
Riparian |
5,253.11 |
0.4% |
Tree- |
Mesquite Various Various |
Various |
|
deciduous |
{Prosopis sp.) |
Gooddings willow {Salix gooddingii)
Netleaf
hackberry
{Celtis
reticulata)
Cottonwood
{Populus
fremontii)
Arrow-weed
{Pluchea
sericea)
Quailbush
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-5
May 2007
Vegetation Acres LHFO Plant Growth Dominant Elevation Climate Community Land Form Species (Feet)
{Atriplex
lentiformis)
Saltcedar {Tamar ix sp.)
Mesquite/ 43,443.69 3.2%
Ephemeral
Wash
Woodland
Tree-
deciduous
|
Agriculture |
1,765.84 |
0.13% |
|
Urban |
1,872.77 |
0.13% |
|
Water |
8,198.58 |
0.6% |
|
1,358,389.1 |
100% |
|
|
4 |
Brown 1982.
Mesquite Various Various
{Pros op is sp.)
Desert star vine
(Brandegea
bigelovii)
Cat's claw acacia {Acacia greggii)
Blue palo verde
{Parkinsonia
florida),
Ironwood {Olneya tesota)
Saltcedar {Tamarix sp.)
Precipitation
(inches)
Various
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-6
May 2007
Table C-2: Submerged and Aquatic Plants of Lake Havasu and Lower Colorado River
|
Type |
Scientific Name |
Common name |
Origin |
|
Submerged aquatic |
Ceratophyllum |
Coon’s tail |
Native |
|
species |
dermersum |
||
|
Chara sp. |
Muskgrass |
Native |
|
|
Potamogelon sp. |
Pondweed |
Native |
|
|
Najas marina |
Spiny naiad |
Native |
|
|
Myriophyllum sp. |
Watermilfoil |
Non-Native |
|
|
Emergent |
Typha sp. |
Cattail |
Native |
|
Hydrocotyle sp. |
Pennywort |
Native |
|
|
Jimcus sp. |
Rush |
Native |
|
|
Scirpus olneyi |
Salt marsh |
Native |
|
|
sedge |
|||
|
Rorippa sp. |
Watercress |
Native |
|
|
Ruppia sp. |
Widgeon grass |
Native |
|
|
Floating |
Lemna sp. |
Duckweed |
Native |
|
Minckly pers comm.; Blair pers comm., 2005. |
Table C-3: Plants Possibly Found in the LHFO Boundary
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Algae |
|||
|
CHARACEAE |
Nitella hyaline |
Muskgrass |
|
|
Green Algae |
|||
|
Ferns and Fern Allies |
|||
|
DRYOPTERIDACEAE |
Woodsia oregano |
Oregon woodsia |
Perennial herb |
|
Wood Fern |
|||
|
EQUISETACEAE |
Equisetum hyemale |
Common scouringrush |
|
|
Horsetail |
Equisetnm funstonii |
California horsetail |
|
|
PTERIDACEAE |
Adiantum eapillus- |
Venus hair fern, Maidenhair fern |
Perennial herb |
|
Brake |
veneris |
||
|
Cheilanthes covillei |
Coville’s lipfem |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Cheilanthes parryi |
Parry’s cloakfem |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Pallaea mucronata var. californica |
Birdsfoot fern |
Perennial |
|
|
Pentagramma triangularis |
Goldback fern |
Perennial herb |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-7
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Gymnosperms |
|||
|
CUPRESSACEAE |
Juniperus californica |
California juniper |
Tree |
|
Cypress |
|||
|
PINACEAE |
Pinus monophylla |
Singleleaf pinyon pine |
Tree |
|
Pine |
|||
|
EPHEDRACEAE |
Ephedra faciculata |
Mohave ephedra |
Shrub |
|
Ephedra |
Ephedra funereal |
Death Valley ephedra |
Shrub |
|
Ephedra nevadensis |
Nevada Morman Tea |
Shrub |
|
|
Ephedra torreyana |
Torrey ephedra |
Shrub |
|
|
Angiosperms (Dicots) |
|||
|
AZIOECEAE |
Sesuvium verriicosum |
Western sea purslane |
Perennial herb |
|
Carpetweed |
Trianthema portuacastrum |
Horse purslane |
Annual |
|
AMARANTHACEAE |
Amaranthus blitoides |
Prostrate pigweed |
Annual |
|
Amaranth |
Amaranthus fimbriants |
Fringed amaranth |
Annual |
|
Amaranthus retroflexus |
Red root pigweed |
Annual |
|
|
Tidestromia lanuginose |
Espanta vaqueros |
Annual |
|
|
Tidestromia oblongifolia |
Honeysweet |
Perennial herb |
|
|
APIACEAE |
Bowlesia incana |
Bowlesia, Pennywort |
Annual |
|
Carrot, Parsley |
Cymopteris purpurascens |
Widewing spring parsley |
Perennial herb |
|
Hydrocotyle verticillata |
Water (whorled) pennywort |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Lornatiim foeniculaceum |
Desert parsley |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Lomatium parryi |
Parrys lomatium |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Yabea microcarpa |
California hedge parsley |
Annual |
|
|
APOCYNACEAE |
Amsonia tomentosa |
Woolly amsonia |
Perennial herb |
|
Dogbane |
Apocynum cannabinum |
Indian hemp |
Perennial herb |
|
ASCLEPIADACEAE |
Asclepia erosa |
Desert milkweed |
Perennial herb |
|
Milkweed |
Asclepia subulata |
Rush milkweed |
Shrub |
|
Asclepia albicans |
White-stemmed milkweed |
Perennial |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-8
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Asclepias suhverticillata |
Whorled milkweed |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Cynanchum utahense |
Swallowwort |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Sarcostemrna hirtellum |
Trailing milkweed |
Perennial vine |
|
|
Sarcostemma heterophyllum |
Climbing milkweed |
Perennial vine |
|
|
ASTERACEAE |
Acamptopappus |
Goldenhead |
Shrub |
|
Sunflower |
sphaerocephalus |
||
|
Acourtia wrightii |
Wrights perezia |
Shrub |
|
|
Adenophyllnm cooperi |
Coopers glandweed |
Perennial |
|
|
Adenophyllum porophylloides |
San Diego dyssodia |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Ambrosia acanthicarpa |
Sand bursage, Sandbur |
Annual |
|
|
Ambrosia ambrosiodes |
Ambrosia leaved burbrush |
Shrub |
|
|
Ambrosia dumosa |
White bursage |
Shrub |
|
|
Ambrosia eriocentra |
Woolly bursage |
Shrub |
|
|
A mphipappus fremontii |
Chaffbrush |
Shrub |
|
|
Anisocoma acaulis |
Scalebud |
Annual |
|
|
Artemisia carruthii |
Carruths wormwood |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Artemisia ludoviciana |
Western mug wort |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Aster eatonii |
Eaton aster |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Aster exilis |
Slender aster |
Annual |
|
|
Aster tephrodes |
Ash-colored aster |
Biennial |
|
|
Atrichoseris pltyphylla |
Gravel ghost, Parachute Plant |
Annual |
|
|
Baccharis brachyphyUa |
Shortleaf seepwillow |
Shrub |
|
|
Baccharis emoryi |
Emory’s seepwillow |
Shrub |
|
|
Baccharis salicifolia |
Sticky seepwillow |
Shrub |
|
|
Baccharis sarothroides |
Broom baccharis |
Shrub |
|
|
Baccharis sergiloides |
Squaw waterweed, desert baccharis |
Shrub |
|
|
Baccharis vimenea |
Mulefat |
Shmb |
|
|
Baileya midtiradiata |
Desert marigold |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Baileya pleniradiata |
Woolly desert marigold |
Annual |
|
|
Bebbia jimcea |
Sweetbbush |
Shmb |
|
|
Brickellia arguta |
Spiny brickellbush |
Shmb |
|
|
Brickellia atractyloides |
Spiny brickellbush |
Shrub |
|
|
Brickellia califonica |
California brickellbush |
Shrub |
|
|
Brickellia desertorum |
Desert brickellbush |
Shrub |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-9
May 2007
Scientific Name
Common Name
Classification
Family Name
|
Brickellia incana |
Woolly brickellbush |
Shrub |
|
Brickellia longifolia |
Willowleaf brickellbush |
Shrub |
|
Brickellia oblongifolia |
Mohave brickellbush |
Perennial herb |
|
Calycoseris parryi |
Y ellow tackstem, Perrys tackstem |
Annual |
|
Calycoseris wrightii |
White tackstem |
Annual |
|
Chaenactis carphoclinia |
Pebble pincushion |
Annual |
|
Chaenactis fremontii |
Fremonts pincushion, Desert pincushion |
Annual |
|
Chaenactis macrantha |
Mojave pincushion |
Annual |
|
Chaenactis stevioides |
Esteves pincushion, Desert pincushion |
Annual |
|
Chloracantha spinosa |
Mexican devilweed |
Subshrub |
|
Chrysopsis villosa |
Golden aster |
Perennial herb |
|
Cirsium arizonicum |
Arizona thistle |
Biennial |
|
Cirsinm mohavense |
Mojave thistle |
Biennial |
|
Cirsium neomexicanum |
New Mexico thistle |
Biennial |
|
Cirsium wheeleri |
Wheelers Thistle |
Perennial herb |
|
Conyza canadensis |
Horseweed |
Annual |
|
Conyza coulteri |
Coulters horseweed |
Annual |
|
Crepis intermedia |
Grays hawksbeard |
Perennial herb |
|
Dicoria canescens |
Dune dicoria, desert dicoria. Grays sandplant, bug seed |
Annual |
|
Eclipta prostrate |
Wormbane |
Annual |
|
Encelia farinose |
Brittlebush |
Shrub/Common |
|
Encelia frutescens |
Bush encelia, rayless encelia |
Shrub |
|
Encelia virginensis |
Virgin encelia |
Shrub |
|
Enceliopsis argophylla |
Sunray |
Perennial herb |
|
Ericameria cooperi |
Cooper’s goldenbrush |
Shrub |
|
Ericameria cuneata |
Wedgeleaf goldenbrush |
Shrub |
|
Ericameria laricifolia |
Turpentinebrush |
Shrub |
|
Ericameria linearifolia |
Mohave goldenbrush |
Shrub |
|
Ericameria nana |
Dwarf goldenbrush |
Shrub |
|
Ericameria nauseosus |
Rubber rabbitbrush |
Shrub |
|
Ericameria paniculatus |
Mohave rabbitbrush |
Shrub |
|
Ericameria teretifolius |
Needleleaf rabbitbrush |
Shrub |
|
Erigeron concinnus |
Elegant fleabane |
Perennial herb |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-10
May 2007
Scientific Name
Common Name
Classification
Family Name
|
Erigeron lobatus |
Lobeleaf fleabane |
Annual |
|
Ehophylliim lanosum |
White woolly daisy |
Annual |
|
Eriophyllim wallacei |
Woolly daisy, Wallace daisy |
Annual |
|
Eupatorium herbaceim |
White thoroughwort |
Perennial herb |
|
Filago califonica |
Fluffweed |
Annual |
|
Filago depressa |
Little fluffweed |
Annual |
|
Geraea canescens |
Desert sunflower |
Annual |
|
Glyptopleura marginata |
Crustweed |
Annual |
|
Gnaphalium palustre |
Lowland everlasting |
Annual |
|
Gnaphalium stramineum |
Yellow everlasting |
Biennial |
|
Gnaphalium wrightii |
Wrights everlasting |
Perennial herb |
|
Gutierrezia microcephala |
Matchweed |
Shrub |
|
Gutierrezia sarothrae |
Snakeweed |
Shrub |
|
Helianthus annuus |
Common sunflower |
Annual |
|
Helianthus anomalus |
Sand sunflower |
Annual |
|
Heterotheea psammophila |
Camphorweed, Sand golden aster |
Annual/Biennial |
|
Hymenoclea salsola |
Cheesebush |
Shrub |
|
Hymenoxys richardsonii |
Colorado rubberplant |
Perennial herb |
|
Isocoma acradenia |
Alkali goldenbush |
Shrub |
|
Iva axillaries |
Poverty weed |
Perennial herb |
|
Lactuca tatarica |
Blue lettuce |
Perennial herb |
|
Layia glandulosa |
White layia |
Annual |
|
Machaeranthera arida |
Silver Lake daisy |
Annual |
|
Machaeranthera asteroids |
Emorys aster |
Perennial herb |
|
Machaeranthera |
Thickleaf aster |
Biennial |
|
canescens |
||
|
Machaeranthera pinnatifida |
Spiny goldenbush |
Perennial herb |
|
Malacothrix clevelandii |
Cleveland desert dandelion |
Annual |
|
Malacothrix coulteri |
Snakeshead |
Annual |
|
Malacothrix glabrata |
Desert dandelion |
Annual |
|
Malacothrix sonchoides |
Yellow saucers |
Annual |
|
Monoptilon bellidiforme |
Desert star |
Annual |
|
Monoptilon belioides |
Mohave Desert star |
Annual |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-11
May 2007
Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Classification
|
Palafoxia arida |
Spanish needle |
Annual |
|
Pectis papposa |
Chinchweed |
Annual |
|
Perityle congesta |
Compact rockdaisy |
Perennial herb |
|
Perityle emoryi |
Rockdaisy |
Annual |
|
Perityle megalocephala |
Largehead rockdaisy |
Perennial |
|
Peucephyllum schottii |
Pygmy cedar, desert fir |
Shrub |
|
Pleurocoronis pluriseta |
Arrowleaf |
Shrub |
|
Pluchea odorata |
Saltmarsh fleabane |
Shrub |
|
Pluchea sericea |
Arrowweed |
Shrub |
|
Porophyllum graeile |
Odora |
Subshrub |
|
Prenanthella exigua |
Prenanthella |
Annual |
|
Psathyrotes annua |
Mealy rosettes |
Annual |
|
Psathyrotes pilifera |
Piliferous turtleback |
Annual |
|
Psathyrotes |
Turtleback |
Annual |
|
ramosissima |
||
|
Psilostrophe cooperi |
Paperflower |
Shrub |
|
Rafinesquia californica |
California chicory |
Annual |
|
Rafinesquia |
Desert chicory |
Annual |
|
neomexicana |
||
|
Senecio flaccidus |
Groundsel |
Perennial herb |
|
Senecio mohavensis |
Mohave groundsel |
Annual |
|
Senecio multilobatus |
Vinta groundsel |
Perennial herb |
|
Solidago confines |
Southern goldenrod |
Perennial herb |
|
Sonchus asper |
Prickly sowthistle |
Annual |
|
Sonchus oleraceus |
Common sowthistle |
Annual |
|
Stephanomeria pauciflora |
Wire lettuce |
Perennial herb |
|
Stephanomeria thurheri |
Thurbers wire lettuce |
Perennial |
|
Sty Iodine intertexta |
Morefield neststraw |
Annual |
|
Stylocline micropoides |
Desert neststraw |
Annual |
|
Sty Iodine ps ilocarpho ides |
Pecks neststraw |
Annual |
|
Taraxacum officinale |
Dandelion |
Perennial herb |
|
Tetradymia canescens |
Horshbrush |
Shrub |
|
Tetradymia stenolepis |
Mojave horsebush |
Shrub |
|
Thymophylla |
Scale glandbush |
Low shrub |
pentachaeta
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-12
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Trichoptilium incisum |
Yellowheads |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Trixis californica |
Trixis |
Shrub |
|
|
Uropappus lindleyi |
Silver stars, silver puffs |
Annual |
|
|
Viguiera parishii |
Goldeneye |
Shrub |
|
|
Xanthium strumarium |
Cocklebur |
Annual |
|
|
Xylorhiza tortifolia |
Desert aster |
Shrub |
|
|
BIGNONIACEAE |
Chilopsis linearis |
Desert willow |
Shrub/Tree |
|
Bignonia |
|||
|
BORAGINACEAE |
Amsinckia eastwoodiae |
Tarweed fiddleneck |
Annual |
|
Forget-Me-Not |
|||
|
Amsinckia menziesii |
Ranchers fireweed |
Annual |
|
|
Amsinckia tesseUate |
Rough fiddleneck |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha angustifolia |
Narrowleaf cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha barbigera |
Bearded cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha cinerea |
Bownut cryptantha |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Ciyptantha circumscissa |
Opening cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha decipiens |
Beguiling cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Ciyptantha dumetorum |
Greenes cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha holoptera |
Winged cryptantha |
Annual - |
|
|
Ciyptantha maritime |
Guadalupe cryptantha, white-hared forget-me-not |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha micratha |
Redroot cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha muricata |
Prickly cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha nevadensis |
Nevada cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha pterocarya |
Wingnut cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Cryiptantha racemosa |
Baja cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha recurvata |
Recurved cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha utahensis |
Scented cryptantha |
Annual |
|
|
Cryptantha virginensis |
Virgin River cryptantha |
Biennial/Perennial herb |
|
|
Heliotropium convolvulaceum |
False morning glory |
Annual |
|
|
Heliotropium curassavicum |
Elelioptrope |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Lappula occidentalis |
Western stickseed |
Annual |
|
|
Pectocaiya heterocarpa |
Unequal combseed |
Annual |
|
|
Pectocarya platycarpa |
Flattened combseed |
Annual |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-13
May 2007
Scientific Name
Common Name
Classification
Family Name
Pectocarya recurvata
Pectocarya setosa
Plagiobothrys
arizonicus
Plagiobothrys jonesii
Plagiobothrys
leptocladus
Tiqiiilia canescens
Tiquilia latior
Tiquilia palmeri
Tiquilia plicata
BRASSICACEAE Arabis glaucovalula
Mustard
Arabis gracilipes Arabis perennans Arabis pidchra Brassica jiincea Brassica tournefortii Capsella bursa-pastoris Caulanthus cooperi Descurainia obtuse Descurainia pinnata Descurainia Sophia Dithyrea californica Dr aba cuneifolia Erysimum capitatum Erysimum repandum Guillenia lasiophylla Lepidium densiflorum Lepidium dictyotum Lepidium fremontii Lepidium lasiocarpum Lepidium montanum Lesquerella tenella Lobularia maritime Malcolmia Africana
|
Bent combseed |
Annual |
|
Saucer combseed |
Annual |
|
Arizona popcomflower |
Annual |
|
Jones popcomflower |
Annual |
|
Hairy popcomflower |
Annual |
|
Woody tiquilia |
Perennial |
|
Matted tiguilia |
Perennial |
|
Palmers tiquilia |
Perennial herb |
|
Pleated tiquilia, Crinkle mats, Plicate codenia |
Perennial |
|
Mustard |
Perennial herb |
|
Rockcress |
Perennial herb |
|
Common rockcress |
Perennial herb |
|
Princess rockcress |
Perennial herb |
|
Indian mustard |
Annual |
|
Sahara mustard |
Annual |
|
Shephards purse |
Annual |
|
Coopers wild cabbage |
Annual |
|
Desert tansymustard |
Annual |
|
Pinnate tansymustard |
Annual |
|
Flixweed |
Annual |
|
Spectaclepod |
Annual |
|
Wedgeleaf |
Annual |
|
Wallflower |
Perennial herb |
|
Spreading wallflower |
Annual |
|
California mustard |
Annual |
|
Densecress |
Annual |
|
Alkali peppergrass |
Annual |
|
Desert alyssum |
Shmb |
|
Peppergrass |
Annual |
|
Mountain pepperplant |
Perennial herb |
|
Beadpod |
Annual |
|
Sweet alyssum |
Perennial herb |
|
African malcolmia |
Annual |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-14
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Physaria newberryi |
Newberrys twinpod |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Rorippa nasturtium- aquaticiim |
Watercress |
Perennial |
|
|
Sinapis arvensis |
Charlock |
Annual |
|
|
Sisymbrium altissimum |
Tumble mustard |
Annual |
|
|
Sisymbrium irio |
London rocket |
Annual |
|
|
Stanleya pinnata |
Princes plume |
Perennial |
|
|
Streptanthella longirostris |
Longbeak twistflower |
Annual |
|
|
Thelypodium integrifolium |
Tall thelypody |
Biennial |
|
|
Thelypodium wrightii |
Wrights thelypody |
Annual |
|
|
Thlaspi arvense |
Pennycress, fanweed |
Annual/Biennial |
|
|
Thysanocarpus curvipes |
Lacepod, fringepod |
Annual |
|
|
BUDDLEJACEAE |
Buddleja utahensis |
Panamint butterflybush |
Shrub |
|
Buddleja |
|||
|
CACTACEAE |
Echinocactus |
Cottontop cactus |
Perennial |
|
Cactus |
polycephalus |
||
|
Echinocereus |
Hedgehog cactus |
Perennial |
|
|
engelmannii |
_ |
||
|
Echinocereus fasciculatus |
Arizona hedgehog |
Perennial |
|
|
Ferocactus cylindraceus |
Barrel cactus |
Perennial |
|
|
Mammilaria grahamii |
Millers fishhook |
Perennial |
|
|
Mammilaria tetrancistra |
Fishhook cactus, pincushion cactus |
Perennial |
|
|
Opuntia acanthocarpa |
Buckhom cholla |
Perennial |
|
|
Opuntia basilaris |
Bakersfield cactus |
Perennial |
|
|
Opuntia bigelovii |
Teddybear cholla, jumpling cholla |
Perennial |
|
|
Opuntia chlorotica |
Pancake pricklypear |
Perennial |
|
|
Opuntia echinocarpa |
Silver cholla |
Perennial |
|
|
Opuntia erinacea |
Old man pricklypear, Mojave pricklypear |
Perennial |
|
|
Opuntia parishii Ore. |
Devil cholla, club cholla |
Perennial |
|
|
Opuntia polyacantha |
Central pricklypear, rufus-spine pricklypear |
Perennial |
|
|
Opuntia ramosissima |
Diamond cholla, pencil cholla |
Perennial |
|
|
Sclerocactus johnsonii |
Pigmy barrel cactus |
Perennial |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-15
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
CAMPANULACEAE |
Lobelia cardinalus |
Cardinal flower |
Perennial |
|
Bellflower |
|||
|
Nemacladus glanduliferus |
Slender threadplant |
Annual |
|
|
Nemacladus sigmoideus |
Curved threadplant |
Annual |
|
|
CAPPARACEAE |
Wislizenia refracta |
Jackass clover |
Annual |
|
Caper |
|||
|
CAPRIFOLIACEAE |
Subshrub |
||
|
Honeysuckle |
|||
|
CARYOPHYLLACEAE |
Achronychia cooperi |
Frostmat |
Annual |
|
Pink |
|||
|
Arenaria macradenia |
Shrubby sandwort, Desert sandwort |
Subshrub |
|
|
Scopulophila rixfordii |
Rixfords rockwort |
Perennial |
|
|
Silene antirrhina |
Annual catchfly |
Annual |
|
|
Spergularia marina |
Salt sandspurrey |
Annual |
|
|
Stellearia nitens |
Shining chickweed |
Annual |
|
|
CELASTRACEAE |
Mortonia utahensis |
Mortonia |
Shrub |
|
Staff tree |
|||
|
CHENOPODIACEAE |
Allenrolfea occidentalis |
Pickleweed |
|
|
Goosefoot |
|||
|
Atriplex canescens |
Fourwing saltbush |
Shrub |
|
|
Atriplex confertifolia |
Shadscale |
Shrub |
|
|
Atriplex elegans |
Wheelscale |
Annual |
|
|
Atriplex hymenelytra |
Desert holly |
Shrub |
|
|
Atriplex lentiformis Atriplex linearis |
Quailbrush Narrow-leaved saltbush |
Shrub |
|
|
Atriplex semibaccata |
Australian saltbush |
Perennial |
|
|
Bassia hyssopifolia |
Bassi, Fourhom smotherweed |
Annual |
|
|
Chenopodium album |
Lambs quarters, pigweed |
Annual |
|
|
Chenopodium berlandieri |
Berlandieris pigweed, pitseed goosefoot |
Annual |
|
|
Chenopodium fi^emontii |
Fremonts goosefoot |
Annual |
|
|
Corispermum villosum |
Bugseed |
Annual |
|
|
Grayia spinosa |
Hopsage |
Shrub |
|
|
Kochia scop aria |
Summer cypress |
Annual |
|
|
Krascheninnikovia lanata |
Winterfat |
Shrub |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-16
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Siiaeda moquinii |
Seepbush Iodine weed |
Perennial herb |
|
|
CONVOLVULACEAE |
Convolvulus arvensis |
Bindweed |
Perennial herb |
|
Morning glory |
Cuscuta denticulate |
Desert dodder |
|
|
CRASSULACEAE Stonecrop |
Dudleya pulverulenta |
Arizona liveforever, Chalk liveforever |
|
|
CROSSOSOMATACEAE |
Crossosoma bigelovii |
Greasewood |
Shrub |
|
Crossosoma |
Glossopetalon spinescens |
Nevada greasewood |
Shrub |
|
CUCURBITACEAE Gourd |
Cucurbita palmate |
Coyote melon, palmate leaved gourd |
Perennial vine |
|
Marah fabaceus |
Manroot |
Perennial vine |
|
|
Brandegea begelovii |
Desert star vine |
Perennial vine |
|
|
CUSCUTACEAE Dodder |
Cuscuta californica |
California dodder |
Annual vine/Parasitic |
|
Cuscuta denticulate |
Desert dodder |
Annual/Parasitic |
|
|
Cuscuta pentagona |
field dodder |
Annual vine/Parasitic |
|
|
ELAEAGNACEAE |
Elaeagnus angustifolia |
Russian olive |
Tree |
|
Oleaster |
- |
||
|
EUPORBIACEAE Spurge |
Chamaesyce albomarginata |
Sandmat, rattlesnake weed |
Perennial herb |
|
Chamaesyce micromera |
Desert spurge |
Annual |
|
|
Chamaesyce ocellata |
Valley spurge |
Annual |
|
|
Chamaesyce parishii |
Parishs spurge |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Chamaesyce ploycarpa |
Smallseed sandmat |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Croton californicus |
Sand croton |
Shrub |
|
|
Ditaxis neomexicana |
New Mexico ditaxis |
Annual |
|
|
Euphorbia incise |
Mojave spurge |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Stillingia linearifolia |
Narrowleaf stillingia |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Stillingia spinulosa |
Spiny stillingia |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Tetracoccus hallii |
Halls tetracoccus |
Shmb |
|
|
FABACEAE |
Acacia greggii |
Catclaw acacia |
Shmb |
|
Legume |
Astragalus acutirostris |
Sharpkeeled milkvetch |
Annual |
|
Astragalus calycosus |
Scapose milkvetch |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Astragalus geyeri |
Threecomer milkvetch |
Annual |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-17
May 2007
|
Family Name Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Astragalus layneae |
Layne milkvetch |
Perennial herb |
|
Astragalus lentiginosus |
Freckled milkvetch |
Annual/P erennial |
|
Astragalus mokiacensis |
Mokiak milkvetch |
Perennial |
|
Astragalus newberryi |
Newberry milkvetch |
Perennial herb |
|
Astragalus nutallianus |
Smallflower milkvetch |
Perennial |
|
Astragalus praelongus |
Stinking milkvetch |
Perennial herb |
|
Astragalus preussii |
Desert milkvetch |
Perennial |
|
Astragalus sabulonum |
Gravel milkvetch |
Annual |
|
Astragalus tephroedes |
Ashen milkvetch |
Perennial herb |
|
Parkinsonia floridum |
Blue Paloverde |
Tree |
|
Parkinsonia microphyllum |
Foothills Paloverde |
Tree |
|
Dalea mollis |
Silk Dalea |
Annual |
|
Dalea mollissima |
Silky prairieclover |
Annual |
|
Dalea searlsiae |
Searls prairieclover |
Perennial herb |
|
Lotus humistratus |
Low trefoil |
Annual |
|
Lotus rigidus |
Bush trefoil, Deervetch |
Shrub |
|
Lotus salsuginosus |
Flumble trefoil |
Annual |
|
Lotus strigosus |
Desert birdfoot trefoil |
Annual |
|
Lupinus arizonicus |
Arizona lupine |
Annual |
|
Lupinus concinnus |
Bajada lupine, Elegant lupine |
Annual |
|
Lupinus flavoculatus |
Yelloweye lupine |
Annual |
|
Lupinus shockleyi |
Desert lupine |
Annual |
|
Lupinus sparsiflorus |
Mojave lupine. Narrow leaf lupine |
Annual |
|
Marina parryi |
Parrys indigobush |
Perennial herb |
|
Medicago lupulina |
Black medick. Yellow trefoil |
Annual |
|
Medicago polymorpha |
California burclover |
Annual |
|
Medicago sativa |
Alfalfa |
Perennial herb |
|
Melilotus alba |
White sweetclover |
Annual |
|
Melilotus indicus |
Sourclover |
Annual |
|
Melilotus officinalis |
Yellow sweetclover |
Annual |
|
Olneya tesota |
Ironwood |
Tree |
|
Parkinsonia aculeate |
Mexican paloverde |
Tree |
|
Pediomelum castoreum |
Beaver dam breadroot |
Perennial herb |
|
Prosopis glandulosa |
Honey mesquite |
Tree |
|
Prosopis pubescens |
Screwbean mesquite |
Tree |
|
Lake Havasu Field Office Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan |
C-18 |
May 2007 |
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Psorothamnus fremontii |
Indigobush |
Shrub |
|
|
Psorothamnus spinosus |
Smoketree |
Tree |
|
|
Senna armata |
Spiny senna |
Shrub |
|
|
Senna covesii |
Cones cassia |
Subshrub |
|
|
FAGACEAE |
Sesbania macrocarpa Quercus turbinella |
Colorado River hemp Shrub live oak |
Shrub/Tree |
|
Oak |
|||
|
FOUQUIERIACEAE |
Fouquieria splendens |
Ocotillo |
Shrub |
|
Ocotillo |
|||
|
GARRYACEAE |
Garry a flavescens |
Silk tassel |
Annual |
|
Silk Tassel |
|||
|
GENTIANACEAE |
Centaurium calycosum |
Centaury |
Annual |
|
Gentian |
|||
|
GERANIACEAE |
Eustoma exaltatum Erodium cicutarium |
Alkali chalice Filaree |
Annual |
|
Geranium |
|||
|
Erodium texanum |
Crane’s bill |
Annual/biennial |
|
|
HYDROPHYLLACEAE |
Emmenanthe |
Whispering bells |
Annual |
|
Waterleaf |
penduliflora Eriodictyon |
Y erba santa |
Shrub |
|
angustifolium Eucrypta |
Common eucrypta |
Annual |
|
|
chrysanthemifolia Eucrypta micrantha |
Desert eucrypta |
Annual |
|
|
Nama demissum |
Purplemat |
Annual |
|
|
Nama hispidum |
Hairy nama |
Annual |
|
|
Nama pusiJlum |
Small leaf nama |
Annual |
|
|
Nemophila menziesii |
Baby blue-eyes |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia affinis |
Ally phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia anelsonii |
Aven Nelsons phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia cicutaria |
Caterpillar phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia crenulata |
Fairy phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia crenulata |
Wild heliotrope, Notchleaf |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia cryptantha |
phacelia Cryptanth phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia distans |
Common phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia fremontii |
Yellow throats, Fremonts phacelia |
Annual |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-19
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Phacelia glechomaefolia |
Canyon phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia ivesiana |
Ives phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia lemmonii |
Lemmons phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia neglecta |
Neglected phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia palmeri |
Palmers phacelia |
Biennial |
|
|
Phacelia parishi |
Parish phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia pedicellata |
Specter phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia perityloides |
Panamint phacelia |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Phacelia pulchella |
Gooddings phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia rotimdifolia |
Roundleaf phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Phacelia vallis-mortae |
Death Valley phacelia |
Annual |
|
|
Pholistoma auritum |
Desert fiestaflower |
Annual |
|
|
Pholistoma membranaceum |
White fiestaflower |
Annual |
|
|
Tricardia watsonii |
Three hearts |
Perennial herb |
|
|
KRAMERIACEAE |
Krameria ercta |
Rhatany, Pima rhatany, Purple |
Shrub |
|
Rhatany |
heather |
||
|
Krameria grayi |
White rhatany |
Shrub |
|
|
LAMIACEAE |
Hyptis emoryi |
Desert lavender |
Shrub |
|
Mint |
Monardella linoides |
Monardella |
Perennial herb |
|
Salazaria mexicana |
Bladdersage, Paperbag plant |
Shrub |
|
|
Salvia coumbariae |
Chia |
Annual |
|
|
Salvia dorrii |
Desert sage |
Shrub |
|
|
Salvia mohavensis |
Mohave sage |
Shrub |
|
|
LENNOACEAE |
Pholisma arenarium |
Scaly-stemmed Sand Food |
|
|
Lennoa |
Pholisma sonorae |
Sand Food |
|
|
LOASACEAE |
Eucnide urens |
Rocknettle |
Subshrub |
|
Loasa, Stickleaf |
Mentzelia affinia |
Yellow comet |
Annual |
|
Mentzelia albicaulis |
Whitestem blazingstar |
Annual |
|
|
Mentzelia integra |
Virgin stickleaf |
Perennial |
|
|
Mentzelia involucrate |
Whitebract stickleaf |
Annual |
|
|
Mentzelia jonesii |
Jones stickleaf |
Annual |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-20
May 2007
Scientific Name
Common Name
Classification
Family Name
|
Mentzelia nitens Mentzelia oreophila Mentzelia pumila Mentzelia triciispis Mentzelia veatchiana Petalonyx panyi Petalonyx thwberi |
|
|
LYTHRACEAE |
Lythrum califonicum |
|
Loosestrife |
Ammania coccinea |
|
MALVACEAE |
Eremalche exilis |
|
Mallow |
Eremalche rotundifolia Hibiscus denudatus Malvella leprosa Sphaeralcea ambigua |
|
Sphaeralcea angiistifolia |
|
|
Sphaeralcea emoryii |
|
|
NYCTAGINACEAE |
Abronia fragrans |
|
Four o’clock |
Abronia villosa |
|
Allionia incarnate |
|
|
Boerhavia coccinea Boerhavia intermedia Boerhavia triquestra Boerhavia wrightii |
|
|
Mirabilis bigelovii Mirabilis multiflora |
|
|
Tripterocalyx micranthus |
|
|
OLEACEAE |
Forestiera pubescens |
|
Olive |
Menodora scabra |
|
Menodora spinescens |
|
Venus blazingstar |
Annual |
|
Darlingtons stickleaf |
Perennial herb |
|
Wyoming stickleaf |
Biennial |
|
Blazingstar |
Annual |
|
Veatch stickleaf |
Annual |
|
Parrys sandpaper plant |
Shrub |
|
Thurbers sandpaper plant |
Shrub |
|
Common loosestrife |
Perennial herb/Subshrub |
|
Ammania |
|
|
White mallow |
Annual |
|
Desert fivespot |
Annual |
|
Desert hibiscus |
Perennial herb |
|
Alkali mallow |
Perennial herb |
|
Desert mallow, Globemallow |
Perennial herb |
|
Narrowleaf desert mallow |
Perennial herb |
|
Emorys globemallow |
Annual |
|
Frangrant sandverbena |
Perennial herb |
|
Sand verbena |
Annual |
|
Windmills |
Annual |
|
Red/Scarlet spiderling |
Perennial herb |
|
Jones spiderling |
Annual |
|
Watsons spiderling |
Annual |
|
Wrights boerhaavia, Wright spiderling |
Annual |
|
Desert four o’clock |
Perennial herb |
|
Giant four o’clock |
Perennial herb |
|
Sandpuffs |
Annual |
|
Desert olive |
Shrub |
|
Rough menodora |
Perennial herb |
|
Spiny menodora |
Shrub |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-21
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
ONAGRACEAE |
Camissonia boothii |
Booths primrose |
Annual |
|
Evening Primrose |
|||
|
Camissonia brevipes |
Sundrop, Suncup |
Annual |
|
|
Camissonia californica |
California primrose |
Annual |
|
|
Camissonia chamaenerioides |
Slenderpod camissonia |
Annual |
|
|
Camissonia claviformis |
Browneyed primrose |
Annual |
|
|
Camissonia exilis |
Meager camissonia |
Annual |
|
|
Camissonia multijuga |
Manylobe primrose |
Annual |
|
|
Camissonia pallida |
Pale camissonia |
Annual |
|
|
Camissonia refracta |
Narrow leaf primrose, Refract desert primrose, Decurved camissonia |
Annual |
|
|
Camissonia walkeri |
Walkers camissonia |
Annual |
|
|
Gaura coccinea |
Scarlet gaura. Wild honeysuckly |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Gaura gracilis |
Slender gaura |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Oenothera albicaulis |
Whitestem evening primrose |
Annual |
|
|
Oenothera caespitosa Oenothera cardiophylla |
Fragrant evening primrose Long-tubed primrose |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Oenothera californica |
Watsons evening primrose |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Oenothera cavernae |
Munzs evening primrose |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Oenothera deltoids |
Birdcage dune primrose |
Annual |
|
|
Oenothera pallida |
Pale evening primrose |
Annual/Perennial herb |
|
|
Oenothera primiveris |
Spring evening primrose |
Annual |
|
|
OROBANCHACEAE Broomrape |
Orobanche cooperi |
Broomrape |
Perennial herb/Parasitic |
|
Orobanche ludoviciana |
Manyflower cancerroot |
Perennial herb/Parasitic |
|
|
PAPAVERACEAE |
Arctomecon ealifornica |
Las Vegas bearpoppy |
Perennial herb |
|
Poppy |
|||
|
Argemone corymbosa |
San Rafael pricklypoppy |
Perennial |
|
|
Argemone munita |
Pricklypoppy |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Argemone platyeera |
Pricklypoppy |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Eschscholzia californica |
California poppy |
Annual/Perennial |
|
|
Eschscholzia glyptosperma |
Desert goldpoppy |
Annual |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-22
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Eschscholzia mimitiflora |
Little goldpoppy |
Annual |
|
|
PHILADELPACEAE |
Philadelphus lewisii |
Mock Orange |
|
|
Mock Orange |
|||
|
PLANTAGINACEAE |
Plantago major |
Common plantain |
Perennial herb |
|
Plantain |
|||
|
Plantago ovata Forsskal |
Woolly plantain, Island plantain |
Annual |
|
|
Plantago patagonica |
Purshes plantain |
Annual |
|
|
Plantago insidaris |
Mousetail plantain |
Annual |
|
|
PLUMBAGINACEAE Leadwort |
Limoniurn californicum |
Western marsh rosemary, Sea lavender |
Shrub |
|
POLEMONIACEAE |
Eriastrurn diffusum |
Spreading woollystar |
Annual |
|
Phlox |
|||
|
Eriastrurn eremicum |
Mojave woollystar |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia cana |
Desert gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia filiformis |
Threadstem gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia hutchinsifolia |
Pale gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia latifolia |
Broadleaf gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia leptomeria |
Great basin gilia, Lobeleaf gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia micromeria |
Sand gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia ophthalmoides |
Eyelike gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia scopulorum |
Rock gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia sinuate |
Wavy gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia setossissima |
Prickly gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia stellata |
Star gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Gilia transmontana |
Transmontane gilia |
Annual |
|
|
Ipomopsis arizonica |
Arizona skyrocket |
Biennial |
|
|
Ipomopsis polycladon |
Spreading skyrocket |
Annual |
|
|
Langloisia setosissima |
Lilac sunbonnet |
Annual |
|
|
Langloisia setosissima |
Mojave langloisia. Bristly langloisia |
Annual |
|
|
Leptodaetylon pungens |
Granite phlox |
Shrub |
|
|
Linanthus arenicola |
Sand linanthus |
Annual |
|
|
Linanthus aureus |
Golden linanthus. Desert gold |
Annual |
|
|
Linanthus aureus |
White desert gold |
Annual |
|
|
Linanthus bigelovii |
Bigelows linanthus |
Annual |
|
|
Linanthus demissus |
Humble gilia. Low linanthus |
Annual |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-23
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Linanthus jonesii |
Jones linathus |
Annual |
|
|
Loeseliastrum schottii |
Schotts calico |
Annual |
|
|
POLYGALACEAE |
Polygala subspinosa |
Cushion milkwort, Spiny milkwort |
Subshrub |
|
Milkwort |
|||
|
POLYGONACEAE |
Chorizanthe brevicornu |
Brittle spineflower |
Annual |
|
Buckwheat |
|||
|
Chorizanthe corrugate |
Wrinkled sunflower |
Annual |
|
|
Chorizanthe rigida |
Spiny herb |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum brachypodum |
Parrys buckwheat |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum cernuum |
Nodding buckwheat |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum deflexum |
Skeleton buckwheat |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum fasciculatum |
California buckwheat |
Shrub |
|
|
Eriogonum heermannii |
Heermanns buckwheat |
Shrub |
|
|
Eriogonum heermannii |
Limestone buckwheat |
Shrub |
|
|
Eriogonum inflatum |
Desert trumpet |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Eriogonum insigne |
Unique buckwheat |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum maculatum |
Spotted buckwheat |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum microthecum |
Slender buckwheat |
Subshrub |
|
|
Eriogonum nidularium |
Birdnest buckwheat |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum palmerianum |
Palmers buckwheat |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum plumatella |
Flattop buckwheat |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Eriogonum pus ilium |
Yellow turban |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum reniforme |
Kidney leaf buckwheat |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum saxatile |
Rock buckwheat |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Eriogonum thomasii |
Thomas buckwheat |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum trichopes |
Little trumpet |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum viscidulum |
Sticky buckwheat |
Annual |
|
|
Eriogonum wrightii |
Wrights buckwheat |
Shrub |
|
|
Oxy theca perfoliata |
Oxytheca, Saucerplant |
Annual |
|
|
Polygonum hydrop ipero ides |
Smartweed |
Annual |
|
|
Polygonum aviculare |
Knotweed, Chivalrygrass, Dishwatergrass |
Annual |
|
|
Polygonum lapathifolium |
Willowweed |
Annual |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-24
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Pterostegia |
Woodland pterostegia |
Annual |
|
|
drymarioides Rumex hymetwsepalus |
Wild rhubarb |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Rurnex violascem |
Mexican dock |
Annual/Biennial |
|
|
Rumex salicifolius |
Willow dock |
Annual/Biennial |
|
|
PORTULACACEAE |
Calyptidiim |
Pussypaws |
Annual |
|
Purslane |
monandrum Claytonia perfoliata |
Miners lettuce |
Annual |
|
PRIMULACEAE |
Androsace elongate |
Rock jasmine |
Annual |
|
Primrose |
|||
|
Samolus parviflorus |
Water pimpernel |
Perennial herb |
|
|
RANUNCULACEAE |
Anemone tuberose |
Desert windflower |
Perennial herb |
|
Buttercup |
|||
|
Delphinium parishii |
Parishs larkspur, Desert larkspur |
Tuberous perennial |
|
|
Delphinium scaposum |
Larkspur |
Tuberous perennial |
|
|
Myosurus cupulatus |
Arizona mousetail |
Annual |
|
|
RESEDACEAE |
Oligomeris linifolia |
Oligomeris |
Annual |
|
Mignonette |
|||
|
RHAMNACEAE |
Ceanothus greggii |
Greggs ceanothus, Buckbrush |
Shmb |
|
Buckthorn |
|||
|
Rhamnus ilicifolia |
Hollyleaf redberry |
Shmb |
|
|
Ziziphus obtusifolia |
Graythom |
Shmb |
|
|
ROSACEAE- |
Holodiscus |
Small leaf spray |
Shmb |
|
Rose |
microphyllus Prunus fascicidate |
Desert almond |
Shmb |
|
Purshia stansburiana |
Cliffrose |
Shmb |
