ABSTRACT 

The Yuma Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (PRMP/FEIS) describes and analyzes five alternatives for managing approximately 

1.3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)–administered land in southwest 

Arizona and southeast California. Information provided by the public, other agencies and 

organizations, and BLM personnel has been used to develop and analyze the alternatives in the 

PRMP/FEIS. Alternative A is the No Action alternative and represents continuation of current 

management. Alternative B generally places an emphasis on appropriate human use and 

influences and the widest array of uses. Alternative C provides visitors with opportunities to 

experience natural and cultural resource values of the planning area. Alternative D generally 

places emphasis on the preservation of the planning area’s natural and cultural resources through 

limited public use and discontinuation of livestock grazing. Alternative E, the Proposed Plan, 

provides for an optimal balance between authorized resource use and the protection and longterm sustainability of sensitive resources within the planning area. Major issues addressed in the 

PRMP/FEIS include management of special designations, fish and wildlife management, wild 

horse and burro management, recreation management, travel management, lands to be managed 

to maintain wilderness characteristics, and lands and realty. 

MISSION STATEMENT 

The BLM is responsible for the balanced management of BLM-administered lands and resources 

and their various values so that they are considered in a combination that will best serve the 

needs of the American people. Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield, a combination of uses that take into account the long-term needs of future 

generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources. These resources include recreation, 

range, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness and natural, scenic, scientific, 

and cultural values. 

BLM/AZ/PL-08/004




READER’S GUIDE 

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT 

This PRMP/FEIS is presented in five chapters and appendices, consistent with Federal 

requirements that guide the preparation of an EIS. 

 Chapter 1 sets the stage for the PRMP/FEIS by describing the purpose and need for 

its preparation as well as providing key background information. 

 Chapter 2 describes several potential management approaches, or “alternatives.” 

This document describes five alternative land use plans, including the No Action 

Alternative and a Proposed Plan. 

 Chapter 3 describes the environment, or resources, that would be affected by the 

decisions contained in the individual alternatives. 

 Chapter 4 describes the impacts of the potential decisions on these resources. 

 Chapter 5 describes the actions undertaken to provide open and effective 

participation from members of the public, as well as from organizations, 

governmental agencies, and consultation with the tribes that all have a stake in the 

outcome of this process. This chapter also describes the comment analysis process 

and selected responses to public comments on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. 

The appendices and glossary provide more detailed information, which some readers may 

find helpful when reading the main text of the document. 

Maps of the alternatives are placed in a separate document. In many cases, potential 

decisions or other discussions contained in this PRMP/FEIS refer directly to maps and 

figures. In fact, many potential decisions themselves are “map based.” The reader must 

rely on the text, maps, and figures taken together to fully understand the potential 

decisions described for each alternative. 

The Yuma Field Office planning team is willing to meet with groups, individuals, or 

members of the media to go over the key points in the PRMP/FEIS. 

REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

All inquiries should be sent to:

Dave Daniels 

Planning and Environmental Coordinator 

2555 E. Gila Ridge Road 

Yuma, AZ 85365 

(928) 317-3200 

AZ_YM_RMP@blm.gov 

Executive Summary 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this Proposed Resource Management 

Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) to provide direction for 

managing public lands administered by the Yuma Field Office (YFO) and to analyze the 

environmental effects resulting from implementing the alternatives addressed in this document. 

The planning area extends northward along the lower Colorado River from the United States–

Mexico International Boundary at San Luis, Arizona, to north of Blythe, California, and 

Ehrenberg, Arizona, including a narrow strip of land in Imperial and Riverside counties, 

California, and a portion of La Paz County, Arizona. The planning area extends east across 

Yuma County into western Maricopa County and south to the northern boundary of the Barry M. 

Goldwater Range. The planning area includes the City of Yuma, the towns of Quartzsite and 

Wellton, and a number of other smaller communities, and encompasses more than 1.3 million 

acres of BLM-administered public land, resources, and uses. 