|
|
Purshia tridentate |
Mohave antelopebush |
Shrub |
|
|
RUBIACEAE |
Galium aparine |
Goosegrass |
Annual |
|
Madder, Coffee |
|||
|
Galium stellatum |
Star bedstraw. Crevice bedstraw |
Shmb |
|
|
RUTACEAE |
Thamnosma montana |
Tupentine broom. Desert me |
Shmb |
|
Rue, Citrus |
|||
|
SALICACEAE |
Populus fremontii |
Cottonwood Tree |
Tree |
|
Willow family |
|||
|
Salix exigua |
Coyote willow. Sandbar willow |
Shmb/Tree |
|
|
Salix gooddingii |
Gooddings willow |
Tree |
|
|
SANTALACEAE |
Anemopsis californica |
Y erba mansa |
Perennial herb |
|
Sandalwood |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-25
May 2007
Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Classification
URACEAE
Lizardtail
SAXIFRAGACEAE
Saxifrage
SCROPHULARIACEAE Antirrhinum filipes
Snapdragon, Figwort
Castilleja angustifolia
Castilleja chromora
Castilleja exerta
Castilleja minor ssp. spiralis
Kekiella antirrhinoides
Maurandya
antirrhiniflora
Mimulus bigelovii
Mimulus cardinalis
Mimulus guttatus
Mimulus parryi
Mimulus pilosus
Mimulus rubellus
Mimulus suksdorfii
Mohavea brevijlora
Mohavea confertiflora
Orthocarpus
purpurascens
Penstemon caespitosusr
Penstemon palmeri
Penstemon
pseudospectabilis
SIMAROUBACEAE
Quassia, Simarouba
SOLANACEAE Datura wrightii
Nightshade
Lycium andersonii Lycium cooperi Lycium pallidum Lycium parishii
|
Twining snapdragon |
Annual |
|
Desert paintbrush |
Perennial herb |
|
Paintbrush |
Annual |
|
Purple owl's clover |
Annual |
|
Paintbrush |
Annual |
|
Bush beartongue |
Shrub |
|
Violet twining snapdragon |
Perennial herb |
|
Desert monkeyflower, Bigelow |
Annual |
|
monkeyflower |
|
|
Crimson monkeyflower |
Perennial |
|
Monkeyflower |
Perennial |
|
Parrys monkeyflower |
Annual |
|
Downy monkeyflower |
Annual |
|
Reddish monkeyflower |
Annual |
|
Suksdorf s monkeyflower |
Annual |
|
Lesser Mohavea |
Annual |
|
Ghostflower |
Annual |
|
Common owl clover |
|
|
Painted beardtongue |
Perennial herb |
|
Palmers penstemon |
Perennial herb |
|
Penstemon |
Perennial herb |
|
Sacred datura, jimsonweed |
Annual/Perennial |
|
Andersons wolfberry |
Shrub |
|
Coopers wolfberry |
Shrub |
|
Pale wolfberry |
Shrub |
|
Parishs desert thorn |
Shrub |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-26
May 2007
Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Classification
Lycium torreyi
Nicotiana glaitca Nicotiana obtusifolia Petunia parviflora Physalis crassifolia Physalis hederifolia Physalis lobata Solanum elaeagnifolium
|
TAMARICACEAE |
Tamarix aphylla |
|
Tamarisk |
Tamarix ramosissima |
|
ULMACEAE |
|
|
Elm |
|
|
URTICACEAE |
Parietaria hespara |
|
Nettle |
Parietaria penslvanica |
|
VERBENACEAE |
Aloysia wrightii |
|
Vervain |
Verbena bracteata |
|
Verbena gooddingii Lippia lanceolata Lippia nodiflora |
|
|
VIOLACEAE |
Ocalis sp |
|
Violet |
|
|
VISCACEAE |
Phoradendron |
|
Mistletoe |
californica Phoradendrom juniperimm |
|
VITACEAE |
Vitis arizonica |
|
Grape |
|
|
ZYGOPHYLLACEAE |
Fagonia laevis |
|
Caltrop, Tree-of-Life |
Kallstroemia californica |
|
Larrea tridentate |
|
|
Tribulus terrestris |
|
Torreys desert thorn |
Shrub |
|
Tree tobacco |
Tree |
|
Desert tobacco |
Perennial herb |
|
Streamside petunia |
Annual |
|
Thickleaf groundcherry |
Perennial herb |
|
Ivyleaf groundcherry |
Perennial herb |
|
Lobed groundcherry |
Perennial |
|
Silver nightshade |
Perennial herb |
|
Athel |
Tree |
|
Saltcedar |
Shrub/Tree |
|
Pellitory |
Annual |
|
Hammerwort |
Annual |
|
Oreganillo |
Shrub |
|
Protrate vervain |
Annual/Perennial herb |
|
Gooddings vervain Frog Fruit Garden lippia Wood sorrel |
Perennial herb |
|
Desert mistletoe |
Perennial/Parasitic |
|
Juniper mistletoe |
Perennial/Parasitic |
|
Canyon grape |
Perennial vine |
|
Fagonia |
Perennial herb |
|
Yellow kallstroemia |
Annual |
|
Creosotebush |
Shrub |
|
Puncturevine, Goathead |
Annual |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-27
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Monocots |
|||
|
ARECACEAE |
Phoenix dactylifera |
Date palm |
Tree |
|
Palm |
|||
|
Washingtonia filifera |
Desert fan palm, California fan palm |
Tree |
|
|
CYPERACEAE |
Carex obtusata |
Blunt sedge |
Perennial herb |
|
Sedge |
|||
|
Carex occidentalis |
Western sedge |
Perennial |
|
|
Cladium ealifornicum Cyperus esculentas Cyperus rotimdus |
Sawgrass Yellow nut Sedge Purple nut sedge |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Cyperus laevigatus |
Umbrella sedge |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Cyperus odoratus |
Fragrant sedge |
Annual |
|
|
Eleocharis macrostachya |
Spikerush |
Perennial |
|
|
Eleocharis montevidensis |
Spikerush |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Eleocharis parishii |
Parishs spikerush |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Eleocharis rostellata |
Torreys spikerush |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Scirpus acutus |
Tule |
Perennial |
|
|
Scirpus americanus |
American bulrush |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Scirpus californicus |
California bulrush |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Scirpus maritimus |
Alkali bulrush |
Perennial |
|
|
Scirpus pungens |
Common threesquare |
Perennial |
|
|
Scirpus robustus |
Robust bulrush |
Perennial herb |
|
|
HYDROCHARITACEAE |
Elodea canadensis |
Common waterweed |
Perennial/ Aquatic |
|
Waterweed |
|||
|
Najas marina |
Spiny naiad |
Annual/Aquatic |
|
|
JUNCACEAE |
Juncus acutus |
Spiny rush |
Perennial herb |
|
Rush |
|||
|
Juncus arcticus |
Wiregrass |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Juncus bufonius |
Toadrush |
Annual |
|
|
Juncus cooperi |
Coopers rush |
Perennial |
|
|
Juncus effuses |
Soft rush |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Juncus mexicanus |
Mexican rush |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Juncus nevadensis |
Nevada rush |
Perennial |
|
|
Juncus nodosus |
Knotted rush |
Perennial herb |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-28
May 2007
Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Classification
Jimciis tenuis
Juncus torreyi Juncus xiphioides
LILIACEAE Allium bisceptrum
Lily
Allium Parishii
Allium macropetalum
Androstephium
breviflorum
Calochortus flexuosus
Calochortus kennedyi
Dichelostemma
capitatum
Hesperocallis undulate Nolina bigelovii Yucca angustissima Yucca brevifolia Yucca schidigera
ORCHIDACEAE Epipactis gigantean
Orchid
POACEAE Achnatherum aridum
Grass
Achnatherum
coronatum
Achnatherum
hymenoides
Achnatherum speciosum
Agropyron
trachycaulum
Andropogon gerardii
Aristida adscensionis
Aristida arizonica
Aristida purpurea
Bothriochloa barbinodis
Bouteloua aristidoides
Bouteloua barbata
Bouteloua eriopoda
Bouteloua trifida
|
Path rush. Poverty rush |
Perennial herb |
|
Torreys rush |
Perennial herb |
|
Irisleaf rush |
Perennial herb |
|
Palmers onion |
Perennial herb |
|
Parishii onion |
Perennial herb |
|
Perennial herb |
|
|
Funnel lily |
Perennial herb |
|
Weakstem mariposa |
Perennial herb |
|
Desert marisposa |
Perennial herb |
|
Bluedicks |
Perennial herb |
|
Ajo lily, Desert lily |
Perennial herb |
|
Beargrass |
Shrub |
|
Narrowleaf yucca |
Shrub |
|
Joshua tree |
Tree |
|
Mohave yucca |
Shrub/Tree |
|
Stream orchid |
Perennial herb |
|
Mormon needlegrass |
Perennial |
|
Needlegrass |
Perennial |
|
Ricegrass |
Perennial |
|
Desert needlegrass |
Perennial |
|
Slender wheatgrass |
Perennial |
|
Big bluestem |
Perennial |
|
Sixweeks threeawn |
Annual |
|
Arizona threeawn |
Perennial herb |
|
Purple threeawn |
Perennial herb |
|
Cane bluestem |
Perennial |
|
Needle grama |
Annual |
|
Sixweeks grama |
Annual |
|
Black grama |
Perennial |
|
Red grama |
Perennial |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-29
May 2007
Scientific Name
Common Name
Classification
Family Name
|
Bromus arizonicus |
Bromegrass |
Annual |
|
Bromus carinatus |
Mountain brome |
Perennial herb |
|
Bromus catharticus |
Rescuegrass |
Perennial herb |
|
Bromus inermis |
Smooth brome |
Perennial herb |
|
Bromus madritensis |
Red brome |
Annual |
|
Bromus tectorum |
Cheatgrass |
Annual |
|
Bromus trinii |
Chilean chess |
Annual |
|
Chloris virgata |
Fingergrass |
Annual |
|
Crypsis schoenoides |
Swampgrass |
Annual |
|
Cynodon dactylon |
Bermudagrass |
Perennial |
|
Desmazeria rigida |
Desmazeria |
Annual |
|
Digitaria sanguinalis |
Crabgrass |
Annual |
|
Distichlis spicata |
Saltgrass |
Perennial herb |
|
Echniochloa crus-galli |
Barnyard grass |
Annual |
|
Elymus multisetus |
Big squirreltail |
Perennial |
|
Elymus smithii |
Western wheatgrass |
Perennial |
|
Eragrostis lutescens |
Yellow lovegrass |
Annual |
|
Eragrostis pectinacea |
Tufted lovegrass |
Annual |
|
Erioneuron pulchellum |
Fluffgrass |
Perennial |
|
Hordeum jubatum |
Foxtail barley |
Perennial herb |
|
Hordeum marinum |
Mediterranean barley |
Annual |
|
Leptochloa fascicularis |
Bearded sprangletop |
Annual |
|
Leptochloa uninervia |
Mexican sprangletop |
Annual |
|
Lolium multiflorum |
Italian ryegrass |
Annual |
|
Lolium perenne |
Perennial ryegrass |
Perennial herb |
|
Muhlenbergia asperifolia |
Alkali muhly |
Annual/Perennial |
|
Muhlenbergia mierosperma |
Littleseed muhly |
Annual/Perennial |
|
Muhlenbergia porteri |
Bush muhly |
Perennial |
|
Muhlenbergia richardsonis |
Mat muhly |
Perennial |
|
Panieum capillare |
Witchgrass |
Annual |
|
Phragmites australis |
Common reed |
Perennial |
|
Pleur aphis rigida |
Big galleta grass |
Perennial |
|
Poa bigelovii |
Bluegrass |
Annual |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-30
May 2007
|
Family Name |
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Classification |
|
Poa fendl eriana |
Mutton grass |
Perennial |
|
|
Setaria glauca |
Yellow bristlegrass |
Annual |
|
|
Sporobolus airoides |
Alkali sacaton |
Perennial |
|
|
Sporobolus cryptandrus |
Sand dropseed |
Perennial |
|
|
Sporobolus flexuosus |
Mesa dropseed |
Perennial |
|
|
Tridens muticus |
Slim tridens |
Perennial herb |
|
|
Vulpia microstachys |
Small fescue |
Annual |
|
|
Vulpia octoflora |
Sixweeks fescue |
Annual |
|
|
POTAMOGETONACEAE |
Potamogeton crispus |
Crispateleaf pondweed |
Perennial/Aquatic |
|
Pondweed |
|||
|
Potamogeton latifolius |
Nevada pondweed |
Perennial/Aquatic |
|
|
Potamogeton pectinatus |
Fennel leaf pondweed |
Perennial/Aquatic |
|
|
Ruppia maritime |
Ditchgrass |
Perennial/Aquatic |
|
|
TYPHACEAE |
Typha angustifolia |
Narrowleaf cattail |
Perennial |
|
Cattail |
|||
|
Typha domingensis |
Southern cattail |
Perennial |
|
|
ZANNICHAELLIACEAE |
Zannichellia palustris |
Homed pondweed |
Perennial/Aquatic |
|
Horned pondweed |
|||
|
Epple 1995; Blair pers comm. |
Wildlife Species
Table C-4: Fish Species Found Within LHFO
|
Lake Havasu |
Lower Colorado River |
Bill Williams River {Below Alamo Dam) |
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Origin |
|
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Bonytail Chub |
Gila elgans |
Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Flannelmouth Sucker |
Catostomus latipinnis |
Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Razorback Sucker |
Xyrauchen texanus |
Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Black Crappie |
Pomoxis nigromacalatus |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Bluegill |
Lepomis maerochirus |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Brown Bullhead |
Ictalurus nebulosis |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Channel Catfish |
Ictalurus punctatus |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Common Carp |
Cyprinus carpio |
Non-Native |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-31
May 2007
|
Lake Havasu |
Lower Colorado River |
Bill Williams River {Below Alamo Dam) |
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Origin |
|
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Flathead Catfish |
Pylodictis olivaris |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Golden Shiner |
Notemigonus crysoleucas |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Goldfish |
Carassius auratus |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Green Sunfish |
Lepomis cyanellus |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Largemouth Bass |
Micropterus salmoides |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Mosquitofish |
Gambusia ajfinis |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Rainbow Trout |
Oncorhynchus mykiss |
Non-Native |
|
No |
No |
Yes |
Red Shiner |
Cyprinella lutrensis |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Redear Sunfish |
Lepomis microlophus |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Redside Shiner |
Richardsonius balteatus |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Smallmouth Bass |
Micropterus dolomieu |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Striped Bass |
Morone saxatilis |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Threadfin Shad |
Dorosoma petenense |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Tilapia |
Tilapia spp. |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Warmouth |
Lepomis gulosis |
Non-Native |
|
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yellow Bullhead |
Ictalurus natalis |
Non-Native |
Minckly pers comm.; Jacobson pers comm.
Table C-5: Amphibians and Reptiles Potentially Found Within LHFO
|
Order |
Family Name |
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
|
Testudines |
Testudinidae |
Sonoran Desert Tortoise |
Gopherus agassizii (Sonoran population) |
|
Kinostemidae |
Sonoran Mud Turtle |
Kinosternon sonoriense |
|
|
Emydidae |
Red-eared Slider |
Pseudemys scripta |
|
|
Trionychidae |
Spiny Softshell |
Trionyx spiniferus |
|
|
Squamata |
Teiidae |
Gila Spotted Whiptail |
Aspidoscelis flagellicaudus |
|
Pai Striped Whiptail |
Aspidoscelis pai |
||
|
Tiger Striped Whiptail |
Aspidoscelis tigris |
||
|
Plateau Striped Whiptail |
Aspidoscelis velox |
||
|
Zebra-tailed Lizard |
Callisaurus draconoides |
||
|
Western Banded Gecko |
Coleonyx variegates |
||
|
Greater Earless Lizard |
Cophosaurus texanus |
||
|
Crotaphytidae |
Great Basin Collared Lizard |
Crotaphytus bicinctores |
|
|
Crotaphytidae |
Western Collared Lizard |
Crotaphytus collaris |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-32
May 2007
|
Order Family Name |
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
|
Iguanidae |
Desert Iguana |
Dipsosaurus dorsalis |
|
Scincidae |
Arizona Skink |
Eiimeces gilberti arizonensis |
|
Great Plains Skink |
Eumeces obsoletus |
|
|
Leopard Lizard |
Gambelia wislizenii |
|
|
Helodermatidae |
Banded Gila Monster |
Heloderma suspectum cinctum |
|
Common Lesser Earless Lizard |
Holbrookia maculate |
|
|
Greater Short-homed Lizard |
Phrynosoma hernandesi |
|
|
Desert Homed Lizard |
Phrynosoma platyrhinos |
|
|
Regal Homed Lizard |
Phrynosoma solare |
|
|
Iguanidae |
Chuckwalla |
Sauromalus ater |
|
Clark’s Spiny Lizard |
Sceloporous clarkia |
|
|
Desert Spiny Lizard |
Sceloporous magister |
|
|
Plateau Lizard |
Sceloporous tristichus |
|
|
Somoran Desert Fringe-toed Lizard |
Uma notata |
|
|
Mohave Fringe-toed Lizard |
Uma scoparia |
|
|
Long-tailed Bmsh Lizard |
Urosaurus graciosus |
|
|
Ornate Tree Lizard |
Urosaurus ornatus |
|
|
Side-blotched Lizard |
Uta stansburiana |
|
|
Arizona Night Lizard |
Xantusia arizonae |
|
|
Desert Night Lizard |
Xantusia vigil is |
|
|
Glossy Snake |
Ariona elegans |
|
|
Boidae |
Desert Rosy Boa |
Charina trivirgata gracia |
|
Western Shovelnosed Snake |
Chionactis occipitalis |
|
|
Western Diamondback |
Crotalus atrox |
|
|
Speckled Rattlesnake |
Crotalus mitchellii |
|
|
Black-tailed Rattlesnake |
Crotalus molossus |
|
|
Sidewinder Rattlesnake |
Crotalus cerastes |
|
|
Mojave Rattlesnake |
Crotalus scutulatus |
|
|
Ring-necked Snake |
Diadophus punctatus |
|
|
Night Snake |
Hypsiglena torquata |
|
|
California Kingsnake |
Lampropeltis getulus |
|
|
Arizona Mountain Kingsnake |
Lampropeltis pyromelana pyromelana |
|
|
Western Blind Snake |
Leptotyphiops humilis |
|
|
Coachwhip |
Masticoph is flagel lum |
|
|
Striped Whipsnake |
Masticophis taeniatus |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-33
May 2007
Order Family Name Common Name Scientific Name
Phyllorynchus decurtatus
Anura Bufonidae
Hylidae
Ranidae
Caudata Ambystomatidae
Spotted Leaf-nosed Snake Western Coral Snake Gopher Snake Long-nosed Snake Western Patch-nosed Snake Western Ground Snake Smith’s Black-headed Snake Checkered Garter Snake Western Lyre Snake Sonoran Desert Toad Great Plains Toad Arizona Toad Red-spotted Toad Woodhouse’s Toad Couch’s Spadefoot Toad Colorado River Toad Canyon Treefrog Pacific Treefrog Arizona Treefrog Lowland Leopard Frog Bullfrog
Tiger Salamander
Micruroides euryxanthus Pituophis melanoleucus Rhinocheilus lecontei Salvadora hexalepis Sonora semiannulata Tantilla hobartsmithi Thamnophis marcianus Trimorphodon biscutatus Bufo alvarius Bufo cognatus Bufo microscaphus Bufo punctatus Bufo woodhousei Scaphiopus couchi Bufo alvarius Hyla arenicolor Hyla regilla Hyla wrightorum Rana yavapaiensis Rana catesbeiana Ambystoma tigrinum
|
Table C-6; |
Mammals Found Within LHFO |
|||
|
Order |
Family Name |
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Residence |
|
Insectivora |
Soricidae |
Desert Shrew |
Notiosorex crawfordi |
permanent |
|
Chiroptera |
Phyllostomatidae |
California Leaf-nosed Bat |
Macrotus californicus |
permanent |
|
Vespertilionidae |
Pallid Bat |
Antrozous pallidus |
permanent |
|
|
Townsend’s Big-eared Bat |
Corynorhinus townsendii |
permanent |
||
|
Big Brown Bat |
Eptesicus |
permanent |
||
|
Hoary Bat |
Eptesicus fuscus |
migratory/winter |
||
|
Western Yellow Bat |
Lasiurus cinereus |
permanent |
||
|
Western Red Bat |
Lasiurus blossevellii |
migratory/winter |
||
|
California Myotis |
Myotis californicus |
permanent |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-34
May 2007
|
Order |
Family Name |
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Residence |
|
Occult Little Brown Bat |
Myotis occultus (-lucifigus) |
permanent |
||
|
Small-footed Myotis |
Myotis ciliolabrum (-leibii=subulatus) |
permanent migratory /winter |
||
|
Fringed Myotis |
Myotis thysanoides |
permanent |
||
|
Cave Myotis |
Myotis ve lifer |
permanent |
||
|
Yuma Myotis |
Myotis yumanesis |
permanent |
||
|
Western Pipistrelle |
Pipistrellus hesperus |
permanent |
||
|
Spotted Bat |
Euderma maculatum |
|||
|
Allen’s Big-eared Bat |
Idionycteris (Plecotis) phylotis |
penuanent migratory |
||
|
Molossidae |
Western Matiff Bat |
Eumops perotis |
permanent |
|
|
Pocketed Free-tailed Bat |
Nyctinmops fermorosaccus |
permanent |
||
|
Mexican Free-tail Bat |
Tadarida brasilliensis |
Permanent/ |
||
|
migratory |
||||
|
Big Free-tail Bat |
Nyctinomops macrotis |
migratory |
||
|
Lagomorpha |
Leporidae |
Desert Cottontail |
Sylvilagus auduboni |
permanent |
|
Eastern Cottontail |
Sylvilagus floridanus |
permanent |
||
|
Black-tailed Jackrabbit |
Lepus californicus |
permanent |
||
|
Rodentia |
Sciuridae |
Harris’s Antelope Ground Squirrel |
Ammospermophilus harrisii |
permanent |
|
White-tailed Antelope Ground Squirrel |
Ammospermophilus leueurus |
permanent |
||
|
Round-tailed Ground Squirrel |
Spermophilus teretieaudus |
permanent |
||
|
Rock Squirrel |
Spermophilus varigatus |
permanent |
||
|
Cliff Chipmunk |
Eutamias dorsalis |
permanent |
||
|
Tassel-eared Squirrel |
Seiurus aberti |
permanent |
||
|
Rodentia |
Castoridae |
Beaver |
Castor Canadensis |
permanent |
|
Cricetidae |
Cactus Mouse |
Permyscus eremicus |
permanent |
|
|
Canyon Mouse |
Peromyscus crinitus |
permanent |
||
|
Deer Mouse |
Peromyscus manieiilatus |
permanent |
||
|
White-footed Mouse |
Permoysciis leucopus |
permanent |
||
|
Brush Mouse |
Permoyseus boy Hi |
permanent |
||
|
Pinyon Mouse |
Peromyscus truei |
pennanent |
||
|
White-throated Wood Rat |
Neotoma albigula |
permanent |
||
|
Desert Wood Rat |
Neotoma lepida |
pennanent |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-35
May 2007
Order Family Name Common Name Scientific Name Residence
|
Stephen’s Wood Rat |
Neotoma stephensi |
permanent |
|
|
Mexican Wood Rat |
Neotoma mexicans |
permanent |
|
|
(3 isolated populations) |
|||
|
Southern Grasshopper Mouse |
Onychomys torridus |
permanent |
|
|
Muskrat |
Ondatra zibethicus |
permanent |
|
|
Arizona Cotton Rat |
Sigmodon arizonae |
permanent |
|
|
Hispid Cotton Rat |
Sigmodon hispidus |
permanent |
|
|
Western Harvest Mouse |
Reithrodontomys megalotis |
permanent |
|
|
Muridae |
House Mouse |
Mus musculus |
permanent |
|
Heteromyidae |
Arizona Pocket Mouse |
Perognathus amplus |
permanent |
|
Longtail Pocket Mouse |
Perognathus formosus |
permanent |
|
|
Desert Pocket Mouse |
Chaetodipus penicillatus |
permanent |
|
|
Rock Pocket Mouse |
Chaetodipus intermedins |
permanent |
|
|
Bailey’s Pocket Mouse |
Perognathus baileyi |
permanent |
|
|
Little Pocket Mouse |
Perognathus longimembris |
permanent |
|
|
Hispid Pocket Mouse |
Perognathus hispidus |
permanent |
|
|
Spiny Pocket Mouse |
Chaetodipus californicus |
permanent |
|
|
Merriam’s Kangaroo Rat |
Dipodomys merriami |
permanent |
|
|
Desert Kangaroo Rat |
Dipodomys deserti |
permanent |
|
|
Ord’s Kangaroo Rat |
Dipodomys ordii |
permanent |
|
|
Chisel-toothed Kangaroo Rat |
Dipodomys microps |
permanent |
|
|
Geomyidae |
Botta’s Pocket Gopher |
Thomomys bottae |
permanent |
|
Erethizontidae |
Porcupine |
Erethizon dorsatum |
permanent |
|
Carnivore Canidae |
Coyote |
Canis latrans |
permanent |
|
Gray Fox |
Urocyon cinereoargenteus |
permanent |
|
|
Kit Fox |
Vulpes macrotis |
permanent |
|
|
Procyonidae |
Raccoon |
Procyon lotor |
permanent |
|
Ringtail |
Bassariscus astutus |
permanent |
|
|
Mustelidae |
Western Spotted Skunk |
Spilogale gracilis |
permanent |
|
Striped Skunk |
Mephitis mephitis |
permanent |
|
|
Hognosed Skunk |
Conepatus leuconotus |
permanent |
|
|
Badger |
Taxidea taxus |
permanent |
|
|
River Otter |
Lutra canadadensis |
permanent |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-36
May 2007
|
Order |
Family Name |
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Residence |
|
Felidae |
Mountain Lion |
Felis concolor (browni) |
permanent |
|
|
Bobcat |
Felis rufus |
permanent |
||
|
Artiodactyla |
Tayassuidae |
Collared Peccary |
Tayassu tajacu |
permanent |
|
Suidae |
Domestic Pig |
Siis scrofa |
permanent |
|
|
Cervidae |
Mule Deer |
Odocoileus hemionus |
permanent |
|
|
Elk |
Cervis elaphus |
permanent |
||
|
Antilocapridae |
Pronghorn |
Antilocapra Americana |
extirpated |
|
|
Bovidae |
Bighorn Sheep |
Ovis Canadensis |
permanent |
|
|
Perysiodactyla |
Equidae |
Burro |
Equuas asinus |
permanent |
|
Adams 2003; Burt and Grossenheider 1980; National Audubon Society 1979; Blair pers comm. |
Table C-7: Birds within LHFO Boundary
|
Family |
Species |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
Loons |
Pacific Loon |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Common Loon |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Red-throated Loon |
Accidental^/ agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Grebes |
Pied-Billed Grebe |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Homed Grebe |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Eared Grebe |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
||
|
Red-necked Grebe |
Accidental/V agrant |
Year-round |
yes |
||
|
Western Grebe |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Clark’s Grebe |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Least Grebe |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Shearwaters/Petrels |
Black-vented Shearwater |
Accidental/V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Black Strom Petrel |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Least Strom Petrel |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Boobies |
Blue-footed Booby |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Brown Booby |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Pelicans |
American White Pelican |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
|
|
Brown Pelican |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Cormorants |
Double-crested Cormorant |
Common/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Olivaceous Cormorant |
Accidental/V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Frigatebirds |
Magnificent Frigatebird |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Tropicbirds |
Red-billed Tropicbird |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-37
May 2007
|
Family |
Species |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
Herons/Egrets |
American Bittern |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
yes |
|
/Bitterns |
Least Bittern |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Great Egret |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Snowy Egret |
Common/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Cattle Egret |
Accidental/V agrant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Reddish Egret |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Great Blue Heron |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Green Heron |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Black-crowned Night Heron |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Tri-colored Heron |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Little Blue Heron |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Ibises/Spoonbills |
White-faced Ibis |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
|
|
White Ibis |
Accidental/V agrant |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Roseate Spoonbill |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Storks |
Wood Stork |
Rare |
Summer |
yes |
|
|
Swans/Geese |
Brant |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
/Ducks |
Black Bellied Whistling Duck |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Fulvous Whistling Duck |
Rare |
Summer |
yes |
||
|
Tundra Swan |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
White-fronted Goose |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Snow Goose |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Ross’ Goose |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Canada Goose |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Wood Duck |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Green-wing Teal |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Blue-wing Teal |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Cinnamon Teal |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Mallard |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Northern Pintail |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Northern Shoveler |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Gadwall |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
yes |
|
|
American Wigeon |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Canvasback |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-38
May 2007
|
Family |
Speeies |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
Redhead |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Ring-neeked Duck |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Greater Scaup |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Lesser Scaup |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Common Goldeneye |
Common/Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Barrow’s Goldeneye |
Accidental/ V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Hooded Merganser |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Common Merganser |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Red-breasted Merganser |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Ruddy Duck |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Black Scoter |
Accidental/V agrant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
||
|
Surf Scoter |
Accidental/ V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Long-tailed Duck |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Bufflehead |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Vultures |
California Condor |
Accidental/V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Turkey Vulture |
Common/Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Black Vulture |
Accidental/V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Hawks/Eagles |
Osprey |
C ommon/Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
/Kites |
- |
||||
|
White-tailed Kite |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Bald Eagle |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Golden Eagle |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
||
|
Northern Harrier |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Sharp-shinned Hawk |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Cooper’s Hawk |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Common Black Hawk |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Swainson’s Hawk |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Zone-tailed Hawk |
Rare |
Summer |
yes |
||
|
Red-tailed Hawk |
Common/ Abundant |
Y ear- round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Ferruginous Hawk |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Rough-legged Hawk |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Norther Goshawk |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Harris’ Hawk |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Red Shouldered Hawk |
Accidental/V agrant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
F alcons/Caracaras |
Crested Caracara |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-39
May 2007
|
Family |
Species |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
American Kestrel |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Merlin |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Peregrine Falcon |
Rare |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Aplomado Falcon |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Prairie Falcon |
Rare |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Pheasants/Quail |
Gambel’s Quail |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Rails/Gallinules |
Black Rail |
Uncommon |
Y ear- round |
yes |
yes |
|
/Coots |
|||||
|
Yuma Clapper Rail |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Virginia Rail |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Sora |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Common Moorhen |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
American Coot |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Oystercatchers |
American Oystercatcher |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Cranes |
Sandhill Crane |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Plovers |
Black-bellied Plover |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Snowy Plover |
Rare |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Semipalmated Plover |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Killdeer |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Mountain Plover |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Wilson’s Plover |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Avocets/Stilts |
American Avocet |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Black-necked Stilt |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Sandpipers/Allies |
Greater Yellowlegs |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
|
|
Lesser Yellowlegs |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Solitary Sandpiper |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Upland Sandpiper |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Willet |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Spotted Sandpiper |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Whimbrel |
Accidental/V agrant |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Long-bill Curlew |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Marbled Godwit |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Red Knot |
Rare |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Sanderling |
Rare |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Western Sandpiper |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-40
May 2007
|
Family |
Species |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
Least Sandpiper |
Common/Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
||
|
Baird’s Sandpiper |
Uncommon |
Summer |
yes |
||
|
Pectoral Sandpiper |
Uncommon |
Summer |
yes |
||
|
Dunlin |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Short-billed Dowitcher |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Wandering Tattler |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Wilson's Snipe |
Rare |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Long-bill Dowitcher |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Wilson’s Phalarope |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Red Phalarope |
Rare |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Red-necked Phalarope |
Uncommon |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Gulls/Tems |
Franklin’s Gull |
Rare |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
/Allies |
|||||
|
Bonaparte’s Gull |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Ring-billed Gull |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
California Gull |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Heerman’s Gull |
Accidental/V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Herring Gull |
Rare |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Glaucous-winged Gull |
Accidental/V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
- |
yes |
|
|
Sabine’s Gull |
Rare |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Caspian Tern |
Uncommon |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Common Tern |
Uncommon |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Forster’s Tern |
Uncommon |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Least Tern |
Rare |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Black Tern |
Uncommon |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Royal Tern |
Accidental/V agrant |
Year-round |
yes |
||
|
Elegant Tern |
Accidental/V agrant |
Year-round |
yes |
||
|
Gull-billed Tern |
Accidental/V agrant |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Parasitic Jaeger |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Black Skimmer |
Accidental/V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Pigeons/Doves |
Rock Dove |
Common/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
|
|
White-winged Dove |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Summer |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Mourning Dove |
Common/Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Inca Dove |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Common Ground Dove |
Rare |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-41
May 2007
|
Family |
Species |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
Ruddy Ground Dove |
Accidental/V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Band-tailed Pigeon |
Accidental/V agrant |
Summer |
|||
|
Eurasian Collared Dove |
Accidental^ agrant |
Year-round |
yes |
||
|
Cuckoos/Roadrunners |
Yellow-billed Cuckoo |
Rare |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
Greater Roadrunner |
Common/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Owls |
Bam Owl |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Western Screech Owl |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Great Homed Owl |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Elf Owl |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Flammulated Owl |
Accidental/V agrant |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Burrowing Owl |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Long-eared Owl |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Short-eared Owl |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Northern Saw- Whet Owl |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Nightjars |
Lesser Nighthawk |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Common Poorwill |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Swifts |
White-throated Swift |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Vaux’s Swift |
Uncommon |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Hummingbirds |
Black-chinned Hummingbird |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Anna’s Hummingbird |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Broad-tailed Hummingbird |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Calliope Hummingbird |
Accidental/V agrant |
Spring-fall Transient |
yes |
||
|
Costa’s Hummingbird |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Rufous Hummingbird |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Allen’s Hummingbird |
Rare |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Broad-billed Hummingbird |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Kingfishers |
Belted Kingfisher |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Woodpeckers |
Lewis’ Woodpecker |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Gila Woodpecker |
Common/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Williamson’s Sapsucker |
Accidental/V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Red-naped Sapsucker |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Ladder-backed Woodpecker |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-42
May 2007
|
Family |
Species |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
Gilded Flicker |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Northern Flicker |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Red-headed Woodpecker |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Acorn Woodpecker |
Acc i dental/ V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Tyrant flycatchers |
Western Wood-Pewee |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Summer-winter |
yes |
|
|
Greater Pewee |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Olive-sided Flycatcher |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Willow Flycatcher |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Hammond’s Flycatcher |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Dusky Flycatcher |
Uncommon |
Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Gray Flycatcher |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Pacific-slope Flycatcher |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Cordilleran Flycatcher |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Black Phoebe |
Common/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Say’s Phoebe |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Eastern Phoebe |
Acc idental/V agrant |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Vermillion Flycatcher |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Ash-throated Flycatcher |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Brown-crested Flycatcher |
Rare |
Summer |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Eastern Kingbird |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Western Kingbird |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Cassin’s Kingbird |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Thick-billed Kingbird |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Tropical Kingbird |
Accidental/V agrant |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Larks |
Homed Lark |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Swallows |
Purple Martin |
Rare |
T ransi ent/M i grant |
yes |
|
|
Tree Swallow |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Violet-Green Swallow |
Uncommon |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
No. Rough-winged Swallow |
Common/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Bank Swallow |
Uncommon |
T ran si ent/M i grant |
yes |
||
|
Cliff Swallow |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Summer |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Bam Swallow |
Common/ Abundant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Jays/Crows |
Western Scmb Jay |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
|
|
/Ravens |
|||||
|
Pinyon Jay |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-43
May 2007
|
Family |
Species |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
Stellar’s Jay |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Clark’s Nutcracker |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
American Crow |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Common Raven |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Chickadees/Titmice |
Mountain Chickadee |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
/BushtitsA^ erdins |
Bridled Titmouse |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Verdin |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Y ear- round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Bushtit |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Nuthatches/ Creepers |
Red-breasted Nuthatch |
Rare |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
White-breasted Nuthatch |
Aecidental/ V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Brown Creeper |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Wrens |
Cactus Wren |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Roek Wren |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Canyon Wren |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Bewick’s Wren |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
||
|
House Wren |
Common/ Abundant |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Winter Wren |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Marsh Wren |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Kinglets/ Gnateatchers |
Golden-crowned Kinglet |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Ruby-crowned Kinglet |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Black-tailed Gnatcatcher |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Thrushes/Allies |
Western Bluebird |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Mountain Bluebird |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Townsend’s Solitaire |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Swainson’s Thrush |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Hermit Thrush |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
American Robin |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Varied Thrush |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Mockingbirds/Thrashers |
Northern Mockingbird |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
/Allies |
Sage Thrasher |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
|
|
Bendire’s Thrasher |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Curve-billed Thrasher |
Rare |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-44
May 2007
|
Family |
Species |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
Crissal Thrasher |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Le Conte’s Thrasher |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Gray Catbird |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Brown Thrasher |
Accidental^ agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Pipits |
American Pipit |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Sprague’s Pipit |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Wax wings |
Cedar Wax wing |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Silky flycatchers |
Phainopepla |
Common/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Shrikes |
Loggerhead Shrike |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Starlings |
European Starling |
Common/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
|
|
Vireos |
Yellow-throated Vireo |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Bell’s Vireo |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Gray Vireo |
Rare |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Cassin’s Vireo |
Common |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Blue-headed Vireo |
Accidental/Vagrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Plumbeous Vireo |
Uncommon |
Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Warbling Vireo |
Common/ Abundant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Hutton’s Vireo |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Philadelphia Vireo |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
- |
yes |
|
|
Red-eyed Vireo |
Accidental/V agrant |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Wood Warblers |
Orange-crowned Warbler |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Nashville Warbler |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Virginia’s Warbler |
Rare |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Lucy’s Warbler |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Yellow Warbler |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Yellow-rumped Warbler |
Common/ Abundant |
Fall-Spring |
yes |
||
|
Black-throated Gray Warbler |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Black-throated Blue Warbler |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Townsend’s Warbler |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Hermit Warbler |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
Black-and- White Warbler |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Palm Warbler |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Blackpoll Warbler |
Accidental/V agrant |
Summer |
yes |
||
|
Prothonotary Warbler |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Wilson’s Warbler |
Common/Abundant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-45
May 2007
|
Family |
Species |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
MacGillivray’s Warbler |
Common/ Abundant |
Spring |
yes |
||
|
American Redstart |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Painted Redstart |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Common Yellowthroat |
Common/ Abundant |
Y ear- round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Northern Waterthrush |
Accidental/V agrant |
Summer |
yes |
||
|
Louisiana Waterthrush |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Yellow-breasted Chat |
Common/Abundant |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Northern Parula |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Ovenbird |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Golden-winged Warbler |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Blue-winged Warbler |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Worm-eating Warbler |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Hooded Warbler |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Tanagers |
Summer Tanager |
Uncommon |
Summer |
yes |
yes |
|
Western Tanager |
Common/ Abundant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Hepatic Tanager |
Uncommon |
Summer |
yes |
||
|
Cardinals/Grosbeaks |
Northern Cardinal |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
|
|
/Allies |
|||||
|
Pyrrhuloxia |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Rose-breasted Grosbeak |
Common |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Black-headed Grosbeak |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Blue Grosbeak |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Lazuli Bunting |
Rare |
Summer |
yes |
||
|
Indigo Bunting |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Varied Bunting |
Accidental/V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Sparro ws/T owhee |
Rufous-crowned Sparrow |
Rare |
Y ear-round |
yes |
|
|
/Allies |
|||||
|
White-throated Sparrown |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Green-tailed Towhee |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Spotted Towhee |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Canyon Towhee |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Abert’s Towhee |
Common/Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Chipping Sparrow |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
||
|
Brewer’s Sparrow |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Black-chinned Sparrow |
Accidental/V agrant |
Winter |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-46
May 2007
|
Family Species |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
Vesper Sparrow |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Cassin’s Sparrow |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Lark Sparrow |
Uncommon |
Y ear-round |
yes |
|
|
Black-throated Sparrow |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Sage Sparrow |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Lark Bunting |
Rare |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Savannah Sparrow |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Grasshopper Sparrow |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Fox Sparrow |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Song Sparrow |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Y ear- round |
yes |
yes |
|
Lincoln’s Span'ow |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Swamp Sparrow |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
|
|
Golden-crowned Sparrow |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
White-crowned Sparrow |
Common/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Dark-eyed Junco |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Lapland Longspur |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Chestnut-collared Longspur |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
McCown’s Longspur |
Accidental/V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Blackbirds/Orioles Red-winged Blackbird |
Common/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Western Meadowlark |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Yellow-headed Blackbird |
Uncommon |
Summer |
yes |
yes |
|
Bobolink |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Brewer’s Blackbird |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Rusty Blackbird |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Great-tailed Grackle |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Brown-headed Cowbird |
C ommon/ Abundant |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Bronzed Cowbird |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Summer |
yes |
|
|
Dickcissel |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
Hooded Oriole |
Uncommon |
Spring |
yes |
yes |
|
Bullock’s Oriole |
Uncommon |
Summer |
yes |
yes |
|
Scott’s Oriole |
Accidental/Vagrant |
Summer |
yes |
yes |
|
Finches/Allies Red Crossbill |
Accidental/V agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
|
|
House Finch |
Common/ Abundant |
Y ear-round |
yes |
yes |
|
Purple Finch |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
|
|
Cassin’s Finch |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-47
May 2007
|
Family |
Species |
Abundance |
Residency |
Nesting Species |
MTBA |
|
Evening Grosbeak |
Rare |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Lazuli Bunting |
Accidental^ agrant |
Transient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Painted Bunting |
Ac c idental/ V agrant |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
Pine Siskin |
Rare |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Lesser Goldfinch |
Uncommon |
Y ear- round |
yes |
yes |
|
|
Lawrence’s Goldfinch |
Rare |
T ransient/Migrant |
yes |
||
|
American Goldfinch |
Uncommon |
Winter |
yes |
||
|
Old World Sparrows |
House Sparrow |
Uncommon |
Year-round |
yes |
yes |
Peterson 1990; Sibley 2003; Rosenberg et. al 1991; Blair pers comm.
Invasive Species
Table C-8; List of Federal Regulated and Restricted Invasive Species
|
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Within LHFO Boundary |
|
Terrestrial Plants |
||
|
Autumn olive |
Elaeagnus umbellata |
|
|
Chinese tallow |
Sapium sebiferum |
|
|
Downy brome |
Bromus tectorum |
yes |
|
Garlic mustard |
Alliaria petiolata |
|
|
Japanese honeysuckle |
Lonicera japonica |
|
|
Japanese knotweed |
Polygonum cupidatum |
|
|
Kudzu |
Pueraria montana var. lobata |
|
|
Leafy spurge |
Euphorbia esula |
|
|
Mile-a-minute weed |
Polygonum perfoliatum |
|
|
Multiflora rose |
Rosa multiflora |
|
|
Musk thistle |
Carduus nutans |
yes |
|
Russian knapweed |
Acroptilon repens |
yes |
|
Russian olive |
Elaeagnus angustifolia |
|
|
Saltcedar |
Tamarix spp. |
yes |
|
Scotch broom |
Cytisus scoparius |
|
|
Scotch thistle |
Onopordum acanthium |
yes |
|
Spotted knapweed |
Centaurea maculosa |
yes |
|
Tree-of-heaven |
Ailanthus altissima |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan C-48
|
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Within LHFO Boundary |
|
Yellow star thistle |
Centaurea solstitialis |
yes |
|
Terrestrial Animals |
||
|
Africanized honeybee |
Apis mellifera scutellata |
yes |
|
Asian long-homed beetle |
Anoplophora glabrispennis |
|
|
Asian tiger mosquito |
Aedes albopictus |
|
|
Brown tree snake |
Boiga irregularis |
|
|
Cane toad |
Biifo marinus |
|
|
Cactus moth |
Cactoblastis cactorum |
|
|
Emerald ash borer |
Agrihis planipennis |
|
|
European gypsy moth |
Lymantria dispar |
|
|
European starling |
Stiinms vulgaris |
yes |
|
Formosan subterranean termite |
Coptotermes formosaurus |
|
|
Glassy-winged sharpshooter |
Homalodisca coagulate |
|
|
Hemlock woolly adelgid |
Adelges tsugae |
|
|
Pink hibiscus mealybug |
Maconellicoccus hirsutus |
|
|
Red imported fire ant |
Solenopsis invicta |
|
|
Russian wheat aphid |
Diuraphis noxia |
|
|
Wild Boar |
Sus scrofa |
yes |
|
Aquatic and Wetland Plants |
||
|
Brazilian waterweed |
Egeria densa |
|
|
Caulerpa, Mediterranean clone |
Caulerpa taxifolia |
|
|
Common reed |
Phragmites australis |
yes |
|
Eurasian water-milfoil |
Myriophyllum spicatum |
yes |
|
Giant hogweed |
Heracleum mantegazzianum |
|
|
Giant-reed |
Arundo donax |
yes |
|
Giant salvinia |
Salvinia molesta |
yes |
|
Hydrilla |
Hydrilla verticillata |
|
|
Melaleuca |
Melaleuca quinqenervia |
|
|
Purple loosestrife |
Lythrum salicaria |
|
|
Water chestnut |
Trapa natans |
|
|
Water hyacinth |
Eichhornia crassipes |
|
|
Aquatic and Wetland Animals |
||
|
Alewife |
Alosa pseudoharengus |
|
|
Asian swamp eel |
Monopterus albus |
|
|
Bullfrog |
Rana catesbeiana |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-49
May 2007
|
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Within LHFO Boundary |
|
Eurasian ruffe |
Gymnocephalus cernuus |
|
|
European green crab |
Carcinus maenas |
|
|
Flathead catfish |
Pylodictus olivaris |
yes |
|
Northern Snakehead |
Channa argus |
|
|
Nutria |
Myocastor coypus |
|
|
Round goby |
Negobius melanostomus |
|
|
Sea lamprey |
Petromyzon marinus |
|
|
Veined rapa whelk |
Rapana venosa |
|
|
Zebra mussel |
Dreissena polymorpha |
Yes |
|
Microbes |
||
|
Exotic Newcastle Disease |
Paramyxovirus |
|
|
Fowlpox |
Avipoxvirus |
|
|
Plum Pox |
Potyviruses: Potyviridae |
|
|
Soybean Rust |
Phakopsora |
|
|
pachyrhizi/Phakopsora meibomiae |
||
|
Sudden Oak Death |
Phytophthora ramorum |
|
|
West Nile Virus |
Flavivirus |
|
|
Whirling Disease |
Myxobolus cerebralis |
Table C-9: Arizona Regulated and Restricted Weeds
|
Common name |
Scientific name |
State Designation |
Within FHFO Boundary |
|
Southern sandbur |
Cenchrus echinatus |
Regulated |
|
|
Field sandbur |
Cendhrus incertus |
Regulated |
|
|
Field bindweed |
Convolvulus arvensis |
Restricted |
|
|
Bure lover |
Medicago polymorpha |
Restricted |
|
|
Common purslane |
Portulaea oleracea |
Restricted |
|
|
Puncturevine |
Tribulus terrestris |
Restricted |
yes |
|
Russian knapweed |
Acroptilon repens |
Restricted |
yes |
|
Jointed goatgrass |
Aegilops cylindrica |
Restricted |
|
|
Camelthom |
Alhagi maurorum |
Restricted |
yes |
|
Globed-podded hoary cress (Whitetop) |
Cardaria draba |
Restricted |
|
|
Diffuse knapweed |
Centaurea diffusa |
Restricted |
yes |
|
Spotted knapweed |
Centaurea maculosa |
Restricted |
|
|
Yellow starthistle |
Centaurea solstitialis |
Restricted |
yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-50
May 2007
|
Common name |
Scientific name |
State Designation |
Within LHFO Boundary |
|
Dodder |
Cuscuta spp. |
Restricted |
yes |
|
Floating water hyacinth |
Eichhornia crassipes |
Restricted |
|
|
Quackgrass |
Elymus repens |
Restricted |
|
|
Halogeton |
Halogeton glomeratus |
Restricted |
yes |
|
Texas blueweed |
Helianthus cilaris |
Restricted |
|
|
Three-lobed morning glory |
Ipomoea triloba |
Restricted |
|
|
Dalmation toadflax |
Linaria dalmatica |
Restricted |
|
|
Scotch thistle |
Onopordum |
Restricted |
yes |
|
acanthiiim |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-51
May 2007
Desert Tortoise Habitat
The goals and criteria for the Three Categories of Desert Tortoise Habitat Areas are listed in the following table. The criteria are ranked by importance to the categorization process, with Criterion I being the most important.
Table C-10: Goals and Criteria for Three Categories of Desert Tortoise Habitat Areas
|
Items |
Category I Habitat Areas |
Category II Habitat Areas |
Category III Habitat Areas |
|
Category Goals |
Maintain stable, viable populations and protect existing tortoise habitat values; increase populations, where possible. |
Maintain stable, viable populations and halt further declines in tortoise habitat values. |
Limit tortoise habitat and population declines to the extent possible by mitigating impacts |
|
Criterion 1 |
Habitat Area essential to the maintenance of large viable populations. |
Habitat Area may be essential to maintenance of viable populations. |
Habitat Area not essential to maintenance of viable populations |
|
Criterion 2 |
Conflicts resolvable. |
Most conflicts resolvable. |
Most conflicts not resolvable. |
|
Criterion 3 |
Medium to high density or low density contiguous with medium or high density. |
Medium to high density or low density contiguous with medium or high density. |
Low to medium density not contiguous with medium or high density. |
|
Criterion 4 |
Increasing, stable, or decreasing population. |
Stable or decreasing population. |
Stable or decreasing population. |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
C-52
May 2007
Appendix D
Water Resources: Springs/Wells/Reservoirs/Water Catchments
The following list shows all known desert water sources and developments beyond those perennial waters of the Colorado or Bill Williams Rivers. The list also shows if the water
|
source is developed for beneficial consumptive uses by wildlife, livestock, or other purposes of public benefit. |
|
|
Name |
Developed |
|
Arrastra Canyon (Mohave Mtn. #5) |
Yes |
|
Arrastra Well |
No |
|
Arrastra Well (772) |
Yes |
|
Arrowweed Spring |
No |
|
Aubrey Hills Catchment (892) |
Yes |
|
Aubrey Hills Tunnel |
Yes |
|
Betty Lou (845) |
Yes |
|
Big Falls Dam |
Yes |
|
Bill Williams Spring |
No |
|
Blacksmith Canyon Catchment |
Yes |
|
Blacksmith Canyon Spring |
Yes |
|
Black Tank |
Yes |
|
Bouse Hills (928) |
Yes ' |
|
Box Spring |
No |
|
Bristol Spring |
No |
|
Buckskin Jump-off / Mesa #3 (9 1 8) |
Yes |
|
Buckskin Mesa #4 (943) |
Yes |
|
Buckskin Mtn. 1 (628) |
Yes |
|
Buckskin Mtn. 2 (629) |
Yes |
|
Buckskin Tunnel |
Yes |
|
Bermuda Spring |
No |
|
Burnt Spring |
No |
|
Burro Canyon / Mohave Mtn. #2 (771) |
Yes |
|
Burro Canyon / Mohave Mtn. #4 |
Yes |
|
Burro SpringAVell |
No |
|
California Catchment 1 |
Yes |
|
California Catchment 2 |
Yes |
|
C.A.P. Tank |
Yes |
|
Catasaurus Catchment |
Yes |
|
Cattail Cove (900) |
Yes |
|
Cayuga Tank (807) |
Yes |
|
Centennial Wash (I) (441) |
Yes |
|
Centennial Wash (II) (442) |
Yes |
|
Chino Spring |
No |
|
Chris’s Hideout Well |
Yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
D-1
May 2007
Name
Developed
|
Cienega Springs |
Yes |
|
Conley Reservoir |
Yes |
|
Cottonwood Spring |
No |
|
Crossman Peak (Mohave Mtn. #2) (739) |
Yes |
|
Dripping Springs |
Yes |
|
Dry Tank |
Yes |
|
Earth Tank |
Yes |
|
Flag Spring |
No |
|
Goat Spring |
Yes |
|
Gold Spring |
Yes |
|
Granite Wash 1 (929) |
Yes |
|
Granite Wash 2 (930) |
Yes |
|
Granite Wash 3 |
Yes |
|
Granite Wash 4 |
Yes |
|
Granite Wash Big Horn Sheep Catehment |
Yes |
|
Granite Wash Pothole |
Yes |
|
Grapevine Canyon Spring |
No |
|
Grapevine Springs |
No |
|
Gravel Pit (913) |
Yes |
|
Haneoek Reservoir |
Yes |
|
Hancoek Stoek Tank |
Yes |
|
Hareuvar#! (597) |
Yes |
|
Hareuvar #1 1 |
Yes |
|
Hareuvar #2 |
Yes |
|
Hareuvar #3 |
Yes |
|
Hareuvar #6 |
Yes |
|
Hareuvar #9 |
Yes |
|
Hareuvar Big Horn Sheep #6 |
Yes |
|
Hareuvar Deer #2 |
Yes |
|
Hareuvar Deer #3 |
Yes |
|
Hareuvar Mtns. #1 |
Yes |
|
Hargus Cabin Spring |
Yes |
|
Harquar Tank (932) |
Yes |
|
Havasu Spring |
No |
|
Highway 95 - Red Cliff |
Yes |
|
Horse Corral (Mohave Mtn. #1) (670) |
Yes |
|
Ibex Peak I (958) |
Yes |
|
Ibex Peak II |
Yes |
|
Jackpot Spring |
No |
|
Jasmine |
Yes |
|
Jasmine Apron |
Yes |
|
Jupiter Spring |
Yes |
|
Lamb Spring (573) |
Yes |
|
Leroy |
Yes |
|
Lake Mine |
Yes |
|
Little Black Mtn. #1 |
Yes |
|
Little Black Mtn. #2 |
Yes |
|
Little Black Mtn. #3 |
Yes |
|
Little Buckskin Mtn. #1 (935) |
Yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
D-2
May 2007
Name
Developed
|
Little Buckskin Mtn. #2 |
Yes |
|
Little Buckskin Mtn. #3 |
Yes |
|
Little Buckskin Mtn. Mule Deer Catchment |
Yes |
|
Lower West Side Reservoir |
Yes |
|
Midway (970) |
Yes |
|
Midway Spring |
No |
|
Miller Reservoir |
Yes |
|
Miller Well (1027) |
Yes |
|
Miller Well Apron |
Yes |
|
Mississippi Spring |
Yes |
|
Mohave Mtn. #3 (abandoned) |
Yes |
|
Mohave Springs |
Yes |
|
Muse Reservoir |
Yes |
|
N. Plomosa |
Yes |
|
New Well Tank |
Yes |
|
No Name Canyon (774) |
Yes |
|
No Name Canyon (Mohave Mtn. #6) |
Yes |
|
Onetto Spring |
No |
|
Oro Tank |
Yes |
|
Orosco Tank |
Yes |
|
Osborne Tank |
Yes |
|
Paloma Wash Catchment |
Yes |
|
Phoenix Trust Reservoir |
Yes |
|
Piedras Blancas (1032) |
Yes |
|
Planet Peak Apron |
Yes |
|
Planet Peak Tank |
Yes |
|
Planet Peak Tunnel |
Yes |
|
Plomosa Mtn. #2 (521) |
Yes |
|
Portal Inlet (931) |
Yes |
|
Ram Mtn. Apron |
Yes |
|
Ram Mtn. Tanks |
Yes |
|
Red Cliffs (996) |
Yes |
|
Refuge Boundary |
Yes |
|
Refuge Boundary (Mohave Mtn. #7) (777) |
Yes |
|
Reily |
Yes |
|
Roadside Tank |
Yes |
|
Scott’s Well |
Yes |
|
Screwbean Spring |
Yes |
|
Secret Pass Spring |
No |
|
Seep Spring |
No |
|
Shancy Spring |
No |
|
Short Spring |
No |
|
Section 26 Tank |
Yes |
|
Silver Creek Spring |
No |
|
Skull Mtn. |
Yes |
|
Smith Peak (957) |
Yes |
|
Smith Peak Catchment |
Yes |
|
Socorro Peak (934) |
Yes |
|
Socorro Catchment |
Yes |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
D-3
May 2007
|
Name |
Developed |
|
South Needles Tank/Pothole (980) |
Yes |
|
Spring & Improvement |
Yes |
|
Standard Wash Catchment |
Yes |
|
Standard Wash (892) |
Yes |
|
Summit Spring |
No |
|
Swansea |
No |
|
Tank Pass (963) |
Yes |
|
Tinajas dos Picos |
Yes |
|
Tortoise Tank |
Yes |
|
Tule Spring |
Yes |
|
Tunnel Spring |
No |
|
Upper West Side Reservoir |
Yes |
|
Winchester Tank Reservoir |
Yes |
|
Whiskey Spring |
No |
This list is based on available data sources, including the Rangeland Improvement Project System and GIS data sources, and may not be complete.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
D-4
May 2007
Appendix E
Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources: Basic Goals, Objectives, Allocations, and Actions
Goal 1: Preserve and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations.
Objectives
■ Allocate sites to cultural resource use categories, in accordance with BLM Manual 81 10, to achieve the corresponding desired future conditions. Use categories include scientific use, conservation for future use, traditional use, public use, experimental use, and discharged from management.
■ Implement physical protection measures at sites.
■ Retain significant resources in public ownership.
■ Acquire significant resources for protection and management under public ownership.
■ Identify significant cultural landscapes and associated use allocations.
■ Preserve sites that represent the range of time periods, cultural traditions, and functional types within the planning area.
■ Consult with Indian tribes to identify places of traditional importance and access needs, and to evaluate and determine site use allocations and protection priorities.
■ Encourage and permit scientific research to include non-invasive archaeological methods and the documentation of oral histories and oral traditions.
■ Provide opportunities for cultural heritage tourism and associated partnerships.
■ Develop and maintain an active program of public education on the nature and values of cultural resources and the need to preserve them. Direct educational efforts toward a variety of age groups and audiences. Disseminate the results of scientific research to the public in an understandable format.
■ Involve local communities in cultural resource protection and public education projects.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
E-1
May 2007
Allocations and Management Actions
■ Identify priority areas for cultural resource management based on the relative importance and sensitivity of known and anticipated cultural properties. Management actions: these areas will be assigned a higher priority for inventory, scientific research, condition monitoring, and the implemxcntation of protection measures and use restrictions. They will also receive relatively high priority for National Register nomination, retention in federal ownership, and acquisition of in-holdings or properties of high significance on adjacent lands.
■ Identify alternative sites and areas for varying intensities of public use.
■ Continue to maintain sites that have been developed for interpretive uses.
■ Work with the recreation program to incorporate sites allocated to public use into systems of recreational trails, routes, and Back Country Byways.
■ Conduct ethnohistoric studies of selected areas to identify places of traditional cultural importance, tribal concerns, tribal needs for access and natural resource use, and protective measures.
Goal 2: Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts, from natural or human-caused deterioration, or from other resource uses.
Objectives
■ Work with BLM staff and land use applicants to develop project designs that avoid adverse impacts to significant cultural resources.
■ Work with geologists to ensure that abandoned mine closures do not unnecessarily cause damage to cultural resources.
■ Identify and protect historic structures and other fire-sensitive sites in areas designated for fuels treatment programs.
■ Reduce the impacts of motorized and non-motorized recreational activities, including recreational prospecting, on archaeological sites.
■ Reduce the impacts of commercial recreational activities and events, while providing opportunities for public enjoyment and education.
■ In considering applications for leases under the Recreation & Public Purposes Act, identify and analyze NEPA alternatives that do not contain significant cultural resources.
■ Review proposed grazing permit renewals to evaluate areas of livestock congregation where grazing activities are causing damage to significant sites, and take action to protect the sites.
■ Maintain the visual integrity of cultural landscapes and settings of significant sites.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
E-2
May 2007
Allocations and Management Actions
■ Conduct cultural resources inventories to identify significant resources, imminent threats, and potential conflicts with other resource uses (see Goal 3).
■ Ensure that holders of special recreation permits monitor the condition of archaeological sites to which they are permitted to take visitors, and that they offer appropriate educational information about resource conservation.
■ Establish limitations, restrictions, or stipulations to ensure that commercial tour operators do not damage cultural resources.
■ Prohibit commercial tours to selected areas in order to protect cultural resources. Such areas may be allocated to a category of “conservation for future use.”
■ Prohibit geocaching activities on archaeological sites.
■ Limit vehicle traffic to designated routes or, if needed, close selected routes to vehicles or reroute to reduce physical damage or limit access to significant archaeological sites.
■ Restrict livestock grazing where this activity is causing significant damage to sites.
■ In evaluating alternative locations for leases granted under the Recreation & Public Purposes Act, assign preference to areas that do not contain significant cultural resources, or to areas managed as open space with limited access. If leases are granted in areas that contain significant cultural resources, it is preferable to mitigate adverse effects through scientific data recovery rather than patent restrictions or reversionary clauses.
■ Establish a policy that prohibits scientific and public uses of sites from disturbing Native American human remains and associated objects.
Goal 3: Identify priority geographic areas for new field inventory, based upon a probability for unrecorded significant resources.
Objectives
■ Conduct field inventories to identify significant cultural resources in order to determine threats and effective protection measures, and to allocate sites to appropriate uses.
Allocations and Management Actions
■ Define priority areas for field inventories.
■ Identify cultural landscapes and traditional cultural properties that may require protection or special management.
■ Coordinate with adjacent Field Offices on priority inventories.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
E-3
May 2007
□ Harcuvar Mountains: The Harcuvar Mountains contain a variety of significant archaeological sites, including prehistoric camps, stone tool manufacturing sites, and petroglyphs. Unusual sites include rockshelters, pictographs, and occurrences of minerals and crystals. These sites have the potential to yield important information about prehistoric occupation of the area, particularly during the period between A.D. 700 and 1000. There may also be sites associated with transportation, commerce, and military activities during the 1800s.
□ Harquahala Mountains: This mountain range, a major zone of oceupation by the historic Yavapai tribe, contains significant prehistoric sites including habitation camps, milling areas, and rock art. The significance of the cultural resources is consistent with a recommendation by wildlife biologists to establish an ACEC that includes the entire area of the range managed by PFO.
Land Use Allocation for Cultural Resources
|
Table E-1. |
Allocation of LHFO Cultural Sites |
|
Approved RMP |
|
|
Conservation (28) Intaglio (3) |
|
|
Dough Boy |
Desert Unit |
|
Osborne Snake, etc |
Desert Unit |
|
Feathered Serpent |
Desert Unit |
|
Rock Art ( 1 0) |
|
|
Empire |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Arrastre Canyon |
Desert Unit |
|
Burro Canyon |
Desert Unit |
|
Hwy 60 |
Desert Unit |
|
AhVilla |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Harcuvar Pictograph sites |
Desert Unit |
|
Harquar Tank |
Desert Unit |
|
Mississippi Spr |
Bill Williams Unit |
|
Kegley Lynch |
Desert Unit |
|
Bison |
Desert Unit |
|
Habitation (13) |
|
|
Osborne Wash |
Desert Unit |
|
Mohave Mesa |
Desert Unit |
|
Black Tank |
Desert Unit |
|
Screwbean |
Desert Unit |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
E-4
May 2007
|
Table E-1. Allocation of LHFO Cultural Sites |
|
|
Bowman’s Wash |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Beale’s Wagon Road |
Colorado River Unit |
|
M:9:16(ASM) |
Bill Williams Unit |
|
Bluebird |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Colorado River Nature Center |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Bouse Well |
Desert Unit |
|
Owl Cliff s shelter |
Desert Unit |
|
Centennial Wash |
Bill Williams Unit |
|
Mineral Wash |
Desert Unit |
|
Historic (2) |
|
|
Harquahala Mining |
Desert Unit |
|
Bonanza & Incline |
Desert Unit |
|
Traditional (7) Intaglio (5) |
|
|
Beale Slough |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Thunderbird |
Desert Unit |
|
Rattlesnake |
Desert Unit |
|
Topock Maze |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Park Moabi |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Petroglyph |
|
|
Stateline Glyph |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Complex |
|
|
Creation Site Area |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Public (8) |
|
|
Camp Bouse |
Desert Unit |
|
A&PRR |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Culling’s Well |
Desert Unit |
|
Hardy Toll Rd |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Schwanbeck’s |
Colorado River Unit |
|
Swansea |
Bill Williams Unit |
|
McGuffie Cabin |
Bill Williams Unit |
|
Hargus Cabin |
Desert Unit |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
E-5
May 2007
Special Cultural Resource Management Area
Special Cultural Resource Management Areas contain cultural resources (archaeological sites, historic sites, or places of traditional cultural importance) that are particularly important for public use, scientific use, traditional use, or other uses as defined in BLM Manual 81 10.4. Management prescriptions for these areas should reflect and support the primary values for which the areas are allocated. For example, management prescriptions for a Special Cultural Resource Management Area allocated primarily for public use should focus on developing and interpreting sites for public visitation, including heritage tourism. Management prescriptions for a special area allocated primarily for scientific use should focus on protecting sites for study, supporting field schools, and other research efforts. Management prescriptions for a special area allocated primarily for traditional use should seek to accommodate the traditional cultural practices of Indian tribes or other cultural groups that ascribe religious or other heritage values to the area. Management prescriptions for a special area allocated primarily to protect scarce sites of singular importance should not be subjected to invasive studies or other uses that would threaten their present condition. Instead prescriptions should focus on conserving such sites for the future.
Management prescriptions for a single Special Cultural Resource Management Area can focus on more than one type of use, just as a single cultural property can be allocated to more than one of the use categories described in Manual 81 10.4. For example, a special area might contain a set of cultural properties that, linked together and interpreted as a group, would make a good auto tour route for heritage tourism. At the same time, the area might contain several cultural properties of unusual historic importance that should be segregated from land or resource uses that might impair their present condition or setting. While both kinds of properties should receive management emphasis, they can be subsumed within a single land use allocation with management prescriptions tailored to support public visitation of the sites along the auto tour route, and protection for the sites that warrant segregation.
The primary purpose of this land use allocation is to differentiate some portions of a planning area from others in terms of cultural resource values. The allocation can denote priority for the expenditure of time and funds or the need for special protection to achieve management objectives. However, highlighting a geographic area for its speeial cultural resource values does not diminish the importance of cultural resources in other areas. Cultural resources on lands not included within special areas still need to be managed for the values they contain and opportunities they afford.
Definition of Use Categories
SCIENTIFIC USE: This category applies to any cultural property determined to be available for consideration as the subject of scientific or historical study at the present time, using currently available research techniques. Study indicates methods that would result in the property’s physical alteration or destruction. This category applies almost entirely to prehistoric and historic archaeological properties, where this method of use is generally archaeological excavation, controlled surface collection, and/or controlled recordation (data recovery). Recommendation to allocate individual properties to this use
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
E-6
May 2007
must be based on documentation of the kinds of data the property is thought to contain and the data’s importance for pursuing specific research topics.