The PRMP/FEIS was prepared in compliance with BLM’s planning regulations Title 43 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 1600 under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976. This document also meets the requirements of the National 

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

for Implementing the NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and requirements of BLM’s NEPA Handbook

1790-1. 

This document (including the Route Inventory maps described in Chapter 2 under Travel 

Management) is also available on the Internet at http://www.blm.gov/az/LUP/ 

yuma/yuma_plan.htm and on compact disc. 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

Currently, the YFO manages resources under portions of three different land use plans: The 

Yuma District Resource Management Plan (1987), as amended; Lower Gila South Resource 

Management Plan (1988), as amended; and Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan

(1983), as amended. This PRMP/FEIS combines the relevant portions of those documents and 

updates the plan with issues and concerns identified during the scoping process. The purpose is 

to provide direction that will guide future land management actions for BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area. The PRMP/FEIS analyzes alternatives to resolve management issues, 

determines management objectives and actions, and establishes monitoring methods to facilitate 

multiple use and sustained yield management for the entire planning area. 

Yuma Field Office Page ES-1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Executive Summary 

PUBLIC SCOPING 

The Notice of Intent to prepare the Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS) was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2004. 

YFO held four open houses during 2004 and solicited comments using comment forms and 

informational flyers (distributed by mail and by hand). YFO also invited public participation in 

the planning process through the use of the BLM website. Prior to the DRMP/DEIS, 

approximately 860 comments were received from agencies, organizations, the public, and other 

interested stakeholders. Of the comments received, a large number concerned transportation 

planning and use of off-highway vehicles (OHV), recreation issues, management of habitat for 

threatened and endangered species and other wildlife, and management of lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The remaining comments were divided between other resources as listed in the 

Table ES-1. 

Comments pertaining to transportation planning and OHV use of public lands ranged from 

requests that there be more OHV access to requests that more controls be placed on OHV use. 

Many of the comments point to the need to complete the route designation process as soon as 

practical. 

Table ES-1 

Comments Received by Topic before the DRMP/DEIS 

General Topics Number of Comments 

Riparian/Floodplains/Wetlands 4 

Soil, Water, and Air Quality 9 

Vegetation Management 25 

Fish and Wildlife 77 

Threatened and Endangered species, and Special Status 

Species 

36 

Cultural/Paleontological/Native American Concerns 33 

Fire Management 5 

Hazardous Materials/Solid Waste 4 

Recreation 131 

Visual Resources 35 

Land Tenure and Use Authorizations 53 

Transportation Planning and OHV 214 

Airspace 3 

Grazing Use 19 

Wilderness Characteristics 71 

Special Area Designations 65 

Socioeconomics 12 

Law Enforcement/Public Safety 29 

Border Issues/Undocumented Immigrants 29 

Wild Horses and Burros 3 

TOTAL 857 

Comments on transportation planning and OHV focused on both the need to maintain motorized 

access and the need to protect natural and cultural resource values from OHV recreation. 

Page ES-2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Executive Summary 

Comments pertaining to recreation expressed the desire that BLM continue to provide for 

camping in Long-Term Visitor Areas (LTVAs) as well as dispersed areas. Other specific 

comments addressed the importance of wildlife viewing, hunting, and horseback riding. Other 

comments requested new or improved recreation facilities in specific locations. 

Comments relating to habitat for threatened and endangered species and other wildlife included 

opinions for and against the development of new water sources on public lands. Other comments 

addressed the importance of habitats for Sonoran pronghorn and flat-tailed horned lizard, 

expressing concerns regarding fragmentation of habitat, and identifying the need for wildlife 

corridors. 

Comments regarding lands with wilderness characteristics included a public proposal that large 

acreages be managed to preserve these values. Other comments suggested that no lands outside 

of designated Wilderness be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. 

The balance of the comments addressed a wide range of opinions and concerns, some of which 

are beyond the scope of YFO’s land use planning and this RMP. Most scoping comments, 

however, are reflected in some fashion in one or more of the PRMP/FEIS alternatives. 

To meet BLM’s goal “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the 

use and enjoyment of present and future generations,” the PRMP/FEIS focuses on the following 

topics and the potential decisions needed to influence future actions: 

 Land Health Standards 

 Special Designations Management 

 Coordinated Management Areas 

 Vegetation Management 

 Wildland Fire Management 

 Fish and Wildlife Management 

 Special Status Species Management 

 Livestock Grazing Management 

 Wild Horse and Burro Management 

 Recreation Management 

 Travel Management 

 Visual Resource Management 

 Wilderness Characteristics Management 

 Cultural Resources Management 

 Paleontological Resource Management 

 Air, Water, and Soil Management 

 Lands and Realty Management 

 Mineral Resource Management 

 Public Health and Safety Management 

GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

YFO continued collaboration efforts by including communities in the formulation and 

development of alternatives. The open house gave citizens the opportunity to provide input for 

the BLM to consider in refining the issues to be addressed, discuss visions for BLM lands, and 

begin exploring alternative ways to manage BLM lands and resources. Input received from 

citizens (both groups and individuals) was considered in developing the alternatives. Citizens 

could also submit formulated alternatives. These submissions were considered in the range of 

alternatives and analyzed in the EIS, as required by NEPA. Another series of open houses 

presented the public with a range of alternatives. The workshops began with a brief overview of 

the RMP process and the preliminary draft alternatives. Following this presentation, participants 

Yuma Field Office Page ES-3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Executive Summary 

were given the opportunity to circulate to various stations that were facilitated by YFO and 

contractor staff. This gave the public a firsthand look at how the alternatives are layered with one 

another and how they vary by alternative. Information about the plan was posted on the YFO 

website (currently http://www.blm.gov/az/LUP/yuma/yuma_plan.htm) to encourage public 

participation throughout the planning process. 

The PRMP/FEIS was developed with the following Cooperating Agencies: the Arizona 

Department of Transportation; Arizona Game and Fish Department; Bureau of Reclamation; 

Cibola, Imperial, and Kofa National Wildlife Refuges; City of Yuma; Cocopah Indian Tribe; 

Federal Highway Administration; Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe; Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma; 

Town of Quartzsite; U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground; U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border 

Patrol; Yuma County Department of Public Works; Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage 

District; and Yavapai-Apache Nation. 

BLM also consulted with Native American 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 historic times. Three Native American tribes (the Cocopah Indian Tribe, 

Colorado River Indian Tribes, and Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe) currently reside within or adjacent 

to the boundaries of the planning area. A number of other Native American tribes also have 

recognized cultural ties to these lands. 

ALTERNATIVES 

The basic goal of developing alternatives was to prepare different combinations of management 

to address issues and to resolve conflicts among uses. Alternatives must meet the purpose and 

need; must be reasonable; must provide a mix of resource protection, use, and development; 

must be responsive to the issues; and must meet the established planning criteria. Each 

alternative is a complete land use plan that provides a framework for multiple-use management 

of the full spectrum of resources, resource uses, and programs present in the planning area. 

Two types of land use planning decisions are found under each topic for each alternative: 

Desired Future Conditions (resource goals and objectives) and Management Actions 

(prescriptions to help achieve management objectives). 

Under all alternatives the YFO will manage the public lands in accordance with all applicable 

laws, regulations, and BLM policy and guidance, and to meet Land Health Standards. A 

summary of the key resource management proposals in this PRMP/FEIS are reflected by 

alternative in Table ES-2. 

Page ES-4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Table ES-2 

Summary of Key Alternative Components 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Land Health Standards 

Arizona’s Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (1997) would be incorporated into the RMP un

Special Designations – Wilderness 

Eight congressionally designated Wilderness Areas totaling approximately 167,800 acres would continue to be managed according to 1964 under all alternatives. 