CONSERVATION FOR FUTURE USE: This category is reserved for any unusual cultural resource that, because of scarcity, a research importance, cultural importance, architectural interest, or comparable reasons, is not currently appropriate for consideration as the subject of scientific or historical study that would result in its physical alteration. A cultural property or location included in this category is considered worthy of segregation from all other land or resource uses, including cultural resource uses, that would threaten the maintenance of the present condition or setting, as pertinent, and it will remain in this category until specific provisions are met in the future. A cultural resource will be separated and protected from other non-compatible land uses and preserved in place because a) that particular site type is scarce or unique, b) its infomiation potential cannot be realized through available archaeological methods, or c) it represents an outstanding example of a particular site type.
TRADITIONAL USE: This category is to be applied to any cultural resource that is perceived by a specified social and/or cultural group as having attributes that contribute to maintaining the heritage or existence of that group. This use category signifies that the cultural resource is to be managed in a way that takes those attributes into account, as applicable.
PUBLIC USE: A cultural property is eligible for consideration as an interpretive exhibit-in-place, a subject of supervised participation in scientific or historical study, a subject of unsupervised collecting under permit or related educational and recreational uses by members of the general public.
EXPERIMENTAL USE: This category may be applied to a cultural property judged well-suited for controlled experimental study, to be conducted by BLM or others concerned with the techniques of managing cultural properties, which would result in the property’s alteration, possibly including loss of integrity and destruction of physical elements. Committing cultural properties or the data they contain to loss must be justified in terms of specific information that would be gained and how it would aid in the management of other cultural properties. Experimental study should aim toward understanding the kinds and rates of natural or
human-caused deterioration, testing the effectiveness of protection measures, or developing new research or interpretation methods and similar kinds of practical management information.
DISCHARGED FROM MANAGEMENT: This category is assigned to cultural properties that have no remaining identifiable use. Most often these are prehistoric and historic archaeological properties, such as small surface scatters of artifacts or debris, whose limited research potential is effectively exhausted as soon as they have been documented. Also, more complex archaeological properties that have had their salient information collected and preserved through mitigation or research may be discharged from management, as should cultural properties destroyed by any natural event or human activity. Properties discharged from management remain in the inventory, but they are removed from further management attention and do not constrain other land uses.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
E-7
May 2007
Paleontological Resources
Paleontology is the study of flora and fauna (vertebrate and invertebrate) from past geologieal eras. Paleontological resources are fossils, or recognizable remains of past life, which have been preserved through various processes. The most typical process involves deposition of the organism in sediment which has either preserved the form of the organic material through replacement of the organic material by sediment, or through preservation of the form of the organism by impression in sediment. In some dry climates, preservation of organic material may occur.
Significant fossil sites on BLM-managed land in Lake Havasu Field Office include the Golden Shores Mammoth site, the Bouse Formation and the Chemehuevi Formation.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
E-8
May 2007
Appendix F
Vegetation Treatments (Including Fire)
Treatment Methods
Several treatment methods and Standard Operating Procedures would be used in a vegetation treatment program. BLM policies and guidance for public land treatments would be followed in implementing all treatment methods. Many guidelines are provided in manual Section 1740, BLM Arizona’s Standards for Rangeland Health, Programmatic documents such as BLM’s Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States (May 1991), and other general and specific program policy, procedures, and standards pertinent to implementation of renewable resource improvements.
In Arizona, BLM manages designated Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and areas managed for wilderness characteristics that are identified in an approved land use plan. Guidelines and operating procedures for fire management activities in Wilderness Areas are provided in BLM Manual 8560, Management of Designated Wilderness Areas, and in Wilderness Management Plans where completed for specific Wilderness Areas (Table 3.9).
Fire management guidance for Wilderness Study Areas is provided in BLM Manual 8550, Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review. Approved land use plans specify fire management procedures for areas identified in the land use plan to be managed for wilderness characteristics.
The following manual, chemical, mechanical, biological and fire treatment methods would be used for all alternatives.
Manual
Hand-operated power tools and hand tools are used in manual vegetation treatment to cut, clear, or prune herbaceous and woody species. In manual treatments, workers would cut plants above ground level; pull, grub, or dig out plant root systems to prevent subsequent sprouting and regrowth; scalp at ground level or remove competing plants around desired vegetation; or place mulch around desired vegetation to limit the growth of competing vegetation. Hand tools such as the handsaw, axe, shovel, rake, machete, grubbing hoe, mattock (combination of axe and grubbing hoe), brush hook, and hand clippers are used in manual treatments.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-1
May 2007
Axes, shovels, grubbing hoes, and mattocks can dig up and cut below the surface to remove the main root of plants such as prickly pear and mesquite that have roots that can quickly resprout in response to surface cutting or clearing. Workers also may use power tools such as chain saws and power brush saws.
Mechanical
Mechanical methods of vegetation treatment employ several different types of equipment to suppress, inhibit, or control herbaceous and woody vegetation (Vallentine 1980). The goal of mechanical treatments is to kill or reduce the cover of undesirable vegetation and thus encourage the growth of desirable plants. BLM uses wheel tractors, crawler-type tractors, mowers, or specially designed vehicles with attached implements for meehanical vegetation treatments. The use of mechanical equipment to reduce fuel hazards will be conducted in accordance with BLM established procedures. Reseeding after a meehanical treatment has been applied is important to help insure that desirable plants become established on the site and not weedy species. The mechanical treatment and reseeding should occur at a time to best control the undesirable vegetation and encourage the establishment of desirable vegetation. The best mechanical method for treating undesired plants in a particular location depends on the following factors:
1 . Characteristics of the undesired speeies present such as plant density stem size, woodiness, brittleness, and resprouting ability.
2. Need for seedbed preparation, revegetation, and improvement of water infiltration rates.
3. Topography and terrain.
4. Soil characteristics such as type, depth, amount and size of rocks, erosion potential, and susceptibility to compaetion.
5. Climatie and seasonal conditions.
6. Potential cost of improvement as compared to expected results.
Bulldozing consists of a wheeled or erawler tractor with a heavy, hydraulically controlled blade. Vegetation is pushed over, uprooted, and then left in windrows or piles. Bulldozing is best adapted to removing scattered stands of large brush or trees.
Several different kinds of blades are available, depending of the type of vegetation and goals of the project. The disadvantage of bulldozing is soil disturbance and damage to non-target plant species.
Disk plowing in its various forms can be used for removing shallow-rooted herbaceous and woody plants. Disk plows should be used only where all of the vegetation is intended to be killed. Several different kinds of root plows are specific for certain types of vegetation. In addition to killing vegetation, disk plowing is effective in loosening the soil surface to prepare it for seeding and to improve the rate of water infiltration. The disadvantage of disk plowing is that it may be expensive and usually kills all plant species. Also, plowing is usually not practicable on steep slopes (greater than a 35% to 45% slope) or rocky soil. Plant species that sprout from roots may survive.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-2
May 2007
Chaining and cabling is accomplished by dragging heavy anchor chains or steel cables hooked behind to tractors in a U-shape, half circle, or J-shaped manner. This method effective on rocky soils and steep slopes and is best used to control non-sprouting woody vegetation such as small trees and shrubs. However, desirable shrubs may be damaged in the process. Herbaceous vegetation is normally not injured by this control method. This control method is cost effective as large areas can be readily treated. The chains or cables also scarify the soil surface in anticipation of seeding desirable species. The disadvantage is that weedy herbaceous vegetation can survive this treatment.
Various tractor attachments are used for mowing, beating, crushing, chopping, or shredding vegetation, depending on the nature of the plant stand and goals of the project. The advantage in using this type of equipment is that selective plants may be targeted to achieve specific goals. For example, mowing is effective in reducing plant height to a desirable condition, and it usually does not kill vegetation. Mowing is more effective on herbaceous than woody vegetation. On the other hand, a rolling cutter can kill woody non-sprouting vegetation by breaking stems at ground level but leave herbaceous vegetation intact. Mowing, beating, crushing, chopping, or shredding usually does not disturb soil. Rocky soil and steep slopes may limit this use of this equipment.
Debris management after a mechanical control treatment application is critical in fuels reduction projects. Vegetation material that is left onsite will dry and may become more hazardous than before the treatment. Herbaceous material is usually not a problem because it will decompose relatively fast depending on soil moisture, ambient humidity, and temperature. Woody vegetation should be piled and burned under acceptable fire management practices.
Biological
Biological methods of vegetation treatment could employ grazing by cattle, sheep, or goats, but would not include the use of invertebrates or microorganisms. BLM would use cattle, sheep, or goats only when grazing would have no effect on listed, proposed, or candidate species. The use of grazing as a biological control agent would be conducted in accordance with BLM procedures in the Use of Biological Control Agents of Pests on Public Lands (BLM 1990). Grazing by cattle, sheep, or goats would be used as biological control methods under all alternatives, although at the present these methods can control only a few plant species.
Gradually, biological methods using cattle, sheep, or goats would avoid erosion hazard areas, areas of compactable soils, riparian areas susceptible to bank damage, and steep erodible slopes.
Biological control using cattle, sheep, or goats would be applied to treatment areas for short periods. When considering the use of grazing animals as an effective biological control measure, several factors will be taken into consideration including the following:
1 . Target plant species present.
2. Size of the infestation of target plant species.
3. Other plant species present.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-3
May 2007
4. Stage of growth of both target and other plant species.
5. Palatability of all plant species present.
6. Selectivity of all plant species present by the grazing animal species that is being considered for use as a biological control agent.
7. The availability of that grazing animal within the treatment site area.
8. Type of management program that is logical and realistic for the specific treatment site.
These factors would be some of the options taken when developing the individual treatment for a specific site.
Although discussed as biological agents, cattle, sheep, and goats are not truly biological agents but are domestic animals used to control only the top growth of certain noxious weeds. The following are some advantages of using domestic animals, mainly sheep or goats, for noxious weed control:
1 . They use weeds as a food source.
2. Following a brief adjustment period, they sometimes consume as much as 50 percent of their daily diet of this species.
3. Average daily gains of offspring grazing certain weed-infested pastures can sometimes be significantly higher than average daily gains of offspring grazing grass pastures.
4. Sheep or goats can be used in combination with herbicides.
Some of the disadvantages of using domestic animals are as follows:
1. They also use nontarget plants as food sources.
2. The use of domestic animals, like sheep or goats, requires a herder or temporary fencing.
3. The animals may be killed by predators such as coyotes.
4. Heavy grazing of some weed species, such as leafy spurge, tends to loosen the stools of the grazing animals.
5. Most weed species are less palatable than desirable vegetation and would cause overgrazing.
6. They may accelerate movement of normative plants through seed ingestion and excretion.
7. Domestic livestock may transmit parasites and/or pathogens to resident native wildlife species.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-4
May 2007
Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burning is the planned application of fire to wildland fuels in their natural or modified state, under specific conditions of fuels, weather, and other variables to allow the fire to remain in a predetermined area and to achieve site-specific fire and resource management objectives.
Management objectives of prescribed burning include the control of certain species; enhancement of growth, reproduction, or vigor of certain species; management of fuel loads; and maintenance of vegetation community types that best meet multiple-use management objectives. Treatments would be implemented in accordance with BLM procedures in Fire Planning (BLM 1987c), Prescribed Fire Management (BLM 1988b), andFzVe Training and Qualifications (BLM 1987d).
Prior to conducting a prescribed bum, a written plan must be prepared that takes into consideration existing conditions (e.g., amount of fuel, fuel moisture, temperatures, terrain, weather forecasts, and other factors) and identifies people responsible for overseeing the fire.
Natural fire that is allowed to bum also needs to be carefully monitored to ensure that it does not threaten communities, other values to be protected, and ecosystems. This monitoring may require special expertise such as the fire use management teams that have been developed to support the overall fire management program. Planning and implementation for a specific prescribed fire project entails the following four phases:
■ Phase 1 : Information/Assessment Phase includes identifying the area to be treated, inventory and assessment of site-specific conditions (e.g., live and dead vegetation densities, dead down woody fuels loadings, and soil types), analysis of historic and current fire management, and identification of resource objectives from RMP and NEPA analysis and compliance.
■ Phase 2; The Prescribed Fire Plan Development Phase includes developing the site-specific prescribed fire plan to BLM Standards, reviewing of the plan, and obtaining plan approval from local BLM field office administrators.
■ Phase 3: Implementation includes igniting the fire according to the plan’s prescribed parameters and preparing the prescribed fire boundary area to ensure that the fire remains within the prescribed boundaries. Site preparation may be in the form of fire line construction and improving roads and wildlife and stock trails by limbing trees and clearing debris.
■ Phase 4: Monitoring and Evaluation includes assessment and long-term monitoring of the fire treatment to ensure the prescribed fire has met the objectives of the approved prescribed fire plan. BLM fire monitoring policy is described in the BLM prescribed Fire Management Handbook, October 2003, Chapter 2 and Appendix 7. This policy applies to prescribed fire and wildland fire use.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-5
May 2007
Appropriate Management Response
The appropriate management response concept represents a range of available management responses to wildland fires. Responses range from full fire suppression to managing fires for resource benefits (fire use). Management responses applied to a fire will be identified in the FMP and will be based on objectives derived from the land use allocations, relative risk to resources, the public and fire fighters, potential complexity, and the ability to defend management boundaries. Any wildland fire can be aggressively suppressed, and any fire that occurs in an area designated for fire use can be managed for resource benefits if it meets the prescribed criteria from an approved fire management plan.
Chemical
BLM would use EPA-approved herbicides in accordance with EPA’s Endangered Species Pesticide Program covered in BLM’s Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States FEIS (May 1991) and further limited to those approved for use by the Arizona Record of Decision (Page 3, ROD, July 1991). These herbicides are Atrazine; Bromacil; Bromacil + Diuron; Chlorsulfuron; Clopyralid; 2,4-D, Dicamba; Dicamba + 2,4-D; Diuron; Glyphosate; Glyphosate + 2,4-D; Hexazinone; Imazapyr; Mefluidide; Metsulfuron Methyl; Picloram; Picloram + 2,4-D; Simazine; Sulfometuron Methyl; Tebuthiuron; and Triclopyr. Treatments will follow Standard Operating Procedures) on pages 1-19 through 1-32 and project design features on pages 1-33 through 1-37 of the FEIS.
Additionally, the project design features buffer strips as described on page 10 of the ROD. Buffer strips would be used adjacent to dwellings, domestic water sources, agriculture land, streams, lakes, and ponds. A minimum buffer strip 100 feet wide will be provided for aerial application, 25 feet wide for vehicle application, and 10 feet wide for hand application. Any deviations must be in accordance with the label for the herbicide. Flerbicides will be wiped on individual plants within 10 feet of water where application is critical. These buffer strips would also be used to protect listed, proposed, and candidate species. BLM will work closely with the FWS to ensure that herbicide applications do not affect listed or proposed threatened or endangered species on a project-level basis. If adverse effects are anticipated during informal consultation, then BLM will formally consult on these projects. If FWS develops herbicide guidance for particular species that improves protection beyond the current BLM design features, BLM will consider and incorporate that guidance as it consults with the FWS on a project-level basis. The chemicals can be applied by many different methods, and the selected technique depends on a number of variables:
1 . Treatment objective (removal or reduction).
2. Accessibility, topography, and size of the treatment area.
3. Characteristics of the target species and the desired vegetation.
4. Location of sensitive areas in the immediate vicinity (potential environmental impacts).
5. Anticipated costs and equipment limitations.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-6
May 2007
6. Meteorological and vegetative conditions of the treatment area at the time of treatment.
Herbicide applications are scheduled and designed to minimize potential impacts on non- target plants and animals while remaining consistent with the objective of the vegetation treatment program. The rates of application depend on the target species, presence and condition of non-target vegetation, soil type, depth to the water table, presence of other water sources, and the requirements of the label.
In many circumstances, the herbicide chosen, time of treatment, and rate of application of the herbicide is different than the most ideal herbicide application for maximum control of the target plant species in order to minimize damage to the non-target plant species and to ensure minimum risk to human health and safety.
The chemicals would be applied aerially with helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft or on the ground using vehicles or manual application devices. Helicopters are more expensive to use than fixed-wing aircraft, but they are more maneuverable and effective in areas with irregular terrain and in treating specific target vegetation in areas with many vegetation types. Manual applications are used only for treating small areas or those inaccessible by vehicle.
The typical and maximum application rates of each chemical would vary, depending on the program area being treated.
Fire Suppression Actions
The following constraints to fire suppression actions are common to all alternatives:
■ Suppression tactics are utilized that limit damage or disturbance to the habitat and landscape. No heavy equipment (such as dozers) is used, unless approved by the Field Office Manager.
■ Use of fire retardants or chemicals adjacent to waterways will be accomplished in accordance to the Environmental Guidelines for Delivery of Retardant or Foam near Waterways (Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations pages 8-13).
■ All known cultural resources are protected from disturbance.
■ In Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and areas being managed for wilderness characteristics according to LUPs, when suppression actions are required, minimum impact suppression tactics (Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations, 2003) would be utilized and coordinated with Wilderness Area management objectives and guidelines.
■ The general and species-specific Conservation Measures from the Proposed Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality, March 2004 are listed in this appendix and will be implemented to the extent possible to minimize adverse effects to federally listed, proposed, or candidate species occurring within the action area.
■ For fire suppression activities, a protocol for consultation has been developed as a part of the Biological Opinion (BO). This programmatic consultation contains conservation measures and prescriptions for use in fire suppression activities.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-7
May 2007
Emergency consultation should be needed in the future only if suppression actions fall outside of these prescriptions/measures. The BO should outline coordination needs for emergency response actions that may affect a listed/proposed species and/or critical habitat.
The following protocol applies:
BLM will contact the appropriate USFWS biologist as soon as practical once a wildfire starts and a determination is made that a federally protected species and/or its habitat could be affected by the fire and/or fire suppression activities. USFWS will work with BLM during the emergency response to apply the appropriate Conservation Measures. If Conservation Measures cannot be applied during the suppression activities, BLM would consult after the fact on any suppression actions that may have affected a federally protected species or its habitat. If Conservation Measures are adhered to, then BLM will report on the actions taken and effects to the species and its habitat following the fire, but no further consultation on that incident should be required.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-8
May 2007
Proposed Conservation Measures for Arizona BLM Statewide LUP Amendment and EA for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management
This section is organized by program area. Each of the decisions is coded to reflect the primary resource that is affected. These codes correspond to those presented in the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management (AZLUP 2003).
Wildland Fire Suppression (FS)
Fuels Treatments (FT)
Rehabilitation and Restoration (RR)
Conservation Measures for Fire (RA)
Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats Species Specific Conservation Measures Amphibians (AM)
Birds
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (FP)
California brown pelican (BP)
California Condor (CC)
Northern aplomado falcon (AF)
Southwestern willow flycatcher (WF)
Yuma clapper rail (CR)
Bald eagle (BE)
Mexican spotted owl (SO)
Yellow-billed cuckoo (YC)
Fish (FI)
Bonytail chub (BC)
Desert pupfish (DP)
Gila topminnow (GT)
Razorback sucker (RS)
Virgin River chub (VC)
Woundfm (WM)
Little Colorado spinedace (LS)
Loach minnow (LM)
Gila chub (GC)
Flowering Plants PL)
Huachuca Water Umbel (WU)
Kearney’s Blue Star (KB)
Mammals
Black-footed ferret (BF)
Hualapai Mexican vole (HV)
Jaguar (JA)
Lesser long-nosed bat (LB)
Mexican gray wolf (GW)
Black-tailed prairie dog (PD)
Reptiles
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-9
May 2007
Desert tortoise
New Mexico ridgenose rattlesnake
(DT)
(RN)
1. Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities
1.1 Wildland Fire Suppression (FS)
The following Conservation Measures will be implemented during fire suppression operations unless firefighter or public safety, or the protection of property, improvements, or natural resources, render them infeasible during a particular operation. Each Conservation Measure has been given an alphanumerical designation for organizational purposes (e.g., FS-1). Necessary modifications of the Conservation Measures or impacts to federally protected species and habitat during fire suppression operations will be documented by the Resource Advisor, and coordinated with the USFWS.
FS-1 Protect known locations of habitat occupied by federally listed species.
Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) will be followed in all areas with known federally protected species or habitat [Appendix U, Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations 2003, or updates].
FS-2 Resource Advisors will be designated to coordinate natural resource concerns, including federally protected species. They will also serve as a field contact representative (FCR) responsible for coordination with the USFWS. Duties will include identifying protective measures endorsed by the Field Office Manager, and delivering these measures to the Incident Commander; surveying prospective campsites, aircraft landing and fueling sites; and performing other duties necessary to ensure adverse effects to federally protected species and their habitats are minimized. On-the-ground monitors will be designated and used when fire suppression activities occur within identified occupied or suitable habitat for federally protected species.
FS-3 All personnel on the fire (firefighters and support personnel) will be briefed and educated by Resource Advisors or designated supervisors about listed species and the importance of minimizing impacts to individuals and their habitats. All personnel will be informed of the conservation measures designed to minimize or eliminate take of the species present. This information is best identified in the incident objectives.
FS-4 Permanent road construction will not be permitted during fire suppression
activities in habitat occupied by federally protected species. Construction of temporary roads is approved only if necessary for safety or the protection of property or resources, including federally protected species habitat. Temporary road construction should be coordinated with the USFWS, through the Resource Advisor.
FS-5 Crew camps, equipment staging areas, and aircraft landing and fueling areas should be located outside of listed species habitats, and preferably in locations that are disturbed. If camps must be located in listed species habitat, the
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-10
May 2007
Resource Advisor will be consulted to ensure habitat damage and other effects to listed species are minimized and documented. The Resource Advisor should also consider the potential for indirect effects to listed species or their habitat from the siting of camps and staging areas (e.g., if an area is within the water flow pattern, there may be indirect effects to aquatic habitat or species located off-site).
FS-6 All fire management protocols to protect federally protected species will be
coordinated with local fire suppression agencies that conduct fire suppression on BLM-administered lands to ensure that the agency knows how to minimize impacts to federally protected species in the area.
FS-7 The effectiveness of fire suppression activities and Conservation Measures for federally protected species should be evaluated after a fire, when practical, and the results shared with the USFWS, AZGFD, and/or CDFG. Revise future fire suppression plans and tactical applications as needed and as practical.
1.2 Fuels Treatments (prescribed burning and other fuels management) (FT)
The following Conservation Measures are mandatory when implementing wildland fire
use, prescribed fires, and the proposed vegetation treatments (mechanical, chemical,
biological):
FT-1 Biologists will be involved in the development of prescribed bum plans and
vegetation treatment plans to minimize effects to federally protected species and their habitats within, adjacent to, and downstream from proposed project sites. Biologists will consider the protection of seasonal and spatial needs of federally protected species (e.g., avoiding or protecting important use areas or stmctures and maintaining adequate patches of key habitat components) during project planning and implementation.
FT-2 MIST will be followed in all areas with known federally protected species or habitats.
FT-3 Pre-project surveys and clearances (biological evaluations/assessments) for federally protected species will be required for each project site before implementation. All applicable Conservation Measures will be applied to areas with unsurveyed suitable habitat for federally protected species, until a survey has been conducted by qualified personnel to clear the area for the treatment activity.
FT-4 Use of motorized vehicles during prescribed bums or other fuels treatment
activities in suitable or occupied habitat will be restricted, to the extent feasible, to existing roads, trails, washes, and temporary fuelbreaks or site-access routes.
If off-road travel is deemed necessary, any cross-country travel paths will be surveyed prior to use and will be closed and rehabilitated after the prescribed bum or fuels treatment project is completed.
FT-5 As part of the mandatory fire briefing held prior to prescribed burning, all
personnel (firefighters and support personnel) will be briefed and educated by
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-11
May 2007
Resource Advisors or designated supervisors about listed species and the importance of minimizing impacts to individuals and their habitats. All personnel will be informed of the Conservation Measures designed to minimize or eliminate take of the species present.
1.3 Rehabilitation and Restoration (RR)
RR-l When rehabilitating important areas for federally listed species that have been damaged by fire or other fuels treatments, the biologist will give careful consideration to minimizing short-term and long-term impacts. Someone who is familiar with fire impacts and the needs of the affected species will contribute to rehabilitation plan development. Appropriate timing of rehabilitation and spatial needs of federally listed species will be addressed in rehabilitation plans.
RR-2 Seed from regionally native or sterile non-native species of grasses and herbaceous vegetation will be used in areas where reseeding is necessary following ground disturbance to stabilize soils and prevent erosion by both wind and water.
RR-3 Sediment traps or other erosion control methods will be used to reduce or eliminate influx of ash and sediment into aquatic systems.
RR-4 Use of motorized vehicles during rehabilitation or restoration activities in
suitable or occupied habitat will be restricted, to the extent feasible, to existing roads, trails, or washes, and to temporary access roads or fuelbreaks created to enable the fire suppression, prescribed bum, or fuels treatment activities to occur. If off-road travel is deemed necessary, any cross-country travel paths will be surveyed prior to use and will be closed and rehabilitated after rehabilitation or restoration activities are completed.
RR-5 All temporary roads, vehicle tracks, skid trails, and off-road vehicle (ORV) trails resulting from fire suppression and the proposed fire management activities will be rehabilitated (water bars, etc.), and will be closed or made impassible for future use.
RR-6 Burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER) activities and long-term restoration activities should be monitored, and the results provided to the USFWS and AZGFD. Section 7 consultation for BAER activities will be conducted independently, if necessary.
RR-7 (Recommended) Develop public education plans that discourage or restrict fires and fire-prone recreation uses during high fire-risk periods. Develop brochures, signs, and other interpretive materials to educate recreationists about the ecological role of fires, and the potential dangers of accidental fires.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-12
May 2007
2. Conservation Measures For Fire Management Activities In Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (RA)
2.1 Wildland Fire Suppression and Rehabilitation
The following Conservation Measures will be implemented during fire suppression operations in riparian, wetland, or aquatie habitats, unless firefighter or public safety, or the protection of property, improvements, or natural resources, render them infeasible during a particular operation. Necessary modifications of the Conservation Measures or impacts to federally protected species and habitat during fire suppression operations will be documented by the Resource Advisor, and coordinated with the USFWS. The BLM’s 1987 policy statement on riparian area management defines a riparian area as “an area of land directly influenced by permanent water. It has visible vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent water influence. Lakeshores and streambanks are typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil.”
RA-1 During wildfire suppression, apply MIST within riparian areas. Fire suppression actions in riparian areas should be prioritized to minimize damage to stands of native vegetation from wildfire or suppression operations. To the extent possible, retain large, downed woody materials and snags that are not a hazard to firefighters.
RA-2 Fire suppression and rehabilitation in riparian corridors will be coordinated with the Resource Advisor or qualified biologist approved by BLM.
RA-3 Site-specific implementation plans that include project areas with federally protected aquatic or riparian-obligate species will specify fire management objectives and wildland fire suppression guidance, taking into account the special concerns related to these species.
RA-4 In riparian areas, use natural barriers or openings in riparian vegetation where possible as the easiest, safest method to manage a riparian wildfire. Where possible and practical, use wet firebreaks in sandy overflow channels rather than constructing firelines by hand or with heavy equipment.
RA-5 Construction or development of a crossing for motorized vehicles across a
perennial stream will not be permitted, unless an established road already exists or where dry, intermittent sections occur.
RA-6 Avoid the use of fire retardants or chemical foams in riparian habitats or within 300 feet of aquatic habitats, particularly sites occupied by federally protected species. Apply operational guidelines as stated in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations 2003 (or updates), “Environmental Guidelines for Delivery of Retardant or Foam Near Waterways,” Chapter 8 (pp. 8-13 through 8-15).
RA-7 Priority for placement of fire camps, fire staging areas, and aircraft landing or refueling sites will be outside riparian areas or river/stream coiTidors.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-13
May 2007
RA-8 When using water from sourees supporting federally protected species, care must be taken to ensure adverse impacts to these species are minimized or prevented. Unused water from fire abatement activities will not be dumped in sites occupied by federally protected aquatic species to avoid introducing non-native species, diseases, or parasites.
RA-9 If water is drafted from a stock tank or other body of water for fire suppression, it will not be refilled with water from another tank, lakes, or other water sources that may support non-native fishes, bullfrogs, crayfish, or salamanders.
RA-10 Use of containment systems for portable pumps to avoid fuel spills in riparian or aquatic systems will be required.
RA-1 1 (Recommended) Develop and implement restoration plans for affected riparian or aquatic areas, including long-term monitoring, to document changes in conditions in the riparian zone and watershed that maintain flood regimes and reduce fire susceptibility. Monitor stream water quality and riparian ecosystem health to determine effects of wildfire and fire management activities.
Coordinate efforts and results with the USFWS, AZGFD, and/or CDFG.
2.2 Fuels Treatments (prescribed fire; mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments)
The following Conservation Measures are mandatory when implementing wildland fires use, prescribed fires, and the proposed vegetation treatments (mechanical, chemical, biological) within riparian, wetland, or aquatic habitats.
RA-1 2 All Conservation Measures for wildland fire suppression (RA-1 to RA-1 1,
Section 2.1) also apply to fuels treatment activities (prescribed fire; mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments) in riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats.
RA-1 3 Fire management treatments within or adjacent to riparian and aquatic habitats will be designed to provide long-term benefits to aquatic and riparian resources by reducing threats associated with dewatering and surface disturbance, or by improving the condition of the watershed and enhancing watershed function.
RA-14 For priority fire/fuels management areas (e.g., WUIs) with federally protected species or designated critical habitat downstream, BUM biologists and other resource specialists, as appropriate, in coordination with USFWS, AZGFD, and/or CDFG will determine:
A) The number of acres and the number of projects or phases of projects to occur within one watershed per year.
B) An appropriately-sized buffer adjacent to perennial streams in order to minimize soil and ash from entering the stream.
C) Where livestock grazing occurs in areas that have been burned, specialists will determine when grazing can be resumed. Such
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-14
May 2007
defennents from grazing will only occur when necessary to protect streams from increased ash or sediment flow into streams.'
If agreement cannot be reached or treatment will not meet fuel reduction objectives, BLM will re-initiate consultation.
3. Species Specific Conservation Measures
In addition to the general Conservation Measures listed in Sections 1.0 and 2.0, the following species-specific Conservation Measures will be applied during wildfire suppression to the extent possible, and will be required during fuels treatment activities (wildland fire use, prescribed fire, vegetation treatments). Necessary modifications of the Conservation Measures or impacts to federally protected species and habitat during fire suppression operations will be documented by the Resource Advisor, and coordinated with the USFWS.
3.1 Amphibians [Chiricahua leopard frog (FT); Relict leopard frog (FC)]
AM-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0).
AM-2 For fire management sites with habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog,
unsurveyed sites will be considered occupied unless surveyed prior to project implementation.
AM-3 Install sediment traps, as determined by a Resource Advisor or qualified biologist approved by BLM, upstream of tanks and ponds occupied by Chiricahua leopard frogs in order to minimize the amount of ash and sediment entering the water. Consultation with a qualified biologist during the planning phase will aid in determining sediment trap installation requirements (see Conservation Measures FT-1 and FT-3).
' The Interagency Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook, Exhibit 4-2, BLM supplemental guidance, page 5 of 9 (http://www.fws.gov/fire/rehab/index.htm) establishes the following policy for livestock exclusion following bums:
Exclusion of livestock is critical for the recovery of burned vegetation or establishment and maintenance of new seedings and use of these areas should not be permitted until the vegetation recovers or is established. Both re- vegetated and, burned but not re-vegetated areas will be closed to livestock grazing for at least two growing seasons following the season in which the wildfire occurred to promote recovery of burned perennial plants and/or facilitate the establishment of seeded species. Livestock permittees must be informed of the closure early during the plan preparation process, and livestock closures will be made a condition or term on the grazing license or permit through the issuance of grazing decision (see 43 CFR 4160). Livestock closures for less than two growing seasons may be justified on a case-by-case basis based on sound resource data and experience. Livestock management following seedling establishment and/ or burned area recovery should maintain both non-native and/or native species to meet land use (including Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management) or activity plan objectives.
Our authority to make these types of changes is in the regulations at 43 CFR 41 l().3-3(b).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-15
May 2007
AM-4 All personnel performing fire management activities at any creek crossing will be informed of the potential presence of Chiricahua leopard frogs, their status, and the need to perform their duties to avoid impacts to the frog and its habitat.
AM-5 Except as needed in emergency situations to abate immediate fire threat or loss of life or property, no water will be drafted for fire suppression from bodies of water known to be occupied by the Chiricahua leopard frog.
3.2 Birds
3.2.1 Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (FE, Proposed CH)
FP-l Treatment of riparian habitat, Sonoran desert/desertscrub, or mesquite-invaded
grasslands under 4,000 feet in elevation that may support nesting cactus ferruginous pygmy owls will only occur during the non-nesting season of August 1 to January 31, unless pre-project surveys indicate the area does not support pygmy-owls or mitigation plans approved by the USFWS have alleviated negative consequences.
FP-2 Develop mitigation plans in coordination with the USFWS for fuels treatment projects (prescribed fire; vegetation treatments) that may adversely affect cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls or their habitat. Mitigation plans for prescribed fire shall limit to the extent practicable the possibility that fire would spread to riparian habitats. Mitigation plans will be approved by the USFWS.
FP-3 (Recommended) To the extent possible, maintain habitat features necessary to support breeding populations of the pygmy-owl within their historic range and review ongoing fire management activities for effects on essential habitat features needed by cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls. Modify activities, where necessary, to sustain the overall suitability of the habitat for the owls. Priority will be given to activities in or near occupied or recently (w/in the last 10 years) occupied habitat.
3.2.2 California brown pelican (FE)
BP-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0).
3.2.3 California Condor (FE; 10(j) species)
The following Conservation Measures apply to BLM-administered lands within the
designated 10(j) area for California condors:
CC-1 All helicopter dip tanks will be covered when not in use.
CC-2 Any presence of condors in the project area will be recorded and reported immediately to the Resource Advisor.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-16
May 2007
CC-3 If condors arrive at any area of human activity associated with fire suppression or fuels treatment projects (wildland fire use, prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), the birds will be avoided. The assigned Resource Advisor or a qualified wildlife biologist approved by BLM will be notified, and only permitted personnel will haze the birds from the area.
CC-4 All camp areas will be kept free from trash.
CC-5 Aircraft use along the Vermilion Cliffs or sites where condors are attempting to breed or roost will be minimized.
CC-6 The Resource Advisor will contact the Peregrine Fund daily
(at 520-606-5155 or 520-380-4667) to check on locations of condors during fire suppression or fuels treatment activities involving aviation. This information will be communicated to the Incident Commander and aviation personnel.
CC-7 If any fire retardant chemicals must be used in areas where condors are in the
vicinity (see CC-6), the application area will be surveyed and any contaminated carcasses will be removed as soon as practical to prevent them from becoming condor food sources.
CC-8 Aircraft will remain 400 meters from condors in the air or on the ground unless safety coneems override this restriction. If airborne condors approach aircraft, aircraft will give up airspace to the extent possible, as long as this action does not jeopardize safety.
CC-9 Smoke from wildland fire use and prescribed fire projects will be managed to minimize negative effects to condor breeding. A potential wildland fire use event will not be initiated, or an existing event will be modified or terminated, to prevent or stop significant amounts of smoke, or smoke that will remain in place for an extended period of time, or chronic smoke events, from occurring in area(s) where condors are attempting to breed.
CC-10 BLM will adhere to the air quality standards set by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
3.2.4 Northern aplomado falcon (FE)
AF- 1 If aplomado falcons are reestablished or are discovered on public lands, and they nest in a fuels management project area, BLM will implement temporary elosures to human access and project implementation (wildland fire use, prescribed burning, vegetation treatments) within ‘A mile of nest sites during the breeding season. Wildland fire use and prescribed burning will be conducted in a manner to ensure nest sites are more than 'A mile from downwind smoke effects.
3.2.5 Southwestern willow flycatcher (FE)
WF-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-17
May 2007
WF-2 Except where fires are active in occupied habitat, minimize unnecessary
low-level helicopter flights during the breeding season (April 1 -September 30). Approach bucket dip sites at a 90-degree direction to rivers to minimize flight time over the river corridor and occupied riparian habitats. Locate landing sites for helicopters at least !4 mile from occupied sites to avoid impacts to willow flycatchers and their habitat.
WF-3 Minimize use of chainsaws or bulldozers to construct firelines through occupied or suitable habitat except where necessary to reduce the overall acreage of occupied habitat or other important habitat areas that would otherwise be burned.
WF-4 Implement activities to reduce hazardous fuels or improve riparian habitats (prescribed burning or vegetation treatments) within occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers only during the non-breeding season (October 1 to March 31).
WF-5 Avoid developing access roads that would result in fragmentation or a reduction in habitat quality. Close and rehabilitate all roads that were necessary for project implementation (see RR-5).
WF-6 Prescribed burning will only be allowed within V2 mile of occupied or
unsurveyed suitable habitat when weather conditions allow smoke to disperse away from the habitat when birds may be present (breeding season of April 1 through September 30).
WF-7 Vegetation treatment projects adjacent to occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat will only be conducted when willow flycatchers are not present (October 1 through March 31).
3.2.6 Yuma clapper rail (FE)
CR-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0).
CR-2 Any prescribed fire or vegetation treatment project in occupied or suitable marsh habitat would only occur between September 1 and March 15 to avoid the Yuma clapper rail breeding and molting seasons.
CR-3 Mechanical removal of overstory habitat (Tamarisk) could occur as early as August 15, after the breeding season for Yuma clapper rails.
CR-4 Herbicide application would not occur in Yuma clapper rail habitat and drift- inhibiting agents would be used to assure that the herbicide does not enter adjacent marsh areas.
3.2.7 Bald eagle (FT)
BE-l No human activity within V2 mile of known bald eagle nest sites between December 1 and June 30.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-18
May 2007
BE-2 No tree cutting within Va mile of known nest trees.
BE-3 No human activity within % mile of known bald eagle winter roost areas between October 15 and April 15.
BE-4 No tree cutting within the area immediately around winter roost sites as determined by BLM biologists.
BE-5 No helicopter or aircraft activity or aerial retardant application within 'A mile of bald eagle nest sites between December 1 and June 30 or winter roost sites between October 15 and April 15.
BE-6 Conduct prescribed bum activities outside of nesting season in a manner to
ensure nest and winter roost sites are more than 'A mile from downwind smoke effects.
BE-7 Provide reasonable protective measures so fire prescription or fuels treatment
will not consume dominant, large trees as identified by the Resource Advisor or qualified biologist approved by BLM within A mile of known nests and roosts of bald eagles Pre-treatment efforts should provide reasonable protection of identified nesting and roosting trees (see Conservation Measure FT-4).
3.2.8 Mexican spotted owl (FT, CH)
SO-l BLM wildlife biologists will be involved early in the decision-making process for fuels management treatments (appropriately managed wildfires, prescribed fires, vegetation treatments) that are planned within suitable habitat or designated critical habitat for Mexican spotted owls (MSO).
SO-2 Suitable habitat and designated critical habitat for MSO will be surveyed prior to implementing prescribed fire or vegetation treatment activities on BLM- administered lands to determine MSO presence and breeding status. These fire management activities will only be implemented within suitable or critical habitat if birds are not present. If a spotted owl is discovered during these surveys, BLM will notify the USFWS to reinitiate consultation and will determine any additional Conservation Measures necessary to minimize or eliminate impacts to the owl.
SO-3 If a MSO is discovered during fire suppression or fuels treatment activities
(wildland fire use, prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), the Resource Advisor or a qualified wildlife biologist will document the find and assess potential harm to the owl and advise the Incident Commander or project crew boss of methods to prevent harm. The information will include for each owl the location, date, and time of observation and the general condition of the owl. The Resource Advisor or biologist will contact the appropriate USFWS office, and BLM will reinitiate consultation for the fire suppression or project activities.
SO-4 Within MSO critical habitat designated on BLM-administered lands:
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-19
May 2007
A) To minimize negative effects on the primary constituent elements of critical habitat, appropriately managed wildlfires, and prescribed fires will be managed primarily as low-intensity fires, with only scattered high-intensity patches. The BLM’s objective will be to limit mortality of trees greater than 1 8 inches dbh to less than 5 percent, occasionally up to 10 percent, within critical habitat.
B) If fireline construction is necessary during fire suppression, appropriately managed wildfires, or prescribed fires, BLM will minimize the cutting of trees and snags larger than 1 8 inches dbh, and no trees or snags larger than 24 inches dbh will be cut unless absolutely necessary for safety reasons.
C) For mechanical vegetation treatments within critical habitat, BLM will minimize the cutting of trees and snags larger than 1 8 inches dbh, and no trees or snags larger than 24 inches dbh will be cut unless absolutely necessary for safety reasons.
D) Critical habitat disturbed during fire suppression or fuels treatment activities, such as fire lines, crew camps, and staging areas, will be rehabilitated to prevent their use by vehicles or hikers. Fire line rehabilitation will include pulling soil, duff, litter, woody debris, and rocks back onto the line to bring it up to grade and to make it blend in with the surrounding area. Such rehabilitation will be inspected one year after the event to ensure effectiveness.
SO-5 The following measures will be followed in suitable habitat (occupied or
unoccupied) whenever consistent with objectives to reduce hazardous fuels:
Emphasize a mix of size and age classes of trees. The mix should include large mature trees, vertical diversity, and other structural and floristic characteristics that typify natural forest conditions.
SO-6 The effects of fire suppression and fuels treatment activities on MSO and their habitat, and the effectiveness of these Conservation Measures, will be assessed after each fire event or fuels treatment project by the Resource Advisor or local biologist to allow evaluation of these guidelines and to allow the USFWS to track the species environmental baseline. Prescriptions for appropriately managed wildfires, prescribed fires, and vegetation treatments will be adjusted, if necessary.
3.2.9 Yellow-billed cuckoo (FC)
YC-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0).
3.3 Fish
The following Conservation Measure will be implemented for all federally protected fish
species that may be affected by the Proposed Action during fire suppression to the extent
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-20
May 2007
possible, and are mandatory for wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and vegetation
treatment activities:
FI- 1 BLM will cooperate with other agencies to develop emergency protocols to decrease the impacts of fire suppression and fuels treatment activities on federally listed fish species. Emergency protocols will include appropriate agency contacts, a list of facilities that can hold fish, sources of equipment needed (e.g., sampling gear, trucks) and how to address human health and safety issues.
In addition to implementing FI-1, the following species-specific Conservation Measures
will also apply:
3.3.1 Bonytail chub (FE, CH)
BC-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in
Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0) to eliminate adverse effects from fire management activities to available spawning habitat along shorelines (i.e., occupied reaches and critical habitat).
3.3.2 Desert pupfish (FE, CH)
DP-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in
Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0) for occupied reaches and critical habitat.
DP-2 Conduct prescribed bums such that no more than one-half of the watershed of each desert pupfish site is burned in a two-year period (excluding buffers to the streams and/or spring habitats) and repeat treatments at greater than two-year intervals.
DP-3 Monitor, where practical, for fish kill immediately following the first mnoff event after prescribed fires in watersheds containing desert pupfish.
DP-4 When considering which creek crossings to use for fire management activities, avoid crossings that are known to be occupied by desert pupfish.
3.3.3 Gila topminnow (FE)
GT-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0).
GT-2 Conduct prescribed bums such that no more than one-half of the watershed of
each gila topminnow natural or reintroduction site is burned in a two-year period (excluding buffers to the streams and/or spring habitats) and repeat treatments at greater than two-year intervals.
GT-3 Monitor for fish kill, where practical, immediately following the first runoff event after prescribed fires in the watersheds containing gila topminnows.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-21
May 2007
GT-4 When considering which creek crossings to use for fire management activities, avoid crossings that are known to be occupied by Gila topminnow, when possible.
GT-5 Develop mitigation plans in coordination with the USFWS for each fuels
management project (prescribed fire; vegetation treatments) that may adversely affect the gila topminnow. Mitigation plans for prescribed fire will limit to the extent practicable the possibility that fire would spread to riparian habitats. Mitigation plans will be approved by the USFWS.
GT-6 (Recommended) Cooperate with the USFWS and AZGFD to identify site- specific measures, such as prescribed fires in grassland vegetation types to improve watershed conditions (e.g., in the Cienega Creek watershed), to protect populations of gila topminnow from other resource program impacts.
3.3.4 Razorback sucker (FE, CH)
RS-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in
Riparian and Aquatic Flabitats (Section 2.0) to minimize adverse effects from fire management activities to available spawning habitat along shorelines (i.e., occupied sites and critical habitat).
RS-2 Project boundaries for fire management activities will avoid or protect sensitive habitats of the razorback sucker.
3.3.5 Virgin River chub (FE, CH)
VC-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in
Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0) for the stretch of the Virgin River within Arizona.
3.3.6 Woundfin (FE, CH; Future 10(j) populations)
WM-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in
Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0) for the stretch of the Virgin River within Arizona.
3.3.7 Little Colorado spinedace (FT, CH)
LS-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in
Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0) to minimize adverse effects from fire management activities on BLM-lands to occupied reaches and critical habitat on adjacent lands.
3.3.8 Loach minnow (FT, CH); Spikedace (FT, CH)
LM-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in
Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0) for occupied reaches and critical habitat.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-22
May 2007
LM-2 All reasonable efforts shall be made to minimize disturbance within the wetted areas of Aravaipa Creek or tributary channels.
LM-3 No heavy equipment will be used off-road during wildfire suppression and fuels treatment projects within the wetted areas of Aravaipa Creek.
LM-4 All reasonable efforts will be made to ensure that no pollutants, retardants, or chemicals associated with wildfire suppression and fuels treatment projects or activities enter surface waters of reaches occupied by these two fish species.
LM-5 Develop mitigation plans in coordination with the USFWS for each fuels
management project (prescribed fire; vegetation treatments) that may adversely affect the loach minnow and spikedace. Mitigation plans for prescribed fire will limit to the extent practicable the possibility that fire would spread to riparian habitats. Mitigation plans will be approved by the USFWS.
LM-6 (Recommended) Cooperate with the USFWS and AZGFD to identify site- specific measures, such as prescribed fires in grassland vegetation types to improve watershed conditions (e.g., in the Aravaipa Creek watershed), to protect populations of loach minnow and spikedace from other resource program impacts.
3.3.9 Gila chub (PE, Proposed CH)
GC- 1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in
Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0) for occupied reaches and proposed critical habitat.
GC-2 When considering which creek crossings to use for fire management activities, avoid crossings that are known to be occupied by Gila chub, when possible.
GC-3 (Recommended) Cooperate with the USFWS and AZGFD to identify site- specific measures, such as prescribed fires in grassland vegetation types to improve watershed conditions (e.g., in the Cienega Creek watershed), to protect populations of gila chub from other resource program impacts.
3.4 Flowering Plants
The following Conservation Measures for known locations and unsurveyed habitat of all
federally protected plant species within the planning area will be implemented during fire
suppression to the extent possible, and are mandatory for wildland fire use, prescribed
fire and vegetation treatment activities:
PL-1 Known locations and potential habitat for plant populations will be mapped to facilitate planning for wildland fire use, prescribed fires, and vegetation treatments, and to ensure protection of these populations during fire suppression.
PL-2 BLM will coordinate with FWS to delineate buffer areas around plant
populations prior to prescribed fire and vegetation treatment activities. BLM will coordinate with USFWS during any emergency response and wildland fire use
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-23
May 2007
activities to ensure protection of plant populations from fire and fire suppression activities.
PL-3 During fire suppression, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire in habitat occupied by federally protected plant species, no staging of equipment or personnel will be permitted within 100 meters of identified individuals or populations, nor will off- road vehicles be allowed within the 1 00-meter buffer area, unless necessary for firefighter or public safety or the protection of property, improvements, or other resources (see FS-7). One of the primary threats to many of these plant species is trampling/crushing from personnel and vehicles.
PL-4 No prescribed burning will be implemented within 100 meters of identified locations or unsurveyed suitable habitat for federally proteeted and sensitive plant populations unless specifieally designed to maintain or improve the existing population.
There are no additional species-specific conservation measures for the following federally protected plant species: Arizona Cliffrose (Purshia subintegra), Brady pincushion cactus (Pediocactus bradyi), Holmgren Milk Vetch {Astragalus homgreniorum), Nichol Turk’s Head Cactus (Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. mcholii), Peebles Navajo Caetus {Pediocactus peeblesianus var. peeblesianus), Pima Pineapple Cactus {Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina), Jones Cycladenia {Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii), Siler Pineushion Cactus {Pediocactus sileri), Acuna Cactus {Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis), Fickeisen Plains Cactus {Pediocactus peeblesianus var. Jickeiseniae).
3.4.1 Huachuca Water Umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva ) [FE, CH]
In addition to implementing PL-1 through PL-4, the following species-specific Conservation Measures will also apply:
WU-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0).
WU-2 (Recommended) The BLM should fund additional surveys for the water umbel on BLM lands, and support research on the ecology of the species. Surveys may support the use of prescribed fire in areas not occupied by the Huachuca Water Umbel.
3.4.2 Kearney’s Blue Star {Amsonia kearneyana) [FE]
In addition to implementing PL-1 through PL-4, the following species-specific Conservation Measures will also apply:
KB-1 No mechanical or chemical vegetation manipulation will be authorized by BLM, and no planting or seeding of nonnative plants will occur in the Brown Canyon watershed within the Baboquivari allotment.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-24
May 2007
KB-2 Planning and management for wildfire suppression in the watershed of Brown Canyon will be coordinated with the USFWS.
3.5 Mammals
3.5.1 Black-footed ferret (FE, 10(j) species)
If black- footed ferrets are discovered or re-established on public lands, then the following
Conservation Measures will apply:
BF-1 No heavy equipment operation off of existing roads within Va mile of prairie dog
towns having documented occurrence of black-footed ferrets.
BF-2 No aerial retardant application within 300 feet of prairie dog towns having documented occurrence of black-footed ferrets.
BF-3 No surface disturbance of prairie dog towns having documented occurrence of black-footed ferrets.
BF-4 In Apache and Navajo counties, prairie dog complexes suitable for black-footed ferrets within Va mile of proposed project sites will either be surveyed prior to project implementation or will be protected using measures BF-1 through BF-3, as if ferrets were present.
3.5.2 Hualapai Mexican vole (FE)
HV-l All treatment areas will be surveyed for Hualapai Mexican vole occupancy prior to fuels management treatments (prescribed fire, vegetation treatments) in order to determine project modifications and/or avoidance and protection of occupied areas. Until surveyed, all potential vole habitat is considered occupied. Areas not considered suitable (e.g., areas dominated by thick pine needles and duff) will also be surveyed prior to treatment to protect existing snag habitat for potential future use by Mexican spotted owls.
HV-2 Fuels management treatments (prescribed fire or vegetation treatments),
construction of fire breaks, and/or staging areas for fire suppression or fuels management treatments will not be located within a vole use area. Occupied vole sites within proposed bum areas will be protected by firebreaks, precision ignition of fire around such sites, or total avoidance of the area. Fire plans will incorporate site-specific features (e.g., rock outcroppings, game trails, etc.), fire behavior, and professional judgment to determine the most appropriate method to protect occupied vole habitat. Additionally, monitoring of fuel moisture and use of the appropriate minimum impact suppression tactics will be used to reach the desired objective at each site.
HV-3 To minimize impacts to Hualapai Mexican voles during the breeding season,
prescribed bums and vegetation treatments in occupied or potential vole habitat will be implemented only between September 1 and March 15. Treatment in chaparral habitat will occur during the latter part of this time frame, in winter and/or early spring. These prescribed fires will follow the summer monsoon
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-25
May 2007
period to encourage additional herbaceous growth. Post-monsoon bums would help avoid the dry conditions that could result in extremely hot fires that reduce the recmitment of grasses and forbs. Areas not considered suitable for Hualapai Mexican voles (e.g., dominated by thick pine needles and duff) may be burned prior to September 1 , if surveyed prior to treatment.
HV-4 Provide a 75- to 100-foot, minimum, unbumed vegetation buffer between fuels treatment sites and riparian and dry wash areas to decrease erosion into and sedimentation of the occupied or potentially occupied vole habitat. Within ponderosa pine treatment sites, use of dry washes as a fire line may be appropriate and result in less disturbance than constmction of a cup trench above the wash. Under such circumstances, BLM will prepare the wash as a fire line by raking duff and removing by hand dead branches and other debris.
HV-5 The terms and conditions from the Pine Lake Wildland/Urban Interface
Biological Opinion (BLM Kingman Field Office; Consultation No. 2-2 1-01 -F- 241) continue to apply to the Pine Lake project.
3.5.3 Jaguar (FE)
JA-l Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0) to eliminate adverse effects to jaguars that may occur in dense riparian habitats on BLM-administered lands.
JA-2 Maintain dense, low vegetation in major riparian or xero-riparian corridors on BLM-administered lands in identified locations south of Interstate 10 and Highway 86. Locations will be identified in site-specific fire management plans.
3.5.4 Lesser long-nosed bat (FE)
LB-l Instruct all crew bosses (wildfire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and vegetation treatments) in the identification of agave and columnar cacti and the importance of their protection.
LB-2 Prior to implementing any fuels treatment activities (prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), pre-project surveys will be conducted for paniculate agaves and saguaros that may be directly affected by fuels management activities.
LB-3 Protect long-nosed bat forage plants — saguaros and high concentrations of
agaves — from wildfire and fire suppression activities, and from modification by fuels treatment activities (prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), to the greatest extent possible. “Agave concentrations” are contiguous stands or concentrations of more than 20 plants per acre. Avoid driving over plants, piling slash on top of plants, and burning on or near plants. Staging areas for fire crews or helicopters will be located in disturbed sites, if possible.
LB-4 No seeding/planting of nonnative plants will occur in any wildfire rehabilitation site or fuels treatment site with paniculate agaves or saguaros.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-26
May 2007
LB-5 A mitigation plan will be developed by the Bureau in coordination with the USFWS for prescribed fires or fuels management projects (mechanical, chemical, biological treatments) within 0.5 mi of bat roosts or in areas that support paniculate agaves or saguaros. The mitigation plan will ensure that effects to bat roosts and forage plants are minimized and will include monitoring of effects to forage plants. The plan will be approved by the USFWS.
LB-6 (Recommended) BLM personnel should examine concentrations of agaves
(including shindagger - A. schottii) within each proposed fuels treatment area, and blackline or otherwise protect from treatments any significant concentrations of agaves that appear to be amidst fuel loads that could result in mortality greater than 20 percent (>50% for A. schottii). BLM personnel should use their best judgment, based on biological and fire expertise, to determine which significant agave stands are prone to mortality greater than 20 percent (>50% for A. schottii) (see Conservation Measures FT-1 and FT-3).
LB-7 (Recommended) BLM should continue to support and cooperate in the
investigations of agave relationships to livestock grazing, and of the effects of prescribed fire on paniculate agaves.
3.5.5 Mexican gray wolf (FE; 10(j) species)
If Mexican gray wolves are re-established on public lands, then the following
Conservation Measures will apply:
GW-1 No human disturbance associated with fire management activities will be within one mile of a den site from April 1 to June 30.
GW-2 No human disturbance associated with fire management activities will be within one mile of known rendezvous sites from April 1 to June 30.
3.5.6 Ocelot (FE)
No species-specific Conservation Measures developed.
3.5.7 Sonoran pronghorn (FE)
No species-specific Conservation Measures developed.
3.5.8 Black-tailed prairie dog (FC)
If black-tailed prairie dogs are re-established on public lands, then the following
Conservation Measures will apply:
PD-1 No heavy equipment operation off of existing roads within % mile of black-tailed prairie dog colonies.
PD-2 No aerial retardant application within % mile of black-tailed prairie dog colonies.
PD-3 No surface disturbance of black-tailed prairie dog colonies.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-27
May 2007
3.6 Reptiles
3.6.1 Desert tortoise, Mojave population (FT)
DT-l Take appropriate action to suppress all wildfires in desert tortoise habitat, based on preplanned analysis and consistent with land management objectives, including threats to life and property. Full suppression activities will be initiated within key desert tortoise habitat areas identified in site-specific Fire Management Plans.
DT-2 Suppress all wildfires in desert tortoise habitat with minimum surface
disturbance, in accordance with the guidelines in Duck et al. (1995) and the 1 995 programmatic biological opinion on fire suppression on the Arizona Strip (2-21-95-F-379).
DT-3 Pre-position suppression forces in critical areas during periods of high fire dangers.
DT-4 As soon as practical, all personnel involved in wildfire suppression (firefighters and support personnel) will be briefed and educated about desert tortoises and the importance of protecting habitat and minimizing take, particularly due to vehicle use. Fire crews will be briefed on the desert tortoise in accordance with Appendix II of Duck et al. (1995).
DT-5 If wildfire or suppression activities cannot avoid disturbing a tortoise, the
Resource Advisor or monitor will relocate the tortoise, if safety permits. The tortoise will be moved into the closest suitable habitat within two miles of the collection site that will ensure the animal is reasonably safe from death, injury, or collection associated with the wildfire or suppression activities. The qualified biologist will be allowed some discretion to ensure that survival of each relocated tortoise is likely. If the extent or direction of movement of a fire makes sites within two miles of the collection site unsuitable or hazardous to the tortoise or biologists attempting to access the area, the tortoise may be held until a suitable site can be found or habitat is safe to access and not in immediate danger of burning. The Resource Advisor will contact the USFWS Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (AESFO) as soon as possible concerning disposition of any animals held for future release. Desert tortoises will not be placed on lands outside the administration of the federal government without the written permission of the landowner. Handling procedures for tortoises, including temporary holding facilities and procedures, will adhere to protocols outlined in Desert Tortoise Council (1994).
DT-6 Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick desert tortoise, initial notification must be made to the appropriate USFWS Law Enforcement Office within three working days of its finding. Written notification must be made within five calendar days and include the date, time, and location of the animal, a photograph, and any other pertinent information. The notification will be sent to the Law Enforcement Office with a copy to the AESFO.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-28
May 2007
DT-7 Care must be taken in handling sick or injured animals to ensure effective treatment and care, and in handling dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state. If possible, the remains of intact desert tortoises will be placed with educational or research institutions holding appropriate state and federal permits. If such institutions are not available, the information noted above will be obtained and the carcass left in place. Arrangements regarding proper disposition of potential museum specimens will be made with the institution prior to implementing the action. Injured animals should be transported to a qualified veterinarian by an authorized biologist. Should any treated desert tortoise survive, the USFWS should be contacted regarding final disposition of the animal.
DT-8 The Resource Advisor or monitor(s) will maintain a record of all desert tortoises encountered during fire suppression activities. This information will include for each desert tortoise: 1) locations and dates of observation; 2) general condition and health, including injuries and state of healing, and whether animals voided their bladders; 3) location moved from and to; and 4) diagnostic markings (i.e., identification numbers of marked lateral scutes). No notching of scutes or replacement of fluids with a syringe is authorized.
DT-9 Prior to moving a vehicle, personnel will inspect under the vehicle for tortoises.
If a tortoise is found under the vehicle, the tortoise will be allowed to move away from the vehicle on its own accord, if possible. Otherwise an individual will move the tortoise to a safe locality in accordance with FS-2 and DT-5.
DT-10 Off-highway vehicle activity will be restricted to the minimum necessary to suppress wildfires. Vehicles will be parked as close to roads as possible, and vehicles will use wide spots in roads or disturbed areas to turn around.
Whenever possible, a biologist or crewperson trained to recognize tortoises and their shelter sites will precede any vehicle traveling off-road to direct the driver around tortoises and tortoise burrows. Whenever possible, local fire-fighting units should provide direction and leadership during off-road travel because of their expertise and knowledge of area sensitivities.
DT-1 1 Fire-related vehicles will drive slow enough to ensure that tortoises on roads can be identified and avoided.
DT-1 2 Fire crews or rehabilitation crews will, to the extent possible, obliterate off-road vehicle tracks made during fire suppression in tortoise habitat, especially those of tracked vehicles, to reduce future use.
DT-1 3 To the maximum extent practical, campsites, aircraft landing/fueling sites, and equipment staging areas will be located outside of desert tortoise habitat or in previously disturbed areas. If such facilities are located in desert tortoise habitat, 100 percent of the site will be surveyed for desert tortoises by a qualified biologist approved by BLM, whenever feasible. Any tortoises found will be moved to a safe location in accordance with FS-2 and DT-5. All personnel located at these facilities will avoid disturbing active tortoise shelter sites.
DT-1 4 Elevated predation by common ravens or other predators attributable to fire suppression activities will be reduced to the maximum extent possible. Work
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-29
May 2007
areas, including campsites, landing/fueling sites, staging areas, etc. will be maintained in a sanitary condition at all times. Waste materials at those sites will be contained in a manner that will avoid attracting predators of desert tortoises. Waste materials will be disposed of at an appropriate waste disposal site.
“Waste” means all discarded matter including, but not limited to, human waste, trash, garbage, refuse, oil drums, petroleum products, ashes, and equipment.
DT-15 Backfiring operations are permitted where necessary in desert tortoise habitat.
Burning out patches of identified habitat within or adjacent to burned areas is not permitted as a standard fire suppression measure unless necessary for firefighter or public safety or to protect property, improvements, or natural resources.
DT-16 Use of foam or retardant is authorized within desert tortoise habitat.
DT-17 Rehabilitation of vegetation in tortoise habitat will be considered, including seeding, planting of perennial species, etc.
DT- 1 8 Recovery of vegetation will be monitored, including establishing and monitoring paired plots, inside and outside burned areas in tortoise habitat. Recovery plans will be coordinated with the USFWS and AZGFD.
DT-19 The effectiveness of wildfire suppression activities and desert tortoise
Conservation Measures will be evaluated after a wildfire. Procedures will be revised as needed.
3.6.2 New Mexico ridgenose rattlesnake (FT)
RN-l To the extent possible, minimize surface disturbing activities from fire suppression and fuels treatment activities within New Mexico ridgenose rattlesnake habitat on BLM-administered lands in the southern Peloncillo Mountains, particularly during active periods for snakes (July through October).
RN-2 Prior to using wildland fire for resource benefit, cool season (November through March) prescribed fire or other fuel treatments should be used to reduce unnatural fuel loads within suitable habitat to avoid catastrophic fires and loss of canopy cover.
RN-3 All fires that occur outside of prescriptions that will result in low intensity, low
severity bums will be fiilly suppressed within or near suitable New Mexico ridge- nose rattlesnake habitat.
3.7 Conservation Agreement and Management Plan Species
3.7.1 Flat-tailed horned lizard
No species-specific Conservation Measures developed.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-30
May 2007
3.7.2 Paradine (Kaibab) plains cactus
Implement PL-1 and PL-2 to protect known locations during fire suppression to the extent possible and during the fuels treatment activities.
3.7.3 Virgin spinedace
Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0) for the stretch of the Virgin River within Arizona.
3.7.4 Desert tortoise, Sonoran population
Implement the Conservations Measures for Desert Tortoise, Mojave population, as appropriate, for fire suppression and fuels treatment activities (prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), excluding requirements for notification to USFWS.
Reference
Duck, T.A., T.C. Esque, and T.J. Hughes. 1995. Fighting wildfire in desert tortoise habitat: Considerations for land managers. Proc. Desert Tortoise Counc. Symp. 1994:58-67.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
F-31
May 2007
W,;-vr^ ^
■ V.i/4r
f«;i>cfci5vv ,s:r3
' ' V '' ' ‘ '
.■>?'* ’’i '■ '■'i' < < V OS^ '3m
' , • , V . J/ ^ . ■ • . ' . , . ' ■ -• H« .
i»ikirtii[»l ai 'r^*!;
M
Tn’A^'.-^i. . - ^ ,
■^;: m^ir
■; /■<•>'''
■-..- >-^y
1.^.2 ■ M-0 w . ■; |l^'f } ■' ■ ,
■;'.. " . ' ■■'■-■.;■ ' ; ',.;
,4.4*n.^W .^H!; ' ' ; X^'^>;;i-r::;y'
r.'
■f'"
■ . ..'. V • , . ,1 S
■ . ' ' '. '" ■ ■ ; ■ ' '■■: :r'l; -. ' ■ ,-,n'<'^^ -J.
VN ■,% ' '' A.fi %i,:^ i
Consimi&oH A i^srifg0, merit Plan"
■"■ •- i?n,.. ..i,:;,, .
& : >?.i'
, .
• ..r- ' ■: "' :' ' ■ '.:'■ ' \ 'W-\
'■■ ■' '■ ,. 'r; ' ■,:\f^.i^iyy;v---.-
:t.' '}^. .'d i' 6>'^'*-;; ' .^ . ^^^ \
^4
Appendix G
Legal Descriptions of Lands Available for Disposal
Disposals
Table G-1 . Lands Available for Disposal
|
Legal Tract |
Acres |
Exchange |
Sale |
R&PP |
|
|
Gila & Salt River Meridian |
Patent |
||||
|
1. |
T. 20 N., R. 22. W., Sec. 12, the public land east of AZ highway 95; approximately 258 acres |
258 |
X |
X |
X |
|
2. " |
T.20 N., R 21 W., Sec. 8, S2S2SE |
40 |
X |
X |
X |
|
3. " |
T. 19 N., R. 21 W., Sec. 20, SW1/4SW1/4NW1/4NW1/4; W1/2SW1/4 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
NWl/4; W1/2NE1/4SW1/4NW1/4; SE1/4NE1/4 SW1/4NW1/4; SE1/4SW1/4NW1/4; SW1/4SE1/4NW1/2; S1/2SE1/4SE1/4NW1/4; N1/2NW1/4NE1/4SW1/4; NE 1 /4NE 1 /4S W 1 /4; NE 1 /4SE 1 /4NE 1 /4S W 1 /4; NW 1 /4NW 1 /4SE 1 /4; NW 1 /4SW 1 /4NW 1 /4SE 1 /4 |
85 |
- |
|||
|
4. |
T. 19 N., R. 21 W., sec 28, N2NE, SWNW, W2SW. |
200 |
X |
X |
X |
|
5. " |
T. 19 N., R. 21 W., sec 29, S2N2, NWNWSW, E2W2SW, E2SW, SE. |
450 |
X |
X |
X |
|
6. |
T. 19 N., R. 21 W., sec 33, W2W2. |
160 |
X |
X |
X |
|
7. |
T. 18 N., R. 21 W., sec 4, lots, 3,4,S2NW,SW. |
319.44 |
X |
X |
X |
|
8. |
T. 18 N., R. 21 W., sec 6, S2N2SWSE, S2SWSE, SESE |
70 |
X |
X |
X |
|
9. |
T. 18 N., R. 21 W., Sec. 7, E2, N2NWNE, S2SWNE. |
120 |
X |
X |
X |
|
10. " |
T. 18N.,R. 21 W„ Sec. 7, SEl/4. |
160 |
X |
X |
X |
|
11. " |
T. 18N.,R. 21 W., Sec. 8W2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
12. " |
T. 18N., R. 21 W., Sec. 17 W2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
13. " |
T. 18 N., R. 21 W., Sec. 18, El/2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
14. " |
T. 18N., R. 21 W., Sec. 20, E2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
15. " |
T. 18 N., R. 21 W., Sec. 29, NW, S2 |
480 |
X |
X |
X |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
G-1
May 2007
|
Legal Tract Gila & Salt River Meridian |
Acres |
Exchange |
Sale |
R&PP Patent |
||
|
16. |
a |
T. 17 N., R. 21 W., Sec. 4, lot 4, SWNW, W2SW. |
159.52 |
X |
X |
X |
|
17. |
T. 17 N., R. 21 W., Sec. 5, lots 1, 2, S2NE, SENW, E2SW, SE |
439.04 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
18. |
a |
T. 17N., R. 21 W., Sec. 9W2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
19. |
a |
T. 16 N., R. 21 W., Sec. 10, NE |
160 |
X |
X |
X |
|
20. |
a |
T. 16 N., R. 21 W., Sec. 22, E2E2 |
160 |
X |
X |
X |
|
21. |
a |
T. 16 N., R. 21 W., Sec. 24, N2SW, SE |
240 |
X |
X |
X |
|
22. |
a |
T. 16 N., R. 21 W., Sec. 25, S2N2, S2. |
480 |
X |
X |
X |
|
23. |
T. 16 1/2N., R. 20 1/2W., sec 24, lots, 1-4, S2N2, S2. |
671.24 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
24. |
T. 16 1/2N, R. 20 W., sec 20, lots, 1, 2, S2NE |
176.36 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
25. |
T. 161/2N., R. 19 W., Sec. 36, the public land south of Interstate 1-40; approximately 54 acres |
54.00 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
26. |
T. 16 N., R. 21 W., Sec. 22, E2E2 |
160 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
27. |
T. 16 N., R. 20.5 W., Sec. 10, lot 2 |
37.62 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
28. |
T. 16 N., R. 20.5 W., Sec. 11, the public lands south of the railroad in the S2NW |
25.6 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
29. |
T. 16 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 2, All the public land south of 1-40; approximately 124 acres |
124 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
30. |
T. 16 N., R. 19 W., sec 18, lots, 3,4, 7, 9, 1 1, 13, E2SW, SE. |
396.28 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
31. |
a |
T. 15 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 2, Lots 1-4, S2N2, S2. |
637.2 |
X |
X |
X |
|
32. |
a |
T. 15 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 4, Lots 1-4, S2N2, S2. |
637.68 |
X |
X |
X |
|
33. |
a |
T. 15 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 6, Lots 1-6, S2NE, SENW, E2SW, SE. |
588.82 |
X |
X |
X |
|
34. |
a |
T. 15 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 8, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
35. |
a |
T. 15 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 10. All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
36. |
T. 14 N., R. 20 W., Sec. 4, lots 1-4, S2NE,SENW, NENESW,W2NWSE, NWSWSE, E2SE. |
398.12 |
X |
|||
|
37. |
T. 14 N., R. 20 W., sec 5, S2SESENE, NENESE, S2SESESE |
20 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
38. |
T. 14 N., R. 20 W., sec 8, NENENE, W2NWNWNW. |
15 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
39. |
T. 14 N., R. 20 W., sec 9, NESENE, E2SWSWNE, E2NWSENE |
17.5 |
X |
|||
|
40. |
T. 14 N., R. 20 W., Sec. 10, N2, E2NWSW, E2NESWSW, E2SW, SE. |
580 |
X |
|||
|
41. |
T. 13N., 20 W., Sec. 24, S2. |
320 |
X |
|||
|
42. |
T. 13 N., 19 W., Sec. 20, NWSE. |
40 |
X |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan Q_2
|
Legal Tract Gila & Salt River Meridian |
Acres |
Exchange |
Sale |
R&PP Patent |
||
|
43. |
T 13 N., 19 W., Sec 27, NW, N2SW |
240 |
X |
|||
|
44. |
T. 11 N., R. 13 W., Sec. 36, S2SE. |
80 |
X |
|||
|
45. |
T. ION., R. 19 W., 13, S2. |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
46. |
T. ION., R. 19W., 26, S2. |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
47. |
T. 10 N., R. 19 W., sec 34, lot 7, 8, S2NESE, SESE. |
93.18 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
48. |
T. 10 N., R. 19 W., sec 35, NENW |
40 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
49. |
T. 10 N., R. 13 W., Sec. 1, lots 1-3, S2NE, SENW. |
440.83 |
X |
|||
|
50. |
T. 10 N., R. 13 W., Sec. 2, SWSW. |
40 |
X |
|||
|
51. |
T. 10 N., R. 13 W., Sec. 1 1, N2NW, NWNE. |
120 |
X |
|||
|
52. |
T. 10 N., R. 13 W., Sec. 12, NWNW. |
40 |
X |
|||
|
53. |
T. ION., R. 12 W., Sec. 6, lots, 3-6, 11-14, E2SW. |
356.87 |
X |
|||
|
54. |
a |
T. 8 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 1 1, E2, E2W2. |
480 |
X |
X |
X |
|
55. |
a |
T. 8N.,R. 19 W., Sec. 12, W2. |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
56. |
a |
T. 8N., R. 19 W., Sec. 13, W2. |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
57. |
a |
T. 8 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 14, E2, E2W2, SWSW |
520 |
X |
X |
X |
|
58. |
T. 8N., R. 19 W., Sec. 15, SESE. |
40 |
X |
|||
|
59. |
T. 8 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 21, lot 1, E2, NENW, S2NW, S2. |
478.07 |
X |
|||
|
60. |
T. 8 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 22, N2NE, N2N2NW, SWSW, SESE. |
160 |
X |
|||
|
61. |
a |
T. 8N.,R. 19 W., Sec. 23, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
62. |
a |
T. 8N., R. 19 W., Sec. 24, W2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
63. |
a |
T. 8N., R. 19 W., sec25, W2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
64. |
T. 8N.,R. 19 W., sec25, E2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
65. |
a |
T. 8N., R. 19 W., Sec. 26, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
66. |
a |
T. 8 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 27, NWNW, E2SE |
120 |
X |
||
|
67. |
T. 8 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 28, NENE. |
40 |
X |
|||
|
68. |
T. 8 N., R. 19 W., sec 35, NE, SESENW, S2. |
490 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
69. |
a |
T. 8N., R. 19 W., sec 36, W2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
70. |
T. 8N., R. 19 W., sec 36, E2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
71. |
a |
T. 7 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 3, lots 2-4, W2NE, S2NW, SW, W2SE. |
479.89 |
X |
X |
X |
|
72. |
a |
T. 7 N., R. 19 W., Sec. 4, lots 1-4, S2N2, S2. |
639.96 |
X |
X |
X |
|
73. |
a |
T. 7N., R. 19 W., Sec. 9, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
G-3
May 2007
|
Legal Tract Gila & Salt River Meridian |
Acres |
Exchange |
Sale |
R&PP Patent |
||
|
74. " |
T. 7 N., R. |
19 W., Sec. 10, W2E2, W2 |
480 |
X |
X |
X |
|
75. |
T. 7 N., R. |
19 W., sec 11, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
76. |
T. 7 N., R. |
19 W., sec 14, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
77. " |
T. 7 N., R. |
17 W., Sec. 23, E2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
78. " |
T. 7 N., R. |
17 W., Sec. 26, N2NE, S2SE. |
80 |
X |
X |
X |
|
79. " |
T. 7N., R. |
17 W., Sec. 36, T. 7 N., R. 17 W., All the public land |
350 |
X |
X |
X |
|
southwest ( |
3f AZ highway 72; Approx. 350 acres |
|||||
|
80. |
T. 7N., R. |
16 W., sec 8, All |
640 |
X |
||
|
81. |
T. 7 N., R. |
16 W., sec 9, All |
640 |
X |
||
|
82. |
T. 7N., R. |
15 W., sec 26, W2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
83. " |
T. 6N., R. |
16 W., Sec. l,Lot 1 |
51.68 |
X |
X |
X |
|
84. |
T. 6 N., R. |
15 W., Sec. 26, W2. |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
85. |
T. 6N., R. |
13 W., sec27,N2, SE |
480 |
X |
X |
X |
|
86. |
T. 6 N., R. |
12 W., sec 18, lots 1-4, NE, N2NW, NESW |
554.24 |
X |
X |
X |
|
87. |
T. 6N., R. |
12 W., sec 24, All the public land north of highway |
423.48 |
X |
X |
X |
|
US 60; approximately 423.48 acres |
||||||
|
88. |
T. 6 N., R. |
12 W., sec 26, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
89. |
T. 6 N., R. |
12 W., sec 27, E2NE, SE |
240 |
X |
X |
X |
|
90. " |
T. 5 N., R. |
16 W., Sec. 4, Lots 1, 2, S1/2NE1/4, Sl/2; |
478.67 |
X |
X |
X |
|
91. " |
T. 5 N., R. |
16 W., Sec. 5, SE; |
160 |
X |
X |
X |
|
92. " |
T. 5 N., R. |
16 W., Sec. 9, NE, |
160 |
X |
X |
X |
|
93. |
T. 5 N., R. |
16 W., Sec. 9, W2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
94. " |
T. 5 N., R. |
16 W., Sec. 10,NWl/4. |
160 |
X |
X |
X |
|
95. |
T. 5 N., R. |
16 W., sec 16, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
96. |
T. 5 N., R. |
16 W., sec 17, E2NE, SWNE, W2, SE. |
600 |
X |
X |
X |
|
97. |
T. 5 N., R. |
15 W., sec 8,N2. |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
98. |
T. 5N., R. |
15 W., sec 9, N2. |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
99. |
T. 5 N., R. |
15 W., sec 10, SW. |
160 |
X |
X |
X |
|
100. |
T. 5 N., R. |
15 W., sec 15, S2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
101. |
T. 5 N., R. |
15 W., sec 16, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
102. |
T. 5 N., R. |
15 W., sec 17, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
Lake Havasu Field Office |
May 2007 |
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan Q-4
|
Legal Tract Gila & Salt River Meridian |
Acres |
Exchange |
Sale |
R&PP Patent |
|
|
103. |
T. 5 N., R. 15 W., sec 18, lot 1, 2, NE, E2NW. |
320.46 |
X |
X |
X |
|
104. |
T. 5N., R. 15 W., sec 20, N2. |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
105. |
T. 5N., R. 15 W., sec 22, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
106. |
T. 5N., R. 15 W., sec 23, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
107. |
T. 5N.,R. 15 W., sec 26, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
108. |
T. 5N., R. 15 W., sec 27, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
109. |
T. 5N., R. 15 W., sec 28, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
110. |
T. 5 N., R. 15 W., sec 31, lots 1-4, E2, E2W2. |
640.6 |
X |
X |
X |
|
111. |
T. 5N., R. 15 W., sec 34, E2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
112. |
T. 5 N., R. 14 W., sec 32, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
113. |
T. 5 N., R. 13 W., sec 7, lots 1-4, |
157.16 |
X |
X |
X |
|
114. |
T. 5 N., R. 13 W., sec 23, NENE |
40 |
X |
X |
X |
|
115." |
T. 5N., R. 12 W., Sec. 6, Lot 1 |
40.04 |
X |
X |
X |
|
116. |
T. 4 N. R.16 W., Sec. 1, lots 3, 4, S2NW, SW. |
301.49 |
X |
X |
X |
|
117. |
T. 4 N. R.16 W., Sec. 2, lots 1-4, S2N2, S2. |
601.66 |
X |
X |
X |
|
118. |
T. 4N. R.16W., Sec. 11, W2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
119." |
T. 4N. R.16W., Sec. 14, E2 |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
120. |
T. 4 N. R.16 W., Sec. 15, E2E2, W2, SWSE |
520 |
X |
X |
X |
|
121. |
T.4N. R.16 W., Sec. 16, NE |
160 |
X |
X |
X |
|
122." |
T. 4N.,R. 16 W., Sec. 24, El/2. |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
123. |
T. 4N. R.16W., Sec. 25, All |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
124." |
T. 4 N., R. 15 W., Sec. 30, Lots 3, 4, E1/2SW1/4; |
154.56 |
X |
X |
X |
|
125." |
T. 4 N., R. 15 W., Sec. 31, All the public land north of Interstate 10; approximately 499.9 acres |
499.9 |
X |
X |
X |
|
126." |
T. 4 N., R. 15 W., Sec. 32, All the public land north of Interstate 10; approximately 601.99 acres |
601.66 |
X |
X |
X |
|
127. |
T. 4 N., R, 14 W., Sec. 4, lots 3, 4, S2NW |
149.19 |
X |
X |
X |
|
128. |
T. 4 N. R.14 W., Sec. 5, lots 1-4, S2NE, S2NW. |
297.08 |
X |
X |
X |
|
129. |
T. 4 N. R. 14 W., Sec. 6, lots 3, 4, 5. |
100.51 |
X |
X |
X |
|
Legal Description San Bernardino Meridian |
Acres |
Exchange |
Sale |
R&PP |
|
|
130. |
T. 10 N., R. 22 E., Sec. 35, Lots 1,2, S2NE, SE. |
309.27 |
X |
X |
X |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan G_5
|
Legal Tract Gila & Salt River Meridian |
Acres |
Exchange |
Sale |
R&PP Patent |
|
|
131. |
T. 9 N., R22. E., Sec. 2, Lots 1, 2, S2NE, SE. |
316.23 |
X |
X |
X |
|
132. |
T. 9 N., R22. E., Sec. 11, E2. |
320 |
X |
X |
X |
|
133. |
T. 9 N., R22. E., Sec. 14, NE. |
160 |
X |
X |
X |
|
134. |
T. 9 N., R22. E., Sec. 24, SENE, W2, NWSE, S2SE. |
480 |
X |
X |
X |
|
135. |
T. 8 N., R. 23 E., sec 4, lots 3, 5, 6, 7, & 8, S1/2NW, SW, SWSE. |
418.29 |
X |
X |
X |
|
136." |
T. 8 N., R. 23 E., Sec. 27, the public land situated north and east of Interstate Highway 40; approximately 460 acres |
460 |
X |
X |
X |
|
137. |
T. 4 1/2 N., R. 24 E., Sec. 36, portion of lot 1, lots 2-5, N2SW, NWSW |
317.88 |
X |
X |
X |
|
138. |
T. 4N.,R. 24 E., Sec. 1. |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
|
139. |
T. 4N., R. 24 E., Sec. 12. |
640 |
X |
X |
X |
^ Land identified for disposal that meets the requirements of the Baca bill.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
G-6
May 2007
Appendix H
Grazing
Special Ephemeral Rule
Published in the Federal Register, Vol. 33, No. 238, Saturday, December 7, 1968 (Livestock Grazing Ephemeral Range: Arizona, California, and Nevada).