Special Designations – National Historic Trail (NHT) 

Support the establishment of a recreational Juan Bautista de Anza NHT through the planning area under all alternatives. A total of 11located within the YFO. Twenty-one miles of the trail are located on BLM-administered lands, and the other 90 miles of the trail wou

managed through cooperative agreements with other stakeholders. 

Special Designations – National Recreation Trail (NRT) 

0.5 mile designated NRT at Betty’s Kitchen. 

Extend Betty’s Kitchen NRT up to 5.5 miles. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Sam

Special Designations – National Back Country Byways 

There are no Back Country Byways currently identified. 

7 Back Country Byways totaling 220 miles 

4 Back Country Byways totaling 76 miles. 

0 miles Back Country Byways. 

2 Batotal

Special Designations – National Scenic Byways 

There are no Scenic Byways currently identified. 

0 miles Scenic Byways 64 miles of Scenic Byway on 

U.S. Highway 95 between the Town of Quartzsite and Yuma. 

Same as Alternative B. Sam

Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

8,200 acres designated within 2 ACECs. 

8,200 acres designated within 2 ACECs. 

44,700 acres designated within 3 ACECs. 

626,800 acres designated within 7 ACECs. 

Sam

Yuma Field Office PRMP/FEIS April 2008 
Executive Summary 

Table ES-2 

Summary of Key Alternative Components 

(continued) 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Coordinated Management Areas (CMA) 

3,830 acres within 2 CMAs. 8,330 acres designated 

within 3 CMAs. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Sam

Vegetation Management 

12,400 acres managed as a Resource Conservation Area. Vegetation Habitat Management Areas (VHA) were not specially addressed in previous plans. 134,700 acres closed to firewood collection in 2 areas. 

0 acres managed as a VHA. 142,800 acres closed to firewood collection in 4 areas. 

12,400 acres managed as a VHA in 1 area. 179,300 acres closed to firewood collection in 5 areas. 

22,900 acres managed as VHA in 3 areas. All BLM lands in planning area closed to firewood collection. 

22,9VHA 153,firew

Vegetation Management – Priority Species 

Continue to manage BLM Priority Species according to BLM Manual 6840.06 C to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried the need for the species to become listed. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Decisions from the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management (2004) would be carrwildfires would be fully suppressed. 

Page ES-6 
Table ES-2 

Summary of Key Alternative Components 

(continued) 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Fish and Wildlife Management 

539,500 acres designated Priority Wildlife Habitat along Colorado and Gila rivers. Wildlife Habitat Management Areas (WHAs) were not specifically addressed in previous plans. 

1,545,800 acres designated between 4 WHAs. (WHA acreages may overlap.) 

1,605,200 acres designated between 5 WHAs. (WHA acreages may overlap.) 

900,400 acres designated between 4 WHAs. (WHA acreages may overlap.) 

1,52betwacre

Special Status Species 

The following special status species and their habitats would be managed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and BLM palternatives: Federal Listed Species: California brown pelican, Gila topminnow, bonytail chub, desert pupfish, Mojave desert tortoise, razor

pronghorn, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Yuma clapper rail 

Federal Candidate Species: Yellow-billed cuckoo State Listed Species: Bald eagle, burrowing owl, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, flat-tailed horned lizard, Sonoran desert tor

Livestock Grazing 

1,005,600 acres available to livestock grazing in YFO. 215,200 acres available to livestock grazing in Lake Havasu Field Office. 309,500 acres unavailable to livestock grazing in YFO. 

680,900 acres available to livestock grazing in YFO. 215,200 acres available to livestock grazing in Lake Havasu Field Office. 637,100 acres unavailable to livestock grazing in YFO. 

428,300 acres available to livestock grazing in YFO. 215,200 acres available to livestock grazing in Lake Havasu Field Office. 889,700 acres unavailable to livestock grazing in YFO. 

0 acres available to livestock grazing in YFO. 1,533,200 acres unavailable to livestock grazing in YFO and Lake Havasu Field Office. 

Sam

Yuma Field Office PRMP/FEIS April 2008 
Executive Summary 

Table ES-2 

Summary of Key Alternative Components 

(continued) 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

263,700-acre Cibola-Trigo Herd Management Area (HMA). Appropriate Management Level would be 165 burros and 150 horses. 

179,000 acres managed as the Cibola-Trigo HMA. Appropriate Management Level same as Alternati

Recreation Management 

Continue management of existing recreation sites:  2 - LTVAs 13 - 14-day Camping Areas  1 - 10-day Camping Area  5 - Day Use Only Sites  2 - Concessions 10 - Boat Launches 11 - Fee Sites Determine if new sites need to be established or existing sites need to be expanded on a case-by-case basis 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Continue management of 

existing recreation sites. 

New sites would not be established and existing sites would not be expanded. 

Sam

Page ES-8 
Table ES-2 

Summary of Key Alternative Components 

(continued) 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Recreation Management (cont.) 

Recreation Management Areas (RMA) not specifically addressed in previous plans. 

Public lands would be allocated to RMAs as follows: 697,100 acres Destination Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) 587,300 acres Community SRMA 0 acres Undeveloped SRMA33,600 acres Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) 

Public lands would be allocated to RMAs as follows: 494,300 acres Destination 64,900 acres Community 559,300 acres Undeveloped 199,500 acres ERMA 

Public lands would be allocated to RMAs as follows: 250,500 acres Destination 35,600 acres Community 642,700 acres Undeveloped 389,200 acres ERMA 

Publallocfollo455,123,571,167,

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)/Prescribed Recreation Settings were not specifically addressed in previous plans. 

Public lands would be divided into six Prescribed Recreation Settings as follows: Primitive: 167,800 acres Semi-primitive: 147,400 acres Rural Natural: 786,700 acresRural Developed: 171,800 acres Suburban: 2,500 acres Urban: 8,300 acres 

Public lands would be divided into six Prescribed Recreation Settings as follows: Primitive: 167,800 acres Semi-primitive: 135,400 acres Rural Natural: 689,100 acresRural Developed: 144,900 acres Suburban: 2,500 acres Urban: 8,300 acres 

Public lands would be divided into six Prescribed Recreation Settings as follows: Primitive: 167,800 acres Semi-primitive: 436,700 acres Rural Natural: 282,200 acresRural Developed: 65,600 acres Suburban: 2,500 acres Urban: 8,300 acres 

PubldiviRecrfolloPrimSemacreRuraRuraacreSubuUrb

Yuma Field Office PRMP/FEIS April 2008 
Executive Summary 

Table ES-2 

Summary of Key Alternative Components 

(continued) 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Travel Management 

Open OHV Management Area: 400 acres at the Ehernberg Sandbowl. Closed OHV Management Areas: 169,000 acres (167,800 acres of Wilderness; 1,200 acres outside of Wilderness) Limited OHV Management Areas: OHV use limited to existing routes within the remainder of planning area 

Open OHV Management Areas: 3,800 acres within 3 areas. Closed OHV Management Areas: 171,000 acres (167,800 acres of Wilderness; 3,200 acres outside of Wilderness) Limited OHV Management Areas: OHV use is limited to 4,600 miles of inventoried routes within the remainder of the planning area. 

Open OHV Management Areas: 2,400 acres within 3 areas. Closed OHV Management Areas: 171,300 acres (167,800 acres of Wilderness; 3,500 acres outside of Wilderness) Limited OHV Management Areas: OHV use is limited to 4,600 miles of inventoried routes within the remainder of the planning area. 

Open OHV Management Areas: Same as Alternative A Closed OHV Management Areas: 233,800 acres (167,800 acres of Wilderness; 66,000 acres outside of Wilderness) Limited OHV Management Areas: OHV use is limited to 4,600 miles of inventoried routes within the remainder of the planning area. 