In accordance with 43 CFR 41 15.2-1 regarding special rules for grazing districts and pursuant to the receipt of recommendations of the State Directors for Arizona, California and Nevada and a factual showing of its necessity, a special rule for range designated as ephemeral is hereby approved.
Ephemeral (annual) ranges lie within the general southwest desert region extending primarily into southern Arizona, southern California, and southern Nevada and include portions of the Mohave, Sonoran, and Chihuahuan deserts. The region is characterized by desert type vegetation some of which may be classed as ephemeral only. Ephemeral range does not consistently produce forage, but periodically provides annual vegetation suitable for livestock grazing. In years of abundant moisture and other favorable climatic conditions a large amount of forage may be produced. Favorable years are highly unpredictable and the season is usually short lived. Ephemeral areas fall generally below the 3,200-foot contour and below the 8-inch precipitation isoline. A minor percentage of the total plant composition is made up of desirable perennial forage plants and potential to improve range condition and produce a dependable supply of forage by applying intensive management practices is lacking.
Because of the unique characteristics of ephemeral range the following special rule shall apply as follows:
■ Applicable allotments or uses shall be formally designated by the District Manager as ephemeral range.
■ An annual application by qualified licensees or permittees is not required unless grazing use is desired. On a year-to-year basis whenever forage exists or climatic conditions indicate the probability of an ephemeral forage crop, livestock grazing may be authorized upon application pursuant to any management requirements for the allotment.
■ Use of base property (water base) during nonforage years is not feasible or economical and no use of base properties is required except during these periods when ephemeral forage is available and livestock grazing occurs.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
H-1
May 2007
Therefore:
■ An annual application per 43 CFR 41 15. 2- 1(c)(9), is not required unless grazing use is described.
■ Grazing capacity per 43CFR 41 15.2- 1(c)(3) may be based on a reasonable potential for forage.
■ Substantial use of grazing privileges per 43 CFR 41 15(c)(10) is not required.
■ A year round operation per 43 CFR 4 1 1 5 .2(c)( 1 ) is not required.
■ Substantial use of base property per 43 CFR 41 15.2-1 (c)(7) is not required.
This special rule shall immediately apply to the Phoenix, Safford, and Arizona Strip Districts in Arizona, the Bakersfield District in California, and the Las Vegas District in Nevada upon recommendation for adoption in that District by the respective District Advisory Board and concurrence by the State Director.
Criteria for Allotment Categorization
Table H-1 . Criteria for Allotment Categorization
|
Criteria for Allotment |
Categories |
||
|
Categorization |
Maintain |
Improve |
Custodial |
|
Resource Conditions |
Meets Standard |
No Meeting Standard |
Not Applied |
|
Resource Potential and |
High Potential |
High/Med Potential |
Low Potential |
|
Production |
At Potential |
Not at Potential |
At Potential |
|
Conflicts and/or Controversy |
Some |
High Conflicts and Controversy |
None |
|
Opportunities for positive economic return on public investment |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
|
Present Management |
Current |
Current Management |
Management |
|
Situation |
Management is Satisfactory |
is Non-Satisfactory |
is not a factor |
The assignment of all grazing allotments into a selective management category was made following established BLM program guidance. The three management categories are “Maintain,” “Improve,” and “Custodial.” Respective objectives are:
■ Maintain current resource conditions.
■ Improve current resource conditions.
■ Manage existing resource values custodially.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
H-2
May 2007
The five standard eriteria used by BLM in categorizing allotments are listed below.
1 . Range condition.
2. Resource potential.
3. Resource use conflicts or controversy.
4. Opportunity for positive economic return on public investments.
5. Present management situation.
Allotments in the Improve Category exhibit vegetative and watershed conditions not meeting objectives and standards; potential resource production is high to moderate but production is below potential; use conflicts exist; and anticipated benefits from management changes would justify expenditure of public funds. Allotments in the Maintain Category exhibit vegetative and watershed conditions meeting objectives and standards; resource production is high and rangelands are producing near their potential; no critical use conflicts exist; existing management is maintaining objectives and standards, but some range developments could augment current management. Allotments in the Custodial Category exhibit vegetative and watershed conditions which may or may not meet objectives and standards; resource production potential is very low; few if any resouree conflicts; and virtually no potential to respond to management changes.
Allotment eategorization is used to establish priorities for distributing available funds and personnel during plan implementation to achieve cost-effective improvement of rangeland resources. Allotments may be moved from one category to another, as new information becomes available, resource conditions change, or management activities are implemented. Changes must be consistent with the category criteria, be supported by a document analysis showing the basis for the change, and must take an interdisciplinary approach and include public involvement.
Table H-2. Grazing Allotments
(see Map 19 in the Approved RMP)
|
No. |
Allotment Name |
Approved RMP |
|
|
Available Unavailable |
|||
|
00001 |
Alamo Crossing |
19,508 |
0 |
|
03006 |
Babcock |
22,649 |
0 |
|
00025 |
Crossman Peak |
108,599 |
0 |
|
03034 |
Ganado |
86,800 |
0 |
|
03038 |
Hancock |
36,113 |
0 |
|
03040 |
Harcuvar |
80,737 |
0 |
|
00045 |
Havasu Heights S |
0 |
27,042 |
|
03048 |
Lamberson |
24,710 |
0 |
|
03050 |
Leidig |
33,582 |
0 |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
H-3
May 2007
Table H-2. Grazing Allotments
(see Map 19 in the Approved RMP)
|
No. |
Allotment Name |
Approved RMP |
|
|
Available Unavailable |
|||
|
03051 |
Loma Linda |
32,951 |
0 |
|
03093 |
Muse |
106,488 |
14,712 |
|
03059 |
Nine Mile |
109,239 |
480 |
|
03061 |
Orosco |
15,761 |
0 |
|
03067 |
Planet |
186,045 |
0 |
|
03069 |
Primrose |
97,298 |
0 |
|
03073 |
Salome |
10,008 |
0 |
|
03070 |
Wagner |
24,321 |
0 |
|
Other FO Admin |
213,731 |
1,697 |
|
|
TOTALS |
1,208,540 |
43,931 |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan H.4
May 2007
Appendix I
Recreation
BLM’s Priorities for Recreation and Visitors Services - Goals and Objectives
■ Improve Access to Appropriate Recreational Opportunities on the Department of the Interior (DOI) Managed or Partnered Lands and Waters.
■ Ensure a Quality Experience and Enjoyment of Natural and Cultural Resources on DOI managed or Partnered Lands and Waters.
■ Provide for and Receive Fair Value in Recreation.
Special Recreation Permit Stipulations
Stipulations may be generated for activity-specific pemiits through the NEPA process leading up to a specific Special Recreation Permit (SRP). Below are examples of standard stipulations that may be applied to Permit.
Cultural Stipulations
1 . Permittee shall comply with all state and federal laws relating to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or artifacts. Actions other than those explicitly approved by the Bureau of Land Management which result in impacts upon archaeological resources, shall be subject to the judicial proceedings of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. As property of the United States, no person may, without authorization, excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface any historic or prehistoric site, artifact, or object of antiquity located on public lands.
Surface collection of artifacts (either historic or prehistoric) or fossils, by pennittee or tour participants on or near any designated route is prohibited. The definition of an artifact is anything that has been made, used or modified by a human and is generally 50 years old or older. Permittee is required to inform all participants that collecting artifacts, theft, or vandalism of any cultural property is a violation of the above- mentioned federal and/or state laws.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
1-1
May 2007
Recreation Stipulations
1 . By virtue of the permit, permittee is allowed to use public routes across public land while conducting a commercial recreation activity, consisting of a poker run type OHV public event.
2. All permitted designated routes remain open for public use; the permittee has no exclusive use of any public route.
3. All vehicle use is limited to the designated routes.
4. Permittee and all participants are prohibited from stopping at, or entering any and all known and unknown abandoned mine features.
5. All vehicle use will be conducted in a safe manner, reckless driving and/or excessive speed is a permit violation and is prohibited.
6. No overnight or camping use is associated with this permit.
7. The permittee is expected to be familiar with and to practice “Leave No Trace” and “Tread Lightly” land use ethics principles.
8. All trash and litter, as a result of the tour will be disposed of in a proper manner.
9. Violation of one or more of the listed stipulations is grounds to deny any future permit applications.
Wildlife, Desert Tortoise and Protected Plant Stipulations
1 . Desert Tortoise. Care shall be taken not to disturb or destroy tortoises or their burrows. Handling, collecting, damaging, or destroying desert tortoises are prohibited by Arizona State Law. During all activity special care should be given to watch for and avoid any desert tortoise that may be present on a route or roadway.
2. Handling of Desert Tortoise. If a tortoise is endangered by any activity that activity shall cease until either the tortoise moves out of harm's way of its own accord, or until an authorized biologist is able to remove the tortoise to safety. Tortoises shall be handled only by a BLM authorized Wildlife Biologist, and shall be moved solely for the purpose of preventing death or injury. The authorized biologist shall be responsible for taking appropriate measures to ensure any desert tortoise relocated from the project site is not exposed to temperature extremes, which could be harmful to the animal.
3. Inspection under Vehicles. If a vehicle is left for any occasion the driver shall inspect underneath any parked vehicles immediately prior to moving. If a desert tortoise is beneath the vehicle, the authorized biologist shall move the tortoise from harm's way. Otherwise, the vehicle shall not be moved until the desert tortoise has left of its own accord.
4. Native Plants. State protected plant species (all cacti) shall not be disturbed, damaged, or destroyed without prior authorization from the BLM.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
1-2
May 2007
5. Migratory Birds. All migratory birds shall be observed from a distance. Any injured wildlife shall be reported to the Arizona Game & Fish Department (AZGFD) at (928) 342-0091.
Paintball Activities on Public Land
The following stipulations guiding paintball activities on public land include the following:
■ Require SRPs for paintball activities with more than 1 5 participants, unless otherwise specified in special management areas.
■ Require nontoxic, biodegradable, and water-soluble paintball capsules.
■ Allow temporary obstacles or structures to be used but require them to be removed at the end of the visit to the public lands.
■ Allow no mechanized or motorized cross-country travel to set up or remove structures.
■ Prohibit the use of natural features, such as boulders and vegetation, as paintball targets.
■ Require participants to pick up and remove from the area all items related to paintball activities, including capsules and any other trash.
Recreation Criteria
Vending on Public Lands
The following criteria would be applied to determine vending locations, with LHFO planning for those parties seeking permission to vend necessary and appropriate services or products:
■ No vending would occur in any location that could impact threatened or endangered species, or negatively impact the natural resources.
■ No vending would occur within limits or zone of authority, governed by any political entity (city, state, county), that otherwise refuses to approve vending therein.
■ No vending would occur in a location which provided unfair or undue competition to legitimately permitted vendors of similar products or services located on land in the supporting communities.
■ All vendors would have a BLM-assigned location. Vending operations would be subject to sign restrictions stipulated by BLM.
■ Vendors would have to remain in their assigned location during vending operations.
■ A self-contained restroom would be required.
The following criteria, if applicable, would be applied to determine to whom permits would be issued and how they would be administered:
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
1-3
May 2007
■ No vendor could operate for a period longer than stipulated in the permit, and the vendor would have to remove all materials at the end of each operation period. Operating periods would be consistent with traditional operating periods for the area the vendor is authorized to use.
■ Permits would be issued on the basis of cost recovery of BLM expenses incurred, in the granting and administration of the permit, to ensure fair value is received.
■ Permit applicants would have to secure and conform with all other necessary permits and requirements stipulated by all other involved political entities, including, but not limited to, a permit from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) with the necessary spill collection and containment plan.
■ If it is determined to be necessary to protect resources or to ensure compliance with appropriate recreation opportunity spectrum classes identified for the area, exclusivity may be determined to be a reasonable and fair way to limit the number of permits available and therefore limit the impact on the natural resource.
■ No peraiit may be subleased, transferred, or sold. Permits must be surrendered without compensation to BLM if the pennittee is not able to be the primary person conducting or managing vending activities. No permittee has any right to renewal at the end of the permit term, preferential or otherwise.
■ If the permittee violates any BLM rules or requirements related to the vending operation, or in the interests of the public health, safety, and welfare, the permit may be revoked with 30 days’ written notice to the permittee without compensation of any kind.
The following additional criteria would be applied to determine vending locations on the
water for those parties seeking permission to vend necessary and appropriate services or
products:
■ Vending would occur in locations where business activities can be conducted safely.
■ No vending could occur within the Safety Zone of Bureau of Reclamation facilities.
■ Approved vending locations could be set forth in a limited vending zone established by BLM, in conformance with these criteria and/or any other land use plan or allocation system developed by BLM and other agencies or political entities participating in the public administration and protection of Lake Havasu.
The following additional criteria would be applied if applicable to determine to whom
permits would be issued for on-the-water vending and how they would be administered:
■ Permit applicants would be required to secure appropriate licensing for all watercraft in use by their vending operation from the state department of motor vehicles.
■ All watercraft in use would have to be U.S. Coast Guard-approved.
■ A self-contained restroom would be required.
■ The vendor would be required at the end of each annual operational period to remove the craft used from Lake Havasu.
■ Additional stipulations based upon approved national policy may also be required.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
1-4
May 2007
Additional Competitive Use Race Courses
Additional competitive-use OHV course(s) would be established to meet the increasing
public need if the following criteria are met:
■ Basis of a demonstrated need as shown by public request and local community support.
■ On existing and/or designated routes.
■ Public lands adjacent (within 2 miles) to or encompassed by Parker 400 course are excluded from an additional course.
■ Course would be outside areas listed for VRM Classes I, II and/or special designated areas such as but not limited to Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), riparian wetlands, and cultural sites.
■ Course would be outside Category I and II desert tortoise habitat and Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs).
■ Compatibility with other ongoing resource uses.
■ NEPA process would determine number of events and season of use on any proposed new courses.
Long Term Visitor Areas (LTVAs)
BLM would establish an LEVA and/or new camping area if the following criteria can be
met:
■ Basis of a demonstrated need as shown by existing dispersed camping use.
■ Within approximately 10 miles of local community and with that community’s support.
■ Where natural terrain accommodates a minimum of 40 acres and would be no more than 640 acres. Adjacent land would be closed to dispersed 14-day camping.
■ LTVA/camping area(s) would be required to be compatible with other potential and ongoing resource uses.
■ Site would have to be in Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III or IV areas.
■ Site would be outside of Category I and II desert tortoise habitat and any WHA.
■ Site would not be within areas having riparian vegetation and/or eligible cultural sites.
Prescribed Recreation Settings and the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
BLM’s goal of providing a satisfying leisure experience to visitors can be measured by
participating in preferred activities in favorable environmental settings. Opportunities for
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
1-5
May 2007
achieving satisfying experiences depend on natural elements such as vegetation, landscape and scenery, and conditions controlled by land management agencies, such as developed sites, roads, and regulations. The goal of recreation managers is to provide the opportunities to obtain such experiences by managing the natural setting and the activities within. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a planning tool that provides a framework to inventory or assess existing recreation opportunities/conditions. Reclassification of lands from what was inventoried occurred in response to alternative management goals. The plan allocates prescribed recreation settings that BLM will manage as the Desired Future Outcome for a specific location (see Map 20 in the Approved RMP). Because of water activities on Lake Havasu, the prescribed recreation settings combine terminology incorporated from both ROS and the Water Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WROS).
The prescribed recreation settings have two key essentials, recreation factors and recreation settings or classes.
Recreation Factors
Seven elements provide the basis to monitor and delineate whether the prescribed recreational settings are being met. These factors describe the overall environment in which an activity occurs, and address how that environment influences the types of activities. For each person, the recreational experience depends on the setting and individual differences based on background, education, sex, age, and place of residence.
Access
Includes the mode of travel used within the area and influences both the level and type of recreational use an area receives.
Remoteness
Concerns the extent to which individuals perceive themselves removed from human activity. Vegetation or topographic variation can increase this sense of remoteness.
Lack of remoteness is important for some recreational experiences.
Naturalness
Concerns the varying degrees of human modification of the environment, often described in terms of scenic quality influenced by the degree of change to the natural landscape.
Site Management
Refers to the level of site development. Lack of site modifications can facilitate feelings of self-reliance and naturalness, while highly developed facilities can enhance comfort and increase the opportunity to meet and interact with others.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
1-6
May 2007
Visitor Management
This includes both regulation and control of visitors as well as providing visitors with information and services. A continuum of visitor management can be described, ranging from subtle techniques, such as site design, to strict rules and regulations. In some recreational settings controls are expected and appropriate; in others, on-site controls detract from the desired experience.
Social Encounters
This involves the number and type of others met in the recreation area. Also measures the extent to which an area provides experiences for solitude or social interaction.
Visitor Impacts
The affects to natural resources such as soil, vegetation, air, water, and wildlife (even low levels of use) can produce measurable ecological impacts, and these impacts can influence the visitor’s experience.
Recreation Settings/Classes
Based on the seven elements described above, six recreation settings/classes have been developed and are described in the table below. The setting/classes range from natural, low-use areas (resource-dependent recreational opportunities) to highly developed, intensive-use areas (facility/vehicle-dependent recreational opportunities). Each setting/class is defined in terms of three main components: the environmental setting, the potential activities, and the desired experience(s).
|
Table 1-1. |
Recreation Settings/Classes |
||
|
Opportunity class |
Desired Experiences |
Environmental Setting |
Potential Activities |
|
Primitive (P) |
Opportunity for isolation from the sights and sounds of humans to feel a part of the natural environment. Challenge, adventure, risk, and self-reliance are important. |
The remote area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of human restrictions and controls. Only facilities essential for resource protection are used. |
Eco-adventure travel, non- motorized recreation, such as backpacking, equestrian use, hiking, climbing, rafting or canoeing, enjoyment of scenery or natural feamres, nature study, and photography. |
|
Semi- primitive (SP) |
Opportunity for high degree of interaction with the natural environment, moderate challenge and risk, use of outdoor skills. |
Concentration of users is very low. On-site controls and restrictions may be present but are subtle. Facilities are provided only for the protection of resources value and the safety of users. Includes primitive trails for all type of users. |
All activities listed previously plus remote camping, mountain biking, hunting, and fishing. Motorized vehicles observed infrequently. Motorized transportation used mostly to access non- motorized recreation opportunities. |
|
Rural |
Opportunity to relieve stress and to get away from built |
Concentration of users is low, but often there is evidence of other area |
Plus; disperse camping or from vehicles (car/boat camping) |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
1-7
May 2007
|
Opportunity class |
Desired Experiences |
Environmental Setting |
Potential Activities |
|
Natural (RN) |
environment is important, while prospect of using motorized equipment to explore natural environment is valued. |
users present. Moderate level of management presence. Facilities are provided to help to manage use and limit contacts. |
and auto touring includes off- highway vehicle use, four- wheel drive, dune buggy, dirt bike, and boating. |
|
Rural Developed (RD) |
About equal opportunities for association with other users and for isolation from sights and sounds of people. Opportunities for both motorized and non -motorized recreation are present. |
Concentration of users is low to moderate with some facilities provided for moderate user convenience and comfort. On-site controls and restrictions offer a sense of safety and security. |
Plus: Dispersed camping or using developed campsites with larger recreational vehicles, RV or trailers, water skiing, interpretive use. |
|
Suburban (S) |
Watching and meeting other visitors is expected and desired. Range of recreation experiences is sought from relaxation to physical exertion and from contemplation to thrills and challenges. |
Substantially modified natural environment. Resource modification and use and practices are obvious. Concentration of users is often moderate to high. Developed sites, roads, and trails are designed for moderate to high use. |
Plus: competitive games, spectator sports, bicycling, jogging, and developed resorts. |
|
Urban (U) |
Recreational activities with other individuals and groups are customary. Key part of the experience is socializing with family and friends. The natural environment and the use of outdoor skills secondary or unimportant. |
Highly modified surroundings, although the background may have natural elements. Facilities developed for the convenienee of a large number of people. Controls and restrictions are obvious and numerous. Often attractive to short time visitors, and may serve as staging area for travels to non-urban settings. |
Plus: guided or facilitated recreational activities such as tour boat sightseeing, on site rental of recreational equipment. |
Benefits-Based Management
Please see BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-060 for internal guidance in this management approach, as well as Information Bulletin No. 2004 072 and The BLM Priorities for Recreation and Visitor SejMces (Bureau of Land Management 2004).
A benefits-based management approach focuses on the impacts or effects of a recreational activity rather than on the activity itself. It is common for park and recreation providers to concentrate only on the provision of activity opportunities. It is also easy to look back at the successful classes and programs of a previous year and to simply replicate that success as a de facto policy decision for future years. Facilities, staff abilities, and resource constraints also often determine what opportunities are offered. These decision-making processes focus on the provision of recreation activities and on the number of people who participate in them.
Benefits-based management is different. Rather than concentrating on the mechanics of providing the recreation opportunity, it explicitly defines the outcome of the experience.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
1-8
May 2007
In effect it shifts emphasis from the supply side to the demand side of recreation. But it goes beyond simple exhibited demand for park and recreation opportunities in that it looks at the needs of the people rather than just what they demand. That is to say, our customers’ specific recreational wants are shaped by their awareness of the possibilities and the known outcomes of these options. But this knowledge may be limited. They might also temper their demands by their own realistic appraisal of the day-to-day constraints on their lives. But our clients do know their own needs. They can identify the problems and pressures in their lives, for which they would like some antidote. It is our job as professionals to find the activity and setting that provides them that antidote. This is the heart of the benefits-based management approach.
The shift from an activity-based management approach to a benefits-based approach has been echoed in the attention of research. Initial efforts were focused on counting the number of people and the number of activities, settings, and resources they would require and consume. As attention moved more to an experience-based approach, it was the quality of the experience rather than the quantity that was important. Under the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum planning framework, managers would concentrate on the provision of physical, social, and managerial conditions optimal for a particular type of recreational experience. A benefits-based approach goes a step further and looks at not just the psychological and experiential outcomes of the experience but also the flow of benefits to individuals, groups, communities and society in general (Borrie and Roggenbuck 1994).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
1-9
May 2007
Appendix J
Parker Dam
Parker Dam spans the Colorado River between the states of Arizona and California 17 miles northeast of the town of Parker, Arizona. The dam was constructed between 1934 and 1938 by the Department of Interior’s United States Bureau of Reclamation.
The construction of Parker Dam formed a reservoir, Lake Havasu, which is about 45 miles long and covers 29,390 acres. Lake Havasu may store as much as a total of 619,400 acre-feet of water, of which 28,600 acre-feet is dead storage to the maximum elevation of 650 feet. Parker Dam is the last dam on the Colorado River that has a significant storage capacity and is managed to release water for downstream requirements below Parker. Therefore, water releases downstream must be scheduled carefully to meet the requirements for irrigation and similar uses without waste. Releases are within the limits of flood control requirements for river regulation. These releases of water may cause minor fluctuations in the available storage.
Two other main purposes that Parker Dam achieves under normal lake fluctuations are to provide separate forebays from which water can be diverted by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and the Central Arizona Project (CAP). The water diverted by the MWD’s Whitset Pumping Plant lifts water into the Colorado River Aqueduct and is eventually delivered to the Southern California area. The Whitset Pumping Plant is located 2 miles upstream from Parker Dam on the California side of Lake Havasu. The CAP’S Mark Wilmer Pumping Plant is located 2 miles upstream from Parker Dam on the Arizona side of Lake Havasu. The water diverted by the Mark Wilmer pumping plant is lifted into the Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct. The CAP began pumping water from Lake Havasu into the Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct in 1985. It has a capacity for delivery to water users in central and southern Arizona.
Parker Dam is one of the deepest dams in the world: 73% of its structural height of 320 feet is below the original riverbed. About 85 feet of the dam is visible. The dam’s superstructure rises another 62 feet above the roadway across the top of the dam. Parker Powerplant is located on the California side of the Colorado River immediately below the dam. It houses four hydroelectric generating units, each of which may produce 30,000 kilowatts of hydroelectric power. Four 22-foot-diameter penstocks carry as much as 5,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) each to feed the generating units. Fifty percent of the plant’s power output is reserved for MWD’s use to pump water along the Colorado River Aqueduct to the Pacific Coast. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) sells the power to the open marketplace. WAPA is a Department of Energy agency. Under an agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and MWD, the latter agency financed essentially the entire cost of constructing Parker Dam.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
J-1
May 2007
Appendix K
Special Designations
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
The objective of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designation is to identify areas to protect and to prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, and scenic values; fish or wildlife resources; other natural systems or processes; or to protect human life and safety from natural hazards. The ACEC designation indicates to the public that there are significant resources requiring special consideration within or on these public lands.
Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural
The ACEC encompasses portions of the Beale’s Wagon Road (See Map 28 in the Approved RMP). Lt. Edward F. Beale, a naval officer in the service of the U.S. Army Topographical Corps, was ordered by the War Department to build a government-funded wagon road across the 35th Parallel. His secondary orders were to test the feasibility of the use of camels as pack animals in the Southwestern desert. Beale surveyed the wagon road in 1857 during the “Great Camel Experiment.” He followed existing prehistoric trails and associated sites. The wagon road was constructed between 1857 and 1859.
The site complex is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and is of regional, if not national, importance.
The wagon road followed one of the strands of the Mojave Trail, a prehistoric trail system used by the Mojave people to access lands and resources between the Black Mountains and the Colorado River. The Mojave Trail continued west of the river into California and was used in travels to the coast on trading expeditions. Additional significant associated archaeological sites are located within the ACEC.
This area also contains some of the best tortoise habitat in the Black Mountains.
Research by McLuckie et al (1999) and Glenn et al. (1990) indicates that desert tortoise in the southern Black Mountains are genetically grouped with the federally threatened Mojavean population west and north of the Colorado River. The western and eastern bajadas of Black Mountains, including the ACEC, provide habitat to the largest and most contiguous known population of desert tortoise in the entire Black Mountain ecosystem. The highest densities seem to occur in the bajadas versus the more protected and less developed steep and rock slopes.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
K-1
May 2007
Current development is having tremendous impacts on desert tortoise habitat in the southern Black Mountains. Particularly vulnerable are the western bajadas adjacent to Bullhead City and Ft. Mojave.
Beale Slough Riparian and Cultural
Lands surrounding Beale Slough (a finger of open water with associated marsh lands) in California comprise the proposed ACEC (See Map 28 in the Approved RMP). Important riparian habitat and significant cultural resources are located within the boundaries. Included within the boundaries are significant prehistoric sites eligible for inclusion on the NRHP and important riparian and native fish habitat. Interagency cooperation has recreated wildlife habitat for numerous species.
Crossman Peak Scenic
Akoke-humi, the Mojave name for Crossman Peak, has been identified as a significant place of traditional cultural importance and is included in oral traditions concerning creation of the Colorado River. In the 1987 YUMA RMP, much of this same area behind Lake Havasu City was recognized for special management by BLM allocating it as a Natural Scenic Area.
The ACEC will protect this natural scenic backdrop along with additional acreage to protect the cultural and other resource concerns (see Map 28 in the Approved RMP). Public land in this general area contains sacred mountain and sites eligible for inclusion on the NRHP including petroglyph sites. It also encompasses important wildlife habitat including Category II desert tortoise habitat, and sensitive bighorn sheep habitat. A large tract of public land in the southeast end of the ACEC exhibits a high degree of naturalness with little human modification of the landscape and opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation.
Swansea Historic District
The ACEC encompasses the historic Swansea Townsite, which contains ruins of numerous structures and mining features, including associated shafts, adits, roads, railroad, and the Swansea pump station (see Map 28 in the Approved RMP). The historic archaeological district has been determined eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Prospected in the 1880s, the copper mining town was established in 1908. The next 50 years saw a series of booms and busts. The mine became inactive in the early 1960s. The recreational use of the town never stopped.
The Swansea mining camp is located in La Paz County, approximately 35 miles southeast of Parker, Arizona. Physiographically, the area lies in what is referred to as the Basin and Range province. The biological environment of the site is typical of the northern portion of the Sonoran Desert ecosystem, containing saguaro, cholla, creosote, ocotillo, palo verde, and mesquite.
The camp is situated in a northeast-southwest trending valley bordered by the Rawhide Mountains to the north and the Buckskin Mountains to the south, and lies just south of the Bill Williams River. The mine and camp area rests on low undulating alluvial flats
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
K-2
May 2007
dissected by washes. Material remains consist of the foundations and other structural remains of mine shafts, the processing plant, the mine haulage system, water and power conveyance systems, domestic and commercial buildings, tent foundations, wooden building ruins, two cemeteries, the Arizona and Swansea Railroad grade, depot, weigh scale, and repair buildings. Sheet refuse from mining and domestic uses, such as machine parts, slag, tin cans, bottles, and building materials, covers broad areas of the site. Topographically and visually, the site is dominated by Clara Peak, just to the south and east.
Three Rivers Riparian
The ACEC (see Map 28 in the Approved RMP) will protect riparian resources, scenic values, and threatened and endangered species habitat, specifically bald eagle aeries.
This riparian habitat is extremely valuable for available year-round water, diversity of vegetation and crucial habitat for bird, fish, other wildlife, and insect populations. The riparian habitat provides both wintering and breeding habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher, bald eagle, and peregrine falcons. The extensive riparian habitat with native cottonwood and willow trees provides outstanding scenic qualities with the free-flowing river, surrounding mountains, and cliff features offering solitude and water-based recreation opportunities.
Back Country Byways
BLM’s 8375 - Byways Handbook lists four components to BLM’s byway program:
■ BLM Scenic Byways - scenic corridors along major secondary and primary highways.
■ BLM Back Country Byways - corridors along back country routes that have high scenic, historic, archaeological, or other public interest values.
■ All-American Roads - roads that travel through corridors offering such a stunning variety of interesting destinations that travelers from around the nation and world will seek them out.
■ National Scenic Byways - described as roads that state and local officials consider so outstanding that they merit recognition at the national level.
Parker Dam Road
The byway was the 61st designated National Back Country Byway in the Nation. The Parker Dam Road is a paved road maintained by San Bernardino County, California, traveling along the California side of the Colorado River. The byway theme interprets the Colorado River as the “thread of life” connecting people, wildlife, and vegetation in the river canyon as well as the communities of Parker Dam, California, and Parker, Arizona. The byway connects the many developed recreation facilities, both commercial resorts and BLM campground and day use. The byway is used by recreational visitors to access 1 1 BLM-developed recreation sites and 1 1 concessions (see Map 27 in the Approved RMP). There are six developed wayside exhibits for the byway.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
K-3
May 2007
Parker - Bouse Swansea
This potential byway incorporates three county maintained roads: 13.16 miles of the paved Shea Road, 10.10 miles of the all-weather gravel Swansea Mine Road, and 1 8 miles of the all-weather gravel Swansea Road. Past the intersection of Swansea Mine and Swansea roads, the last 7 miles take the traveler into the Swansea Townsite. While this section of road is maintained by the county, the terrain encourages the use of high- clearance vehicles. Besides the townsite, this potential byway offers views of the Gibraltar Mountain and East Cactus Plain Wilderness Areas, remnants of ranching activities, the old Swansea railroad grade, the Central Arizona Project (CAP), and prehistoric sites. A kiosk has been installed on Shea Road and a bulletin board appears on Swansea Road near the CAP, and another kiosk has been installed at Swansea Townsite.
Plomosa
This potential byway is a paved county road that connects areas around Quartzite and Bouse, Arizona, a distance of about 1 8 miles. The potential byway offers views of the dramatic Plomosa Mountains and Sonoran Desert. The Bouse Fisherman intaglio is another reason the route is popular with winter visitors. There is a kiosk at the west end of the route near SR 95. The potential byway would be cooperatively managed by Lake Havasu Field Office and the Yuma Field Office.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
This appendix includes all management actions listed in the final Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative Environmental Impact Statement and Study Report/Record of Decision (Bureau of Land Management 1994). Wild and Scenic River designation would require certain management actions be initiated in accordance with the Bureau of Land Management Wild and Scenic River Manual (MS 8351, August 19, 1952). The following would occur as a result of designation. In the event that wild and scenic river management actions overlap ongoing management actions, the more stringent would be applied.
■ Construction of new roads, trails, or other provisions for overland motorized travel would be prohibited in wild segments 1 and 3 (4,164 acres).
■ Water quality would be monitored in order to meet federal criteria or federally approved state standards in the entire study area, according to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
■ Patents would be restricted to the mineral estate on 486 acres of the study not in wilderness.
■ Instream flow would be monitored to establish the minimum flow necessary to protect the outstandingly remarkable values.
■ New right-of-way would be discouraged on 486 acres of the study area not in wilderness.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
K-4
May 2007
■ The construction of dams, levees, hydropower facilities or major types of diversions would be prohibited on up to 15.9 riparian miles.
These actions were current and ongoing management actions from the KRMP, the
YRMP, and the Bill Williams Riparian Management Area Plan. Congressional
designation of the river segments would require writing a management plan within
3 years of official designation and the management actions listed below could be updated
at that time.
1 . The riparian zone would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry on 486 acres of the Three Rivers Riparian ACEC in Segment 2.
2. Mineral leasing with no surface occupancy would be allowed in the riparian zone on 486 acres of the Three Rivers Riparian ACEC in Segment 2.
3. BLM approval for plans of operations would be required for all mineral exploration and development activities above the level of casual use outside the riparian zone on 486 acres of the Three Rivers Riparian ACEC in Segment 2.
4. Mineral material disposal would be prohibited in the riparian zone on 486 acres of the Three Rivers Riparian Area of ACEC in Segment 2.
5. New mining claims and mineral leases would not be allowed in the riparian zone in Segment 2.
6. New major right-of-way would be confined to existing corridors on 486 acres in Segment 2.
7. BLM would acquire 524 acres of private land and 703 acres of state land on a willing-seller/willing-buyer or exchange basis in the Bill Williams River study area.
8. Road development would be prohibited on 486 acres within 0.5 mile of bald eagle nests.
9. Motorized travel is prohibited in the wilderness portions of Segment 1 and Segment 3.
10. OHV use in riparian zones would be limited to designated roads and trails on 486 acres of Segment 2 (Scenic).
1 1 . Campground development would be restricted to areas outside the riparian zone and the 100-year floodplain on 486 acres in Segment 2.
12. The area within 0.5 mile of a falcon nest would be closed to any surface disturbance or intensive recreational activities (e.g., group camping) during the breeding season from March 1 to June 15 on 486 acres in Segment 2.
13. The portions of the study area in wilderness areas (4,164 acres) would be managed as a VRM Class I area. Management activities would be limited to those that preserve the characteristic landscape.
14. The non- wilderness portions of the study area (486 acres) would be managed as a VRM Class II area. Management activities would be limited to those that would repeat the basic line fonn, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
K-5
May 2007
15. Helicopter flights above the 486 acres in Segment 2 would be prohibited within 0.5 mile of active bald eagle nests during the breeding season.
16. Except for salvage operations, the removal of native plants would be prohibited on 486 acres in Segment 2.
17. A systematic program would be developed for removal of saltcedar on as much as 500 acres in Segment 2.
18. As many as 200 cottonwood and willow poles would be planted on as much as 100 acres in Segment 3.
19. A cultural resource specialist would review proposals for activities that could result in increased use or surface disturbance.
20. If sites were evaluated as eligible for listing in the NRHP, they would be avoided by the proposed activity.
2 1 . If avoidance were not possible, impacts would be mitigated through a data recovery program developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer.
22. Protection measures (e.g., fencing or periodic patrolling) would be developed for selected cultural resources that have either great significance or a history of vandalism.
23. As many as five new upland water sources for use by livestock would be developed to improve riparian areas.
24. In accordance with the Bill Williams Riparian Management Area Plan, as much as 5 miles of fences, including enclosures, would be constructed to improve riparian areas.
25. Livestock would be removed when utilization exceeds 70% of cottonwood and willow seedlings and/or utilization of key herbaceous species exceeds 50%.
26. The wild burro population would be monitored and excess numbers would be removed.
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
K-6
May 2007
Appendix L
Travel Management
AZ Route Inventories
Since 2000, BLM, four Arizona National Forests, and the Arizona State Land Department have cooperatively inventoried OHV routes throughout the state. Approximately 19,000 miles (14,500 BLM) have been inventoried for the land use planning efforts of the three respective agencies. A common data dictionary, approved by all agencies, is used to record each route along with important attributes (e.g., observed uses, route width/surface, camping areas, and major maintenance concerns). LHFO started inventorying routes in September 1990 as part of preparation for the Parker Strip Special Recreation Management Area Plan. The LHFO was the first Field Office to print an Arizona Access Guide (map) for a significant part of its management area in 1998. Three of the five LHFO Access Guides were completed by 2002. These guides were completed only after a route inventory of the area was completed using BLM staff or contractors. The Lake Havasu Field Office Travel Management Units or Inventory Maps are based on the Access Guide format, and each guide would be updated when the Travel Management Network Plan is completed.
LHFO Inventory
Lake Havasu Field Office completed its route inventory in 2004 and updated with additional routes identified through the DRMP/DEIS 2006 comment process. The Approved RMP has one 11x17 map representing the existing route inventory and an index for the travel management units or route inventory maps (see Maps 30 and 32 in the Approved RMP). Six travel management units/route inventory maps are printed at the 62. 5K scale and are on the CD included with this Approved RMP: Bullhead, Lake Havasu, Cactus Plain, Alamo, Bouse, and Wenden.
Route Evaluation
AZ BLM has adapted the Route Evaluation Tree, designed by a California contractor (first used in the West Mohave Plan), for designating routes and developing its travel management networks. The Tree applies a standard analytical method to existing routes to determine whether they would be retained, closed, or rerouted. Commercial, recreation, and resource data are compiled for each route for this process. Most of BLM’s roads and trails are user defined. The Tree process would allow each Field Office to eventually develop sustainable travel networks. Adjoining Forests and Arizona State
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
L-1
May 2007
Lands are evaluating the Tree method to determine if they would apply it to their respective land units.
Proposed Route Evaluation Criteria
When using the Evaluation Tree BLM would analyze following detailed variables or criteria for each route and there by determine the value of said route in open, limited, or closed status. Additional criteria may be added through working with the public and BLM staff to complete the Travel Management Plan. The criteria would be noted in a database for each route. All routes would be analyzed during the route evaluation process, which would consider all uses and resources within the area. No use or resource would automatically predetermine a route decision.
COMMERCIAL. ADMINISTRATIVE. PRIVATE PROPERTY (CAPP) Issues:
• Administrative Uses, such as:
Aggregate Borrow Pit Compliance/Enforcement Monitoring Fire Suppression Monitoring Site Other
Predator Control Resource Treatment
Training Area/Facility (e.g.. Search and Rescue)
Weather Station Weed Abatement Wildlife Agency Facility Wildlife Agency Monitoring Wildlife Catchments Wildlife Water / Guzzler
• Commercial Ranching Facility, such as:
Allotment Boundary Fence Line
Base Waters
Cattleguard
Corral
Fence Line (not allotment boundary)
Gate Other Pipeline Ranch HQ Ranch Shack Salt Lick
Spring Development
Springs
Tank, Trough
Trailing Route
Water Catchments
Well
Windmill
Military Facility
Mining
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
L-2
May 2007
• Officially Recognized in Federal Planning Document and Maintained
• Connectivity
Published in guidebook or on maps.
• Private Property
• Tourism
• Utilities, such as
Communication Site
Electrical Transmission / Powerline
Gas Pipeline
Irrigation Canal
Other
Telephone
Water Pipeline
Wind Energy
Similarly, under the Special Resources section, some categories may be broken down into greater detail while others may not. This is a short example.
RESOURCE ISSUES:
• Known Cultural Site / Area / Polygon
• Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
• T&E Species, Special Status Species, Sensitive Species, such as:
Bighorn Sheep Desert Tortoise Ironwood
[Apply specifics for Planning Area wildlife and plants]
• Within WHA
• Within identified Wildlife Movement Corridor
• Wilderness characteristics of an area.
• Within SRMA
• Within Wilderness or Wilderness Study Area
• Within potential Wild & Scenic River Area.
• Sensitive Habitat
Riparian Habitat
Soils
Water
Air
PUBLIC USES ISSUES
• 4x4 (Standard Stock 4x4)
• Astronomy / Night Sky Concerns
• ATV Use
• Birding
• Boating/Access
• Camping -
Developed Primitive/Dispersed Primitive/Extended Stay Vehicle Based
• Commercial Recreation Permit
• Cultural/Historical Sightseeing
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
L-3
May 2007
• Dog Trials
• Dual Sport Touring
• Equestrian
• ERMA
• Fishing
• Geocaching
• Golf Carts (Modified)
• Hiking
• Hill-Climbing
• Hunting
• Long Term Visitor Area (LTV A)
• Motorcycle Trials
• Motorcycle Use
• Mountain Biking
• Mountain, Rock Climbing
• OHV
• Parking Area
• Permitted Equestrian
• Permitted Motorcycle / ATV
• Permitted Mountain Bike
• Public Safety
• Public Use Site Access / Interpretative Panel
• River and Stream Access / Put In-Out
• Rockhounding
• Shooting
• Special Recreation Permit
• Staging Area(s)
• SUV Touring
• Technical 4 WD
• Technical, Site Specific (Extreme/Rock Crawling Within a Specified Area, Not a Trail)
• Technical, Trail (Extreme/Rock Crawling Within Trails)
• Trailheads
• Train Spotting
• Vistas, Sightseeing, Photography
• Wilderness Access
• Wildlife Watching
• Other
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan (_.4
May 2007
Route Evaluation Decision Tree® Main Features Include:
1. Logical, standardized, balanced, and repeatable approach to route designation.
2. Systematic questions to assess compliance with a variety of pertinent statutory requirements ' including:
• Valid existing rights and other vested rights or permitted uses.
• Degree of impact or degradation (including permanent impairment) to specially protected resources, such as species protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and cultural, historic, and scientific objects protected by the Historic Preservation and Antiquities Acts (e.g.. Monument Proclamations, Section 106) and wilderness values as protected by the Wilderness Act.
• Implementation of the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) and its charge to balance the public’s need/desire for access to federal lands with resource protection through a philosophy of management for “multiple use.” Such consideration includes recognizing the value of providing a range of recreational opportunities and treating those opportunities in accordance with FLPMA as a resource worthy of protection.
3. Systematic consideration of access opportunities and resource protection needs on both a
narrowly focused route-by-route assessment, as well as a broad-based cumulative assessment of the total network’s effect.
4. Systematic consideration of mitigation and/or limited designation as a means by which to
ameliorate resource impacts. Designation options include a range from open to closed and a number of intermediate actions as a means by which to balance access needs and resource protection.
5. Systematic recording of data allowing for future retrieval and review/updating of decision
information as needed (i.e., “decision pathways” are numerically coded).
6. Systematic ability to assess a route’s final recommended designation status based upon the
management goals of each individual alternative.
How does the Decision Tree® Work?
1. The region or management area in which the route is located is thoroughly evaluated. Resource protection, recreation, and commercial
access concerns pertinent to route designation are identified. The patterns of these identified uses and concerns, as well as their trends, are also noted. Other related issues such as law enforcement, route maintenance, and user conflicts are further identified.
2. The desired future condition and management goals of each proposed alternative are identified and reviewed.
3. Each route is systematically numbered. This both allows for tracking the designation process and enables the public to make comment on
specific routes.
4. Each route is then systematically assessed by sequentially answering the questions in the Decision Tree. This is done for each alternative.
Specifically, the questions are assessed and answered in the context of the regional concerns identified in Step #1 and the management goals identified in Step #2 for each of the alternatives.
5. The determination of the final designation for each route under each alternative is dictated by addressing the management goals for that
alternative.
6. The specific answers to each question for each route are recorded by the final coded answer.
7. Detailed information that may have been critical to the answer of any question(s) or in the determination of the final outcome is recorded as
part or the individual route designation decision record.
Route Definitions
|
© |
Close 01 |
|
|
Mitigate/ Limit 09 f |
Mitigate/Limit 09 |
Mitigate/
Open
Route Decision Tree © ARS, Inc. 2002
B. Will the continued use of this route impact slate or federally listed speoes, or other special status species or their occupied habitat or cultural or other sensitive resources including Monument objects or values?
-<3>-
A. Is the route:
A nght-of-way via valid existing right, Officially recognized or maintained.
A regional route that serves more than one sub-region,
A principal means of connectivity within a sub-region?
C. Does the route provide commercial or pnvate-property access ^ {e.g., vested or prescnptive nghts)?
-<3>-
F. Will the continued use of this route impact state or federally listed species, or other special status species or their occupied habitat or cultural or other sensitive resources including Monument objects or values?
G. Will the continued use of this route impact slate or federally listed species, or other special status species or their occupied habitat or cultural or other sensitive resources including Monument objects or values?
^~<3> <$> — ^
|
D Can the impacts to the above sensitive resources be mitigated or avoided"? |
E. Would route closure or some other form of mitigation address cumulative effects on various other resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or specially protected? |
H. Can the impacts to the above sensitive resources be mitigated or avoided? |
1. Would route closure or some other form of mitigation address cumulative effects on vanous other resources not speciftcally identified above as sensitive or specially protected? |
J. Can the impacts to the above sensitive resources be mitigated or avoided"? |
K. Would route closure or some other form of mitigation address cumulative effects on vanous other resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or specially protected"? |
|||||
<$> <$>
L. Does this route contnbute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FlPMA"^
M. Does this route contnbute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FLPMA?
X. Can the commercial, private-property, and public uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) (within this route's zone of influence) that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?
N. Does this route contnbute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FLPMA?
Z. Can the commercial, private-property, and public uses of this route be adequately met by another route (within this route's zone of influence) that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?
Y. Can the commercial or private-property uses of this route be adequately met by another route that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other . resources?
AA. Can the commercial or private-properiy uses of this route be adequately met by another route that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?
0. Does this route contnbute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FLPMA”?
BB. Can the commercial, private-property, and public uses of this route be adequately met by another route (within this route's zone of influence) that minimizes cumulative effects on various resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or specially protected?
CC. Can the commercial or private-property uses of this route be adequately met by another route that minimizes cumulative effects on various resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or .soecladvorotected? .
<5>
P. Does this route contribute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FLPMA?
O
Q. Does this route contnbute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FLPMA?
DD. Can the commercial, private-property, and public uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) (within this route's zone of influence) that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?
EE. Can the commercial or private-property uses ofthis route be adequately met by another route that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other
R. Does this route contnbute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FLPMA?
FF. Can the commercial, private-property, and public uses ofthis route be adequately met by another route (within this route's zone of influence) that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?
GG. Can the commercial or private-property uses ofthis route be adequately met by another route that minimizes Impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other . resources?
S. Does this route contribute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FLPMA?
HH. Can the commercial, private-property, and public uses ofthis route be adequately met by another route (within this route's zone of influence) that minimizes cumulative effects on various resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or specially protected?
II. Can the commercial or private-property uses of this route be adequately met by another route that minimizes cumulative effects on various resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or specially protected?
T. Does this route contribute to recreationai opportunities, route network connectivity, pubiic safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FLPMA?
^ r
o
(D*M3
U. Does this route contribute to recreationai opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FLPMA"?
JJ. Can the public uses ofthis route be adequately met by another route (within this route's zone of influence) that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?
©<S>Xi
V. Does this route contnbute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FLPMA?
W. Does this route contnbute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in FLPMA?
KK. Can the public uses ofthis route be adequately met by another route (within this route's zone of influence) that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?
LL. Can the public uses ofthis route be adequately met by another route (within this route's zone of influence) that minimizes cumulative effects on various resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or specially protected?
©oXi
<»
0
|
^los^ ^ |
^|j |
|
|
Mitigate/ Limit |
Off-Highway Vehicle Mitigation Examples
Nature of the conflict with routes and use of routes
Conflict -is underlined, under each identified issue: Resource, Social, NLCS
Typical mitigation measures — are specified best practices that respond to identified conflict
-Typical mitigation is in order of possible implementation, not all measures may be used and not all may be listed.
-Mitigation actions taken should be triggered as a result of monitoring and reaching identified thresholds. -Monitoring should be done before, during and after mitigation measures are implemented to identify trends.
Resource issues:
The physical location of a route is degrading riparian condition
1 . Relocate the route to avoid the area
2. Harden or raise the route above water level if route is necessary and unable to be relocated
3. Close the route if no suitable mitigation is possible and make a plan for reclamation
Human use associated with a route is degrading riparian condition
1. Place information signs to request positive behavior (ie use only when dry etc)
2. Harden and/or raise the route above water level or place barriers to keep vehicle and people on routes
3. Relocate the route to allow riparian condition to improve
4. Close the route if no suitable mitigation is possible and make a plan for reclamation Human use associated with a route is degrading desired plant communities
1 . Place signs to encourage vehicles and people to stay on routes
2. Conduct public outreach regarding noxious weeds and conserving vegetation
3. Fence the area or place barriers to manage people
4. Develop a program to improve desired plant community
5. Close the route and make a plan for reclamation
Human use associated with a route is degrading water quality
1 . Review the situation to determine the source of degradation and monitor to determine severity
2. Place water control measures on the route
3. Take reasonable measure to further harden/stabilize the route
4. Reroute the route
5. Close the route if no suitable mitigation is possible
Human use on a route is determined to degrade a particular habitat
1. Request certain behavior from route users through signs and other information
2. Place limitations of use on the route (time/season of use, type of use, number of users, behavioral requirements)
3. Reroute the route
4. Replace habitat to offset problems caused by human use, some methods could be;
a. Augment food/water sources
b. Place barriers along route to protect specific habitat features
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
L-7
May 2007
c. Relocate or expand reproduction sites to be away from the route 5. Close route if no suitable mitigation is possible, make plan for reclamation
Human use associated with a route is determined to degrade a Special Status Species' habitat
1. Review management plans for the species and follow recommendations
Design mitigation plans to address:
1) Temporary conditions
2) Seasonal conditions
3) Year round conditions
2. Develop specific mitigation measures based on the site if species management plan is insufficient
3. Close route if no suitable mitigation is possible, make a plan for reclamation
Human use associated with a route is determined to degrade Sonoran Desert Tortoise habitat
1. Physically relocate habitat disturbances and/or schedule permitted activities to occur during dormant periods
(Maintaining No-Net Loss habitat policy)
2. Engineer Tortoise fences and underpasses for Tortoise benefit
3. Acquire replacement habitat lands and funding for tortoise benefiting activities
4. Close unauthorized routes and make a plan for reclamation
Human use associated with a route is determined to degrade a Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E species)
1. Initiate consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service
2. Review recovery plan, implement mitigations as defined in plan
3. Close route if no suitable mitigation is possible, make a plan for reclamation
Dust caused on or near a route violates county, state or federal regulations
1 . Determine a short term solution
a. Monitor situation and determine severity of the problem
b. Close the route or area temporarily to stop dust generation
c. Stabilize the route using a county approved method
d. Place signs requesting a certain behavior (ie no wheel spin, reduce speed)
2. Determine a long term solution
a. Change formal maintenance interval on route consistent with use level
b. Develop a localized outreach program
c. Implement new technology as part of an area wide plan
d. Close route if suitable dust control is not possible, make plan for reclamation
Human use associated with a route is causing unnatural erosion rates
1 . Review the route to determine cause and monitor to determine severity
2. Place water control measures on the route
3. Take reasonable measure to further harden or stabilize the route
4. Reroute the route
5. Close the route if no suitable mitigation is possible
Social Issues:
Speed differential causes conflict between recreationists and/or local residents
1 . Place signs to raise awareness of lawful uses of the area.
2. Monitor situation on the ground and request law enforcement support if necessary
3. Conduct public outreach in an attempt change behavior
4. Review terrain and improve sight distances if possible
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
L-8
May 2007
5. Redesign traffic flow by separating uses or limit by type or time of use Sound level causes conflict between recreationists and/or local residents
1 . Place signs to raise awareness of sound issues
2. Monitor situation on the ground and request law enforcement support if necessary
3. Conduct public outreach in an attempt change behavior
4. Implement "Quiet Time" of use restrictions
5. Reroute traffic to minimize conflict
6. Place sound reducing barriers if applicable
7. Close route if no suitable mitigation is possible
A route causes unacceptable changes to the desired Recreation Opportunity Spectrum(ROS) setting (ex. unplanned OHV play areas, large party sites, dump sites, resource theft)
1. Investigate the cause and implement signage and law enforcement as necessary
2. Design mitigation plans to address:
1 . Short term conditions
a. Implement new signing and public outreach to explain desired setting
b. Implement temporary use restrictions(ex. No overnight camping)
c. Issue emergency closure order, address conditions during closure
2. Long term conditions
a. Implement better signing and mapping protocols for this area
b. If no suitable mitigation is possible, amend RMP to close the area
3. Close areas near the route contributing to the unacceptable changes such as unplanned OHV play areas, large party sites, dumping sites, resource theft etc
A proposed route is out of compliance with the Visual Resource Manaqement(VRM) classification of the area
1 . Evaluate the potential for and implement a method to make the route less noticeable such as landscaping.
2. If no suitable mitigation is possible, construction would not be allowed
A route causes unacceptable impacts to cultural or archeological resources
1. Stabilize the resource and begin data recovery
2. Fence one or both sides of the route to keep vehicles from pulling off the route onto a site
3. Interpret the resource to gain public support for protection
4. Work with AZ Site Stewards program for monitoring, increase law enforcement presence
5. Reroute the route to avoid further disturbance of the site
6. Close the route if no mitigation is possible, make a plan for reclamation
Human use on a route causes unacceptable impacts to a designated wilderness (ex. vehicle trespass)
1. Improve signage along wilderness boundary
2. Implement short sections offence in problem areas
3. Use technology to gather information for more detailed action
4. Use volunteers and law enforcement to improve compliance along boundaries
5. Place time of use limits on the route to encourage lawful use (ie daytime use only)
6. Close the route if no mitigation is possible
Human use on a route outside wilderness causesunacceptable impacts to a designated wilderness (ex. vehicle trespass)
1. Improve signage along wilderness boundary
2. Secure funding and resources to rehabilitate areas attracting trespass
3. Implement short sections of fence in problem areas
4. Use technology such as remote cameras and infrared counters to gather data for more detailed action
5. Engage volunteers and law enforcement to improve compliance along boundaries
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
L-9
May 2007
6. Place time of use limits on the route to encourage lawful use (ie special event use only)
7. Close the route if no mitigation is possible, make a plan for reclamation
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan L-1 0
May 2007
Appendix M
Little Harquahala Herd Area Manageability Analysis
Based on the last census, no wild burros remain in the Little Harquahala Herd Area (HA). Management of the area would never be possible due to the amount of private lands within and adjacent to the HA. The Little Harquahala Herd Area is located directly south of Wenden, Arizona, on the south side of U.S. Highway 60. It is 65,893 acres in size and is composed of 51,961 acres of public land (79%), 1 1,767 acres of private land (18%), and 2,165 acres of Arizona state lands (3%). (See Maps 34 and 35 in the Approved RMP.)
The area was first identified as a herd area in the Draft Lower Gila North Grazing Environmental Impact Statement (1982), based on inventories conducted in 1976 and 1980 utilizing the Lincoln Index method. The area was designated as an HA in the Final Lower Gila North Grazing Environmental Impact Statement in September 1982.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) jointly conducted surveys in 1999 using the Simultaneous Double-Count method. Analysis of that data indicates that no burros remain in the area. Burros within this herd area are dependent on forage and water produced on the privately owned agricultural fields located in the middle of the herd area.
No natural permanent water sources are present on public land within the HA. Other waters on public land in the area are those developed for livestock (one well, troughs, and earthen tanks). These waters are operational only during periods of active livestock use and therefore are not a dependable source of water throughout the year. Earthen tanks are generally accessible but contain water only during periods of plentiful precipitation.
Even without the limiting factors of private farmlands and lack of water, forage in the area would not support a herd larger than 50 burros. Although existing research regarding minimum population size varies, it is generally accepted that a population of fewer than 50 animals is not sufficient to maintain a genetically viable and healthy population over the long term.
Considering all factors, including limited water sources, sparse forageable vegetation resulting in the necessity of the animals to forage on privately owned farm lands, and the small number of animals, it is recommended that the Little Harquahala HA not be designated as a Herd Management Area (HMA).
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
May 2007
jiA. bisH slsfl6yiJ®H silty
v?^». . fg'X'
■ ■yjMM
m
■fUjSflii'ffA* B XiL:i J 3rf| IE mk Sto bu.lll ^ r
!mKA5E^' 5h|; :>'di bhiira^imi -^di^o marm^md^^ ,,
x;^:m«l. i.^ESuA h'laH bm
mm ;■ ;■? a;, ■^/■u , x..;l <;r ;ii M vi; |o tl 'W'- ■ ' I k
»,, v,£../lo Avh^/ , r< ^Yssii a Av a''^ E'cH
l>i..id 'xADiJi3iiOEE'3(lA'>E:>Y»li ■'
\i,-.'ti ' YfE je An iiiifcs an-M y'Y'fC iiufA EfosMJii.AdI .g>E;xdiE* Oy-A.l ' ,
l>V:V‘Y^EU'n4 -;-;...no- AHk)S^
ijO^EEiE I 1.|0 V - A'AcA^ E3A« Adxi'fd l!\(A>nE&.l>E^^^ \/||fitO.|_(M;|^i> ;
hi'.n pr' ,rlA'Vi A;,.;x vr(| (H A ; vx g<mHd ,0U |ySli‘
si,AE«) X Ai hmi k/ii AEimsq :xi. xa> '
. B'i#!
1 . X- '■' J [i ■.■:ki- EE'Jr. . ■ ' ;;-ii! yuidEfi ^'*o wa/fA oM':
,'?;i'v ';-A?i;--aJ ,’b’XM'’' .^e05 .•^eoeay ■■■| ‘h;X |>,*,f|t)lxv\xAiK;^(>q!iEEt£;Es»idx'^df ■
EAi? :'Doj<AxAi :x,AAi: 1 A Ebv>hEq'iA>:;, !.?!>' vI'eo
:1 n.i xyni'i *'x1jE-;H >AjX -dx Ai'iylqilQ'ab ::;?lswd.d STOisni^iitfcfl'i
X Bifiivibxiq i?/}»)TiElqlo X‘b(EiEx?-||s;x|j[^ y|^i?uv|
■jl) Ei '>.E'v7.-:.i biv(,; "o
,yc iiO' jidnt'^A''.;! £. mb huffpmm vlB:n;iU:iqig|;;ji' A'iJ.hsv
,ritt5;f:| gROf A(tf
-n-'-eiA- AAEIEO^Xltd-iiY.f' [|^
Aid btil ,X'h«jsl UAll hxJiwu :fblEAh<bot' iaiJi Ji .
A .:' : m Aji' Elf ;i'.;jp'u)f i EllEvi E'lt 'HyiAl;:jrEr/xd;Wi 1o 'mtkEEn d..MiE:,
■
4
y;%
■ ■^’
Appendix N
Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities
Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities
Workload: Achieving Desired Natural Resource Conditions
|
Strategic Outcome |
Plan Outcome |
Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes |
Projects to Implement Strategies |
Priority |
Magnitude |
|
Within |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Determine bighorn sheep lambing use and areas |
High |
|||
|
Survey and monitor and map Sonoilan DT populations and categorized habitat. Health of the Land Assessments (prioritize by landscape) AML inventory for clean water in tributaries -Bill Williams River (includes KFO) |
High High |
High |
|||
|
High |
|||||
|
Acquire completed soil survey for LaPaz and Mohave counties |
Med |
||||
|
Complete plans |
Travel management Plan Inventory to close and rehab trouble routes |
High |
|||
|
Develop terrestrial SRMA and ACEC management plans |
High |
||||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Maintain wildlife waters in coordination with AZGFD |
Low |
|||
|
Develop all weather road surface on Partners Point Road |
High |
Med |
|||
|
Develop, apply, and enforce health of land standards for recreation sites and |
High |
High |
|||
|
consessions. |
|||||
|
Manage uses |
Arizona native plant laws |
High |
Required |
||
|
Upland Conditions |
Provide direct services |
Develop and apply Best Management Practices to all easements and right of ways -wildlife -soil stability |
Med |
||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
Monitor OHV open areas for soil and veg stability |
High |
|||
|
Monitor upland water suplies and secure rights/pemiits under proper authority |
High |
High |
|||
|
Monitor authorized ground disturbing activites for achievment of resource objectives |
High |
||||
|
Crossman Peak ACEC - monitor the special plant community |
Med |
||||
|
Monitor threatened Mohave DT populations |
High |
Required |
|||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Participate in Natural Resource Conservation Districts. |
Low |
|||
|
Sponsor or participate in interagency watershed advisory group to advise communities with development issues along the Colorado River corridor. |
High |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Inventory wetland and riparian habitat |
High |
|||
|
Create PFC |
High |
||||
|
Inventory and monitor all natural seeps and springs within FO Inventory and map special status plant assemblages |
High Med |
||||
|
Analyze wake affects along the shoreline |
Med |
||||
|
Restore Needles, CRNC and Beal Slough Reveg Site |
Med |
||||
|
Acquire and update MSCP riparian database as ongoing tool of riparian/wetland community evolution |
High |
||||
|
Complete plans |
Update riparian function determination on all LHFO resources |
High |
|||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Maintenance of revegetation sites - Monkeyhead |
High |
|||
|
Fuels reduction projects at reveg sites |
High |
||||
|
Heron Island |
Med |
||||
|
Develop DPC for concessions and aquatic |
|||||
|
oriented BLM Recreation sites |
|||||
|
Achieve Desired Landscape and |
Restore & Maintain Riparian/Wetland |
Plant and nurture shade trees in conjunction with boat in camp sites. |
Med |
||
|
Watershed Conditions |
Conditions |
Manage uses |
Complete and implement interdisciplinary Lake Havasu SRMA |
High |
|
|
Provide direct services |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-1
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Qffiee Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Monitor effectiveness |
Set-up and conduct survey and monitoring plots within reveg sites - Monkeyhead |
High |
|||
|
Monitor wildlife movement and usage within washes |
High |
||||
|
Monitor SWIFL according to BO for Alamo HMA |
High |
required |
|||
|
Monitor all riparian wetland treatments for resource objective achievement |
High |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Reveg sites with ACOE mitigation funds |
Med |
|||
|
maintain coop in BWR steering group |
High |
||||
|
Maintain LH Fisheries Partnership to assure health of aquatic biota |
High |
||||
|
FWS for Volunteer & Havasu Springs @ Heron Island |
Med |
||||
|
Coordinate with MSCP riparian interests |
High |
||||
|
Perform bathymetry study of Lake Havasu |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
bottom to include assessment of bio-mobile |
High |
|||
|
contaminants. |
|||||
|
Refine understanding and extent of metals contamination in BWR |
High |
||||
|
In coop with ADEQ, develop projects to reduce mercury concentrations from BWR. |
High |
||||
|
Complete plans |
Develop interagency water quality monitoring program for Colorado River Maintain and monitor Lake Havasu fish habitat improvements. Cooperate with COE, USCG, AzSLD, LHC, AzSP and others in determining water |
High High |
|||
|
Water Quality |
quality impacts to Colorado River from expanding water born recreation access development |
Med |
|||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Assess and determine long term fish habitat imporvement affects to water quality |
Med |
|||
|
Manage uses |
Develop coordinated creel survey for LH anglers |
High |
|||
|
Provide direct services |
|||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
Monitor clean water compliance on BLM authorized facilities in coop with State Agencies |
High |
Required |
||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Develop coordinated, interagency LH water quality monitoring |
High |
|||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans |
Monitor air quality impacts from special recreation permits on water and land |
High |
|||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Monitor air quality associated with high use BLM facilities on land and water |
High |
|||
|
Air Quality |
Manage uses |
Develop, install, and maintain a climate and atmospheric deposition monitoring station in a secure location in LHFO |
High |
||
|
Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
Maintain VRM inventory. |
Med |
|||
|
Manage uses |
Public Land Clean ups |
Med |
|||
|
Visual Resources |
Provide direct services |
Public Land Clean ups - Urban Areas |
High |
||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
Monitor through project level anaylsis City of Lake Havasu, Keep Havasu Beatiful, |
Med |
|||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Mohave County and others -education |
High |
|||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities Manage uses |
TMPs |
High |
|||
|
route signage |
High |
||||
|
appropriate level of route maintenance |
High |
||||
|
Maintain existing facilities - kiosks |
High |
||||
|
Wilderness Characteristics |
restore routes where appropriate and necessary |
High |
|||
|
Acquire inholdings from willing sellers |
Med |
||||
|
Vegetative treatments |
Med |
||||
|
Provide direct services |
Allow grazing |
High |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-2
May 2007
|
Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities |
|||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
Monitor route trespass |
High |
|||
|
Monitor existing leases |
High |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
|||||
|
’■ |
Collect & analyze information |
Marsh Bird Survey Protocols-FWS |
high |
||
|
Analyse fish habitat health and conditions in relation to recreational use |
high |
||||
|
Monitor special status fish -MOU |
high |
required |
|||
|
SWIFL Monitoring for habitat quality and fuels reduction projects. Three Rivers ACEC |
high |
required |
|||
|
MSCP species monitoring |
high |
required |
|||
|
Identify and protect key habitats of T&E fish in Lake Havasu |
high |
required |
|||
|
Monitor habitat suitability for T&E species associated with Colorado River and BWR. |
high |
required |
|||
|
Complete plans |
Participate in recovery for BTC and RZBK |
high |
required |
||
|
BAEA recovery efforts |
high |
required |
|||
|
Special Status Species |
Complete design, and management plan for native species backwater projects on BLM. |
Med |
|||
|
Manage resources & facilities Manage uses Provide direct services |
Assist in the management of the fish refugia including CRNC - MOU |
high |
|||
|
1 |
Monitor effectiveness |
Monitor effectiveness of T&E remtroductions (fish) - BO |
High |
Required |
|
|
1 |
Monitor current BTC critical habitat |
High |
Required |
||
|
! |
Fully engage LHFIP Partners to monitor survival success and species habitat preference of T&E fish stocking in LH |
High |
|||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Public outreach and education for anglers for awareness of T&E |
High |
|||
|
Assign full time BLM liason for CRD in MSCP Steering Committee |
High |
||||
|
Stimulate angler participation and conservation |
Low |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Analyze usage of BUOW, Sonoran DT, Kit fox in Bullhead Bajada ACEC |
High |
|||
|
1 |
Fringe-toed lizard and pholisma survey and monitoring - Cacturs Plains and scattered sand dune areas |
High |
|||
|
Analyze affects to wildlife from OHV usage |
High |
||||
|
Collect baseline information of aquatic ecosystem response to recreational use |
High |
||||
|
Survey and map raptor nesting locations including BAEA and PEFA |
medium |
||||
|
Analyze affects to shoreline usage |
High |
||||
|
Monitor fish populations -MOU |
High |
required |
|||
|
Monitor and survey for breeding birds |
medium |
||||
|
Monitor bat populations and movement |
medium |
||||
|
Achieve Desired Biological |
Complete plans |
||||
|
Communities |
Manage resources & facilities |
Maintain public fishing access developments |
High |
||
|
■ |
Wildlife |
Maintenance of Partners Point Fisheries Facility |
High |
||
|
Maintain artificial fish habitat - MOU Maintain wildlife waters in coordination with AZGFD Maintain gates and fences that protect wildlife resources Work with AZGFD, CDFG and other agencies |
High Medium High |
Required |
|||
|
Manage uses |
in monitoring wildlife populations on BLM lands |
High |
|||
|
Provide direct services |
Constuct public fishing access MOU |
High |
Required |
||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
Monitor bat populations - Whipple Wash ACEC |
High |
|||
|
Monitor current artificial aquatic habitat |
High |
||||
|
Monitor wildlife water usage and condition of development |
High |
||||
|
Monitor movement and populations across wildlife corridors |
High |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-3
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Offiee Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Collect & analyze information |
Determine and map the extent of noxious weed infestation within the field office |
High |
|||
|
Determine and map the extent of invasive weed infestation within the field office |
High |
||||
|
Complete plans |
Identify weed prevention & eradication efforts |
High |
|||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
|||||
|
Manage uses |
Ensure the use of sheep free forage |
High |
|||
|
Invasive Species Conditions |
Provide direct services |
Encourage the use of native vegetation plantings |
High |
||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
|||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Cooperate with all interests to educate and control noxious terrestrial and aquatic weeds |
High |
|||
|
Public outreach to educate on avoidance measures |
High |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Define Lake Havasu bathymetry and high sediment contributors |
High |
|||
|
Complete plans |
Identify areas of high salts, selenium, and metals within Colorado River and tributaries |
Med |
|||
|
Unique Geological Features |
Manage resources & facilities |
||||
|
(Resoivor bottoms) |
Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
I Workload: Achieving Desired Heritage Resource Conditions
|
Strategic Outcome |
Plan Outcome |
Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes |
Projects to Implement Strategies |
Priority |
Magnitude |
|
Within |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Identification of TCPs and other sensitive areas working with local tribes. |
High |
low |
||
|
Section 1 10 Surveys. |
Required |
||||
|
Identify Traditional Names working with tribes |
Medium |
||||
|
Identify gathering areas (plant, minerals, and other materials) with tribes |
Medium |
||||
|
Oral History |
Low |
||||
|
Evaluate sites identified for the NHRP |
Medium |
||||
|
Inventory Paleo Resources |
Medium |
||||
|
Complete plans |
Develop site specific plans to manage Bullhead Bajada SCRMA in consultation with tribes. |
Low (ACEC) |
|||
|
Develop site specific plans to manage Topcock- Needles SCRMA in consultation with tribes. |
Low (ACEC) |
||||
|
Develop site specific plans to manage Black Peak SCRMA in consultation with tribes. |
Medium |
||||
|
Develop site specific plans to manage Harcuvar Mountain East SCRMA in consultation with tribes. |
Medium |
||||
|
Develop site specific plans to manage Hacuvar Mountain West SCRMA. |
Medium |
||||
|
Develop site specific plans to manage Swansea SCRMA. |
Low (ACEC) |
||||
|
Develop an Interpretive Plan for sites and areas working closely with tribes. |
Medium |
||||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Restore/mitigate damaged sites in consultation with tribes. |
High |
medium |
||
|
Stablize Swansea Townsite |
High |
low |
|||
|
Area Wide Landscape |
Stablize and restore historic, prehistoric properties, and paleo resources. Nominate NRHP sites (consult and coordinate with tribes) |
High Medium |
low low |
||
|
Work with tribes to manage appropriate uses for |
|||||
|
Manage uses |
sites identified for tradiional uses. Road |
High |
|||
|
closures, signage in sensitive areas e.g. |
High |
medium |
|||
|
Control access to cultural sites. |
high |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-4
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Manage scientific research for cultural and paleo values. |
Low |
||||
|
Provide direct services |
Issue field work authorizations Process ARPA permits Process ARPA violations Recruit and train volunteers and site stewards on site specific projects. Outreach to public with educational programs. |
Medium Medium High Medium Medium |
low |
||
|
Manage & Protect |
brochures, and website. |
||||
|
Cultural/Paleontological |
Monitor effectiveness |
Monitor sensitive cultural and paleo resources. |
High |
low |
|
|
Resources |
|||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Consultation/coordination/outreach with tribes. |
High |
medium |
||
|
Scope interest for Friends Groups |
Low |
||||
|
Maintain Friends of Swansea |
Medium |
||||
|
Develop educational and interpretive materials with tribes. |
Medium |
||||
|
Develop Heritage Tourism Program |
Medium |
||||
|
Utilize AZ site steward program and cultural volunteer program to increase capacity. |
Medium |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Conduct 1 10 survey |
Required |
|||
|
Identify Traditional Names working with tribes |
Medium |
||||
|
Identify gathering areas (plant, minerals, and other materials) with tribes |
Medium |
||||
|
Oral History |
Low |
||||
|
Identify historic and prehistoric trail systems in consultation with tribes |
Medium |
||||
|
Identify sacred sites/traditional use areas |
High |
low |
|||
|
Evaluate sites identified for the NHRP Develop site specific plans to manage Bullhead |
Medium |
||||
|
Complete plans |
Bajada Natural and Cultural ACEC in consultation with tribes. |
High 1 |
high |
||
|
Develop site specific plans to manage Beale Slough Ripanan and Cultural ACEC in consultation with tribes. |
High 2 |
high |
|||
|
Develop site specific plans to manage Crossman Peak Scenic ACEC in consultation with tribes. |
High 3 |
medium |
|||
|
Area Specific (ACECs) |
Develop site specific plans to manage Swansea |
Medium |
|||
|
Historic District ACEC. |
low |
||||
|
Manage resources & facilities Manage uses Provide direct services |
Develop site specific plans to manage Three Rivers Riparian ACEC. Recmit and train volunteers and site stewards on site specific projects. |
low High Medium |
medium |
||
|
Outreach to public with educational programs, brochures, and website. |
Medium |
||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
High |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Scope interest for Friends Groups |
Low |
|||
|
Maintain Friends of Swansea |
Medium |
||||
|
Develop educational and interpretive materials with tribes. |
Medium |
||||
|
Develop Heritage Tourism Program |
Medium |
||||
|
Utilize AZ site steward program and cultural volunteer program to increase capacity. |
Medium |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Evaluate Site for elegible listing in NRHP Inventory natural resources |
||||
|
Complete plans |
Upon designation, plan required(3 yrs) |
||||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Install upto 5 miles of fences to improve riparian areas |
||||
|
Removal of saltcedar on as much as 500 acres Cottonwood and willow poles would be planted on as much as 1 00 acre |
|||||
|
Manage uses |
Complete Route Designation (TMP) Rehibilitate closed routes Withdrawal from mineral entry on 486 acres of the Three Rivers Riparian ACECl in Segment 2 Riparian Zone Acquire 524 acres of private land and 703 acres |
||||
|
Wild & Scenic Rivers |
of state land. Remove Livestock when utilization exceed limits set in RMP& Wild Scenic River EIS |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-5
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness |
Develop up to five upland waters sources for use by livestock to improve riparian area Seaonal Close areas with 1/2 mile of falcon nest during breeding season March 1 to June 15 on 486 acres Outstanding remarkable values and river conditions Wild burro population and remove execess numbers. |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Monitor Water Levels/Flow conditions annually. Bill Williams Committee (USGS, USFWS, CORPS, AZGFD, other) |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans |
Nomination Package for Plomosa |
||||
|
National Scenic & Historic Trails |
Manage resources & facilities Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness |
Nomination Package for Parker Swansea Bouse Update and Replace Interpretive Kiosk for Parker Dam Maintain Parking /Access for Parker Dam Establish Kiosk Locations for Plomosa Establish Kiosk Locations for Parker Swansea Bouse Publish Brochures for Parker Dam Create Interp/education material for Plomosa Create Interp/education material for Parker Swansea Bouse Traffic Counters/Informal Surveys for Parker Dam |
|||
|
Manage & Protect Heritage Resources |
Partnership/Community Relations |
Traffic Counters/Informal Surveys for Plomosa Traffic Counters/Informal Surveys for Parker Swansea Bouse Parker Strip Concessions Ass. City of Parker, BOR for Parker Dam Bouse, YFO, AZG&F, LaPaz County for Plomosa Bouse, Parker, LaPaz County, Friends of Swansea for Parker Swansea Bouse |
|||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans |
Inventory natural and cultural resources Harcuvar Wilderness Rawhide/Swansea |
||||
|
Wildness and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) |
Manage resources & facilities |
Work with NFO for Whipple, Chem.Dead mtns. Maintain Trailhead/vehicle Barriers/parking Mainain Boundaries (signing) every .25 mile on Roads Maintain Wildlife catchments Aquire Private Lands in Wilderness Areas |
|||
|
Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
Establish Trails (for safety and resource protection) maintence and primative campsites Wilderness Education materials/maps Anunually Monitor each Wilderness for Condition AZ Wilderness Col., Sierra Club, Wilderness Soc. |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Soil survey (KRMP) Ecological site inventory (KRMP) Reassess ephemeral perennial classifications BLM inventory /utilization & trend data Insure sufficient waters for wild horses (KRMP) |
Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium |
|||
|
Wild Horse & Burros |
Complete plans Manage resources & facilities Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness |
Rangeland trend & utilization studies (KRMP) Allotment management plans (KRMP) Adjust stocking rate based on monitoring Provide forage on sustained yield basis. Maintain color diverse population (LGNMFP) Emergency/nuisance removals Adjust stocking rate based on monitoring Provide forage on sustained yield basis. Maintain color diverse population (LGNMFP) Achieve proper use of forage resources |
Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High (safety) Medium Medium Medium Medium |
low |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan N-6
Lake Havasu Field Offiee Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Monitor habitat |
Medium |
|||
|
Evaluate data to assess current AML number |
Medium |
|||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Allocate forage based on analysis/public input |
Medium |
||
|
Coordinate w/AZGFD |
Medium |
^Workload: Addressing Anticipated Energy & Mineral Demands
L — — — ^ — — — — ■ — -
|
Strategic Outcome |
Plan Outcome |
Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes |
Projects to Implement Strategies |
Priority |
Magnitude |
|
Within |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
|||||
|
Oil & Gas |
Manage uses Provide direct services |
Process Applications (Low Probability |
High |
low |
|
|
Monitor effectiveness |
1 & E & PV |
High |
low |
||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
|||||
|
Coal |
Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness |
||||
|
Addressing Anticipated Demands |
Partnership/Community Relations |
||||
|
for Energy |
Renewables |
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities Manage uses Provide direct services |
Process Applications (Low Probability |
high |
low |
|
Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
Compliance Inspections |
high |
low |
||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
- |
||||
|
Right of Ways (ROWs) |
Manage uses Provide direct services |
Process and issue ROWs |
high |
medium |
|
|
Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
Conduct compliance inspections |
high |
low |
||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
Locate and Plan community pit(s) |
low |
high |
||
|
Saleable |
Manage uses |
Issue Permits/contracts |
High |
medium |
|
|
Provide direct services |
Resolve Mineral Trespass |
high |
medium |
||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
I & E & PV |
High |
low |
||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Jones Red Hills Validity Exam |
Medium |
High |
||
|
Chastain Site Validity Exam |
High |
High |
|||
|
Complete plans |
|||||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Process Mineral Withdrawl for Bullhead Bajada ACEC |
||||
|
Process Mineral Withdrawl for Swansea ACEC |
|||||
|
Addressing Anticipated Demands |
Process Mineral Withdrawl for Three Rivers |
||||
|
for Minerals |
Locatable |
ACEC |
|||
|
Process Mineral Withdrawl for Incline Railway |
|||||
|
Manage uses |
Process mining notices, plans of operation, occupancy requests |
High |
medium |
||
|
Resolve Occupancy Trespass |
High |
Low |
|||
|
Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
l&E |
High |
low |
||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
|||||
|
Leasables (not 0 & G) |
Manage uses |
Process Applications (Low Probability |
Low |
Mini |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-7
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
I & E & PV |
Low |
Mini |
Workload; Addressing Anticipated Forest & Forage Demands
|
Strategic Outcome |
Plan Outcome |
Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes |
Projects to Implement Strategies |
Priority |
Magnitude |
|
Within |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Soil survey (KRMP) |
Medium |
|||
|
Ecological site inventory (KRMP) |
Medium |
||||
|
Reassess ephemeral perennial classifications |
Medium |
||||
|
BLM inventory /utilization & trend data |
Medium |
||||
|
Complete plans |
Rangeland trend & utilization studies (KRMP) |
Medium |
|||
|
Allotment management plans (KRMP) |
Medium |
||||
|
Manage resources & facilities Manage uses |
Adjust stocking rate based on monitoring |
Medium |
|||
|
Enhance Management of |
Provide forage on sustained yield basis. |
Medium |
|||
|
Livestock |
Maintain color diverse population (LGNMFP) |
Medium |
|||
|
Emergency/nuisance removals |
High (safety) |
||||
|
Provide direct services |
|||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
Achieve proper use of forage resources |
Medium |
|||
|
Monitor habitat |
Medium |
||||
|
Evaluate data to assess current AML number |
Medium |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Allocate forage based on analysis/public input |
Medium |
|||
|
Addressing Anticipated Demands for Forage |
Coordinate w/AZGFD |
Medium |
|||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Soil survey (KRMP) |
Medium |
|||
|
Ecological site inventory (KRMP) |
Medium |
||||
|
Assess grazing capacity |
Medium |
||||
|
BLM inventory /utilization & trend data |
Medium |
||||
|
Complete plans |
Evaluate compliance w/AZ Land Health Standards |
High(LHFO/ RMP) |
|||
|
Rangeland trend & utilization studies (KRMP) |
Medium |
||||
|
Allotment management plans (KRMP) |
Medium |
||||
|
Restore & Conserve |
Reassess ephemeral perennial classifications |
Medium |
|||
|
Rangelands |
Manage resources & facilities |
Adjust stocking rate based on monitoring |
Medium |
||
|
Provide forage on sustained yield basis. |
Medium |
||||
|
Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness |
Achieve proper use of forage resources |
Medium |
|||
|
Evaluate data to assess current AML number |
Medium |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Allocate forage based on analysis/public input |
Medium |
|||
|
Coordinate w/AZGFD |
Medium |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
|||||
|
Commercial sales |
Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness |
||||
|
Addressing Anticipated Demands for |
Partnership/Community Relations |
||||
|
Forest Products |
Vegetative sales |
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-8
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities
Workload: Addressing Anticipated Recreation Demands
|
Strategic Outcome |
Plan Outcome |
Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes |
Projects to Implement Strategies |
PrioritY |
Magnitude |
|
Within |
|||||
|
Collect RMIS Use Data |
High |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
-Traffic Counter Data CMA/Recreation Area Management Plan |
||||
|
Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
-Nature trails (BHC Heritage Trail System) -Interp Plan Maintain existing facilities - post & cable, restroom, signage |
High Med |
High |
||
|
Colorado River Nature |
Continue Reveg efforts |
Low |
|||
|
Center (SRMA) |
Manage uses |
LE Enforcement of OHV Restrictions |
High |
||
|
Supplemental Rules |
High |
||||
|
Provide direct services |
Continue Interpretive Signage & Kiosk Information |
Med |
|||
|
Maintain ROS/VRM/WROS Settings |
|||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
based on management goals for desired conditions AGED & BHC Partnership |
High High |
High |
||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Interpretation/wetlands |
||||
|
Develop cirriculum for local schools |
Low |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Conduct Customer Surveys (5 yr rotation) -boating survey -visitor demand/preferences Shoreline Erosion Survey -water fluctuation -recreational impacts Soil Compaction Study Recreation Area Management Plan -Shoreline trails |
High |
|||
|
High |
|||||
|
Med High |
|||||
|
Complete plans |
-Desired Plant Communites/Health of Land Standards |
||||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Continue managing 87 shoreline fee sites, 6 public fishing sites, boat ramp, & 2 concession sites, 3 adminstrative work sites |
High |
|||
|
Continue maintaining 87 shoreline fee sites, 6 public fishing sites, boat ramp, & 3 adminstrative work sites |
High |
||||
|
Construct Shoreline Amenities Construct Partners Point Road & Seawall |
High High |
||||
|
Develop & maintain additional public fishing site at Black Rock Cove Issue SRP's |
High |
Required |
|||
|
Manage uses |
-vending -activities impact lake bottom and shoreline |
High |
|||
|
Visitor contacts & Compliance -regulations -fees -water-borne contact station |
High |
||||
|
Lake Havasu (SRMA) |
Supplemental Rules Rehab recreation use damage, maintain and place new visitor controls (signs, barriers) as needed to manage recreation, based on monitoring |
High High |
|||
|
Provide direct services |
Increase Interpretive Signage & Kiosk Inforn |
High |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-9
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Increase visitor contact by permanent employees for continuity -park rangers -LE -Mainatenance Maintain ROSATIMAVROS Settings |
High |
||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
based on management goals for desired conditions |
High |
|||
|
Monitor visitor use for intensity and resource impacts Develop multi-agency water |
High |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
safety/Environ. Ed center at Contact Point |
High |
|||
|
Continue development of Tri-State Waterway Partnership -coordinated strategy -integrated lake management plan |
High |
||||
|
Coordinate personal memorial/monument program with other jurisdictions (adopt-a-tree, adopt-a-cove, |
Med |
||||
|
etc.) Continue LHFIM Partnership Coordinate jurisdictional activities |
High |
||||
|
related to management of vendor program (seamless) |
High |
||||
|
Develop parterships -Friends Group |
High |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Collect RMIS Use Data -Traffic Counter Data Update Recreation Area Management |
High |
|||
|
Complete plans |
Plan -Shoreline trails Continue maintaining 3 campground/day use fee sites, |
Med |
|||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Rockhouse Visitor Center and boat ramp, 2 OHV Open Areas, 4 day use sites (non fee) & Backcountry By-way, 1 adminstrative work site |
High |
|||
|
Continue managing 3 campground/day use fee sites. Rock House Visitor Center and boat ramp, 2 OHV Open Areas, 4 day use sites (non fee), Backcountry By- way, 10 concession facilities & 1 adminstrative work site |
High |
||||
|
Manage uses |
Supplemental Rules Visitor contacts & Compliance |
High |
|||
|
Parker Strip (SRMA) |
-regulations -fees |
High |
|||
|
Issue SRP's -vending |
High |
||||
|
Provide direct services |
Continue Interpretive Signage & Kiosk Inforr |
High |
|||
|
Increase visitor contact by permanent employees for continuity -park rangers -LE -Maintenance Maintain ROS/VRM/WROS Settings |
High |
||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
based on management goals for desired conditions |
High |
|||
|
Monitor visitor use for intensity and resource impacts Coordinate with San Bernardino County |
High |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Sheriff Department for water safety |
High |
|||
|
center |
|||||
|
CA State Park OHMVR Grants |
High |
||||
|
Backcountry By-Way Partnership with BOR/CRIT/BLM/MWD |
Low |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-10
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Qffiee Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Volunteer Site Host Program |
High |
||||
|
Collect & analyze infonnation Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
|||||
|
Provide Experience Appropriate for Zone |
Manage uses |
Issue SRP's -vending -guided trail Encourage Tread Lightly/Leave No Trace Uses LE Enforcement |
Med High |
||
|
LHFO ERMA |
Provide direct services |
-OHV -Recreational Shooting -Dispersed Camping Maintain signage/infonnational kiosks |
High |
||
|
Low |
|||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
Monitor visitor use for intensity and resource impacts |
Low |
|||
|
Maintain ROS/VRM Settings based on management goals for desired conditions |
Med |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Collect RMIS Use Data -Traffic Counter Data Develop Recreation Area Management Plan |
High |
|||
|
Complete plans |
-Urban Interface trails -motorized/non-motorized trails -infrastructure for open OHV area (post cable, signing, route designation) |
High |
|||
|
Manage resources & facilities Manage uses |
Supplemental Rules Visitor contacts & Compliance -regulations |
High High |
|||
|
Havasu Urban (SRMA) |
Provide direct services |
Issue SRP's -vending Increase Interpretive Signage & Kiosk Information |
High High |
||
|
Increase visitor contact by permanent employees for continuity -park rangers -LE Maintain ROS/VRM Settings based on |
High |
||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
management goals for desired conditions |
High |
|||
|
Monitor visitor use for intensity and resource impacts |
High |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Coordinate with City of Lake Havasu and Mohave County |
High |
|||
|
Volunteer Site Host Program |
Med |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Collect RMIS Use Data -Traffic Counter Data |
High |
|||
|
Complete plans |
Update Gibraltar Mountain IDP Plan (2001) |
Med |
|||
|
Complete RAMP Shea Road/Osbome Wash Open OHVArea |
High |
||||
|
Manage resources & facilities Manage uses |
Supplemental Rules Visitor contacts & Compliance |
High |
|||
|
-regulations |
Med |
||||
|
Develop standard amenity fee sites Issue SRP's |
Med |
||||
|
Gibraltar (SRMA) |
-vending -commercial/competitive events & activities |
Med |
|||
|
Provide direct services |
Increase Interpretive Signage & Kiosk Inforrr |
Med |
!'
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-11
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Offiee Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Increase visitor contact by permanent employees for continuity -park rangers -LE Maintain ROS/VRM Settings based on |
Med |
||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
management goals for desired conditions |
High |
|||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Monitor visitor use for intensity and resource impacts Coordinate with La Paz County & AZGFD |
High High |
|||
|
Volunteer Program - Open OHV Areas |
Low |
||||
|
Collect RMIS Use Data |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
-Traffic Counter Data |
High |
|||
|
Complete plans |
Complete RAMP |
High |
|||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Develop Fee Campsites |
Med |
|||
|
Maintain day use/ovemight camping facilities |
High |
||||
|
Manage uses |
Supplemental Rules Visitor contacts & Compliance |
High |
|||
|
-regulations -fees |
Med |
||||
|
Issue SRP's -interpretive touring |
Low |
||||
|
Swansea (SRMA) |
Provide direct services |
Increase Interpretive Signage & Kiosk Inforrr |
High |
||
|
Increase visitor contact by permanent employees for continuity -park rangers -LE Maintain ROSA^RM Settings based on |
High |
||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
management goals for desired conditions |
High |
|||
|
Monitor visitor use for intensity and resource impacts |
High |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Coordinate with La Paz County & Site Steward (SHPO) Program |
High |
|||
|
Volunteer Program |
Med |
||||
|
Develop curriculum for local schools |
Low |
||||
|
Collect & analyze infonnation |
Collect RMIS Use Data -Traffic Counter Data |
Med |
|||
|
Complete plans |
Update La Posa IDP Plan (1997) |
Med |
|||
|
Develop RAMP - Bouse/Brenda Area -Dispersed Camping (Bouse Plain) |
Low |
||||
|
Develop Backcounty By-way Plan |
Low |
||||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Designate Routes |
High |
|||
|
Manage uses |
Supplemental Rules Visitor contacts & Compliance -regulations Issue SRP's |
High Med |
|||
|
-commercial/competitive events & activities Increase Interpretive Signage & Kiosk |
High |
||||
|
Plamosa (SRMA) |
Provide direct services |
Information -increased use -BCB |
Med |
||
|
Increase visitor contact by permanent employees for continuity -park rangers -LE Maintain ROSA^RM Settings based on |
Med |
||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
management goals for desired conditions |
High |
|||
|
Monitor visitor use for intensity and resource impacts |
High |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-12
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Coordinate with La Paz County & AZGFD Coordinate with La Paz County, local communities & AZGFD for BCB |
High Low |
|||
|
Enhance Understanding and Awareness |
On-site |
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
|||
|
Off-site |
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
Workload; Addressing Anticipated Direct Community Services
|
Strategic Outcome |
Plan Outcome |
Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes |
Projects to Implement Strategies |
Priority |
Magnitude |
|
Within |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
See Complete Plans |
||||
|
See Complete Plans |
|||||
|
Complete plans |
TMP by Travel Management Unit |
high |
high |
||
|
Bullhead |
high |
high |
|||
|
Scope Critera Issues |
high |
high |
|||
|
GIS Additional Criteria Data |
high |
high |
|||
|
Evaluate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Publish Alternatives On WEB |
high |
high |
|||
|
Designate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Bouse |
high |
high |
|||
|
Scope Critera Issues |
high |
high |
|||
|
GIS Additional Criteria Data |
high |
high |
|||
|
Evaluate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Publish Alternatives On WEB |
high |
high |
|||
|
Designate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Alamo |
high |
high |
|||
|
Scope Critera Issues |
high |
high |
|||
|
GIS Additional Criteria Data |
high |
high |
|||
|
Evaluate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Publish Alternatives On WEB |
high |
high |
|||
|
Designate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Havaus |
high |
high |
|||
|
Scope Critera Issues |
high |
high |
|||
|
GIS Additional Criteria Data |
high |
high |
|||
|
Evaluate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Publish Alternatives On WEB |
high |
high |
|||
|
Designate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Manage Travel |
Cactus Plain |
high |
high |
||
|
Scope Critera Issues |
high |
high |
|||
|
GIS Additional Criteria Data |
high |
high |
|||
|
Evaluate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Travel Management |
Publish Alternatives On WEB |
high |
high |
||
|
Designate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Wenden |
high |
high |
|||
|
Scope Critera Issues |
high |
high |
|||
|
GIS Additional Criteria Data |
high |
high |
|||
|
Evaluate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Publish Alternatives On WEB |
high |
high |
|||
|
Designate Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Install entry Point Kiosks |
high |
medium |
||
|
Aquire Legal Access (Easements) |
medium |
medium |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-13
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Establish Trailheads and Parking Access |
low |
||||
|
Manage uses |
Sign Designated Routes |
high |
high |
||
|
Rehibilate Closed and or tresspass Routes |
high |
high |
|||
|
route enhancement/maintenance |
medium |
||||
|
Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness |
Publish Access Maps Monitoring Teams/ law enforcement /resources |
high medium |
low |
||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Work with Cooperating Agencies Establish Grants from AZState Parks & CA Green Sticker |
medium high |
medium |
||
|
Set up volunteer teams to help Sign and rehibiltiate |
medium |
medium |
|||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
|||||
|
Manage Facilities |
Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
|||||
|
Complete plans |
Complete Plan Amendment -Laz Paz Co. Wastewater Treatment Plant |
high 1 |
high |
||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
medium 4 |
low |
|||
|
Manage uses |
Bouse Community Park Process R&PP Patents |
||||
|
high 3 |
high |
||||
|
Adjust Land Tenure |
Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
LHC Landfill Process R&PP Patents MCC to LHC Process R&PP Patents Laz Paz Co. Wastewater Treatment Plant |
|||
|
high 2 |
high |
||||
|
High 1 |
high |
||||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
|||||
|
Manage uses |
Process Direct Sale |
high when |
medium |
||
|
Sec 12 BHC |
arises |
||||
|
Enhance Land Use |
Renew 5 R&PP Leases |
high- |
low |
||
|
La Paz Co. Transfer Stations |
annually |
||||
|
Process R&PP Leases SARA Park Transfer |
high |
medium |
|||
|
Authorize Use |
Process R&PP Leases LHC Park (Armory Site) Process R&PP Leases Mohave Co.Kiwanis |
high |
medium |
||
|
high |
low |
||||
|
Process LUP |
high- ongoing |
medium |
|||
|
Process and issue ROWs |
high |
medium |
|||
|
Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
Conduct compliance inspections |
high |
low |
||
|
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
|||||
|
Resolve Unauthorized Use |
Manage uses Provide direct services Monitor effectiveness Partnership/Community Relations |
Crossman Peak Com Site |
high |
medium |
|
|
Provide for Public Safety and Security |
Collect & analyze information Complete plans Manage resources & facilities |
||||
|
Manage uses |
|||||
|
Provide direct services |
|||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
|||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
|||||
|
Collect & analyze information |
Fuel Moisture Monitoring |
low |
|||
|
Fuel Loading Monitoring |
medium |
Lake Havasu Field Office May 2007
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan N-14
Lake Havasu Field Offiee Resource Management Plan Priorities
|
Fire History (occurance, severity, size, duration, etc.) Evaluate Fire Hazards in Colorado and Bill Williams Rivers |
low high |
||||
|
Complete plans |
Lake Havasu/Yuma Fire Management Plan (FY09) Lake Havasu/Yuma Fire Management |
high high |
|||
|
Protect Lives and Property |
Plan (FY 12) |
||||
|
Manage resources & facilities |
Yearly projects are identified in NFPORS |
high |
|||
|
Manage Fire on the Wild & |
|||||
|
Urban Interface |
Manage uses |
||||
|
Provide direct services |
La Paz County CWPP (Community Wildland Prevention Plan) East |
medium |
|||
|
La Paz County CWPP (Community Wildland Prevention Plan) West |
medium |
||||
|
Implement Fire Restrictions (as needed) |
medium to high |
||||
|
Monitor effectiveness |
Monitor outcomes of fuel treatments |
low |
|||
|
Monitor Compliance with Fire Restrictions |
low |
||||
|
Partnership/Community Relations |
Public Contact/outreach presentations Develop and provide outreach materials to the public |
low low |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-15
May 2007
This page intentionally left blank.
Lake Havasu Field Office RMP IMPLEMENTATION & BUDGET STRATEGY
|
BEYOND |
||||||
|
LHFO PRIORITIES BY FY |
On-Going |
FY 07 |
FY08 |
FY09 |
FY10 |
FY10 |
|
1. BULLHEAD CITY/MOHAVE VALLEY LANDSCAPE UNIT |
|||||||
|
IMP |
X |
||||||
|
SECTION 10/MSCP/SRMA |
X |
||||||
|
BEALE SLOUGH SCRMA (TOPOCK/NEEDLES) |
X |
||||||
|
BULLHEAD BAJADA ACEC/SCRMA |
X |
||||||
|
NEEDLES REVEG |
X |
X |
|||||
|
SECTION 12 |
X |
X |
|||||
|
LAND DISPOSAL - BHC AREA |
X |
||||||
|
LAND DISPOSAL - NEEDLES AREA |
X |
||||||
|
2. LAKE HAVASU/PARKER STRIP LANDSCAPE UNIl |
|||||||
|
TMP |
X |
X |
|||||
|
CROSSMAN PEAK ACEC/HAVASU URBAN SRMA |
X |
X |
|||||
|
PARKER STRIP SRMA |
X |
||||||
|
FEE SITE/CONCESSION MGMT. |
X |
||||||
|
ROCK HOUSE VISITOR CENTER |
X |
||||||
|
STANDARD WASH SRMA (FY07 BPS-$19K) |
X |
||||||
|
Cultural/Bio Clearances |
|||||||
|
LAKE HAVASU SRMA/AUBREY HILLS/CONTACT POINT |
X |
||||||
|
Coordinated Lake/River Management Plan |
|||||||
|
FISHERIES PROGRAM |
X |
||||||
|
MCSP |
X |
||||||
|
WATER QUALITY MONITORING INITIATIVE |
X |
||||||
|
FACILITY MAINTENANCE |
X |
||||||
|
LAND DISPOSALS |
|||||||
|
R&PP |
X |
||||||
|
SALES (2) |
X |
3. BILL WILLIAMS/SWANSEA LANDSCAPE UNIT
|
TMP |
X |
||||||
|
SWANSEA ACEC/SCRMA/SRMA |
X |
||||||
|
Planning |
X |
||||||
|
3 RIVERS ACEC |
X |
||||||
|
WILDERNESS AREAS |
X |
||||||
|
BILL WILLIAMS COORDINATION |
X |
||||||
|
LAND DISPOSALS |
|||||||
|
R&PP- Alamo |
X |
||||||
|
HEALTH OF THE LAND SURVEYS |
X |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-17
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Office RMP IMPLEMENTATION & BUDGET STRATEGY
BEYOND
|
LHFO PRIORITIES BY FY 4. LA PAZ COUNTY LANDSCAPE UNIT |
□n-Going |
FY 07 |
FY08 |
FY09 |
FY10 |
FY10 |
|
|
TMP |
X(FY11/12) |
||||||
|
BLACK PEAK SCRMA |
X |
||||||
|
GIBALTAR SRMA |
X |
||||||
|
OSBORNE WASH OHV AREA |
|||||||
|
Cultural/Bio Clearances |
X |
||||||
|
PLAMOSA SRMA |
X |
||||||
|
HARCUVAR WEST/ EAST SCRMA |
X |
||||||
|
WILDERNESS AREAS |
|||||||
|
Harcuvar |
X |
||||||
|
EAST CACTUS PLAINS - SAND DUNES |
X |
||||||
|
LAND SALES |
X |
||||||
|
OTHER LAND DISPOSALS - LA PAZ COUNTY R&PP |
X |
||||||
|
Waste Water Treatment Plant/La Paz County R&PP |
X |
MONITORING
|
Rangeland Health (every 5 years) Prior to 2010 |
|||||||
|
Riparian allotments |
X |
X |
|||||
|
Non-allotment lands |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||
|
Abandoned Mine Lands Inventory |
X |
||||||
|
Recreation Monitoring (every 5 years) Prior to 2010 |
X |
||||||
|
Biologic Opinion Compliance |
X |
Monitoring included in priorities above
|
Species Specific Survey and Habitat Monitoring: |
|||||||
|
Endangered Species Monitoring |
|||||||
|
Air Quality and Climate |
|||||||
|
Open Areas |
|||||||
|
Wilderness Monitoring |
|||||||
|
Coordinated Lake\River Management Plan |
|||||||
|
Activity Level Plans |
|||||||
|
Cultural Resource Monitoring |
Coordinate w/other entities
|
Carrying/Visitor Capacity Study |
|||||||
|
Abandoned Mine Lands Inventory (ADEQ) |
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
N-18
May 2007
Appendix O
Plan Maintenance Roster
Lake Havasu Field Office RMP Approved 2007 Maintenance Roster
Plan decision requiring maintenance:
Plan code and page number:
Reason(s) for maintenance:
Revised plan decision:
Signatures and Date:
Initiator
Planning and Environmental Coordinator (Review) Field Manager (Approval)
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
0-1
May 2007
:
*
i
Appendix P
Plan Monitoring Roster
Lake Havasu Field Office RMP Approved 2007 Monitoring Roster
Portion of Plan Monitored:
Date(s):
Results;
Is any modification needed to adjust the plan?
If so, please explain.
Signatures and Date:
Initiator
Planning and Environmental Coordinator (Review)
Field Manager (Approval)
May 2007
Lake Havasu Field Office
Record of Decision/Resource Management Plan
P-1
G:JO U.S. GPO: 2007 — 660-091 / 16011 Region No. 8
.y£'
■Bi..
. f
r
T v V' ‘ ' '
y2-
;*:H
(\ V' A
■ V'V
- -^-JT 'T ..'■i'''.’-:v' -■
5»
■,4
.,; '■' ■ - ■': i' !■
'■Mt, '%_.■: ;' T;
t'; V : _
,.j5F^.; T ...
"'y 'h
V.- .'#r T= 'v
V'«:-TvfTVK:
lisaliLiiK
"D
m
nO O Q
13 > "D 13
%
m
c
(f)
m
□□
d
U3
Z
m
in
if)
-eo
CO
o
o
JD fnj 7T CJ> 0
c 2-
o ^
O)
(ji
0
□□
cz
13
m
i— > 0 (Z
0 O
1 "n
0 i—
< >
c O
0 m
> >
N <
00 ^
a
m
5
13
m
II ^ ^ >
o ^
is
o 5 m
H
m
o
in
iz
m
m
5
O
u
m
in