OpeAreaA ClosArea(167WildoutsLimArea4,60routof th

Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

Designated VRM classes: Class I: 167,800 acres (Wilderness) Class II: 15,200 acres Class III: 1,135,000 acres Class IV: 0 acres 

Designated VRM classes: Class I: 167,800 acres (Wilderness) Class II: 541,800 acres Class III: 552,300 acres Class IV: 56,100 acres 

Designated VRM classes: Class I: 167,800 acres (Wilderness) Class II: 561,100 acres Class III: 567,500 acres Class IV: 21,600 acres 

Designated VRM classes: Class I: 192,400 acres (including Wilderness) Class II: 624,800 acres Class III: 496,400 acres Class IV: 4,400 acres 

DesiClas(WilClasClasClas

Wilderness Characteristics 

Wilderness characteristics were not specifically addressed in previous plans. 

48,400 acres 91,400 acres 301,200 acres Sam

Page ES-10 
Table ES-2 

Summary of Key Alternative Components 

(continued) 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Cultural Resources 

Continue to manage 16 cultural resource sites and areas as Conservation for Future Use. SCRMAs were not specifically addressed in previous plans. 

21,200 acres in 4 SCRMAs. 29,900 acres in 11 SCRMAs. 22,200 acres in 8 SCRMAs. 28,5

Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources were not specifically addressed in previous plans. 

Public lands would be allocated to classified as high, moderate, or low sensitivity on the basis of a sendeveloped). 

Air, Water, and Soil 

PM10 Non-Attainment Areas 

were not specifically addressed in previous plans. 

Management actions would take current PM10 Non-Attainment Area into account—appropriate mitiga

on a case-by-case basis. 

Measures to improve water quality would be consistent with Federal and State standards. Floodplains managed according to Federal and State guidelines. Management actions would minimize impacts to sensitive soils—appropriate mitigation would be reqbasis. 

Lands & Realty 

19,100 acres available for disposal. 

46,900 acres available for disposal. 

10,500 acres available for disposal. 

8,200 acres available for disposal. 

11,9disp

Acquisition: BLM would seek to acquire non-Federal lands from willing sellers, including lands within or adjacent to existing wilderproposed ACECs. 

Yuma Field Office PRMP/FEIS April 2008 
Executive Summary 

Table ES-2 

Summary of Key Alternative Components 

(continued) 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Lands & Realty 

174,300 Withdrawal acres. 300 miles within 4 ROW Corridors. 6 Communication Sites 

171,400 Withdrawal acres. 500 miles within 10 ROW Corridors. 13 Communication Sites 

173,200 Withdrawal acres. Same as Alternative B. 11 Communication Sites 

176,100 Withdrawal acres. 400 miles within 5 ROW Corridors. 8 Communication Sites 

179,465 Corr10 C

Renewable energy was not specifically addressed in previous plans. Under all alternatives, renewable energy would be proposed on a meet public demand. 

Minerals Management 

174,300 acres withdrawn from mineral development. Remainder of planning area open to mineral development. No surface occupancy would be allowed in 171,500 acres of 1 ACEC and Wilderness. 

171,400 acres withdrawn from mineral development. Remainder of planning area open to mineral development. New mineral material disposal sites would not be authorized within all ACECs. Surface occupancy restrictions would apply throughout 176,000 acres of 2 ACECs and Wilderness. 

173,200 acres withdrawn from mineral development.  Remainder of planning area open to mineral development. New mineral material disposal sites would not be authorized within all ACECs. Surface occupancy restrictions would apply throughout 212,500 acres of 3 ACECs and Wilderness. 

176,100 acres withdrawn from mineral development. Remainder of planning area open to mineral development. New mineral material disposal sites would not be authorized within all ACECs. Surface occupancy restrictions would apply throughout 219,800 acres of 4 ACECs and Wilderness. 

179,from Remopen deveNew dispauthACESurfrestrthro3 AC

Locatable Minerals – Public lands outside designated Wilderness and other existing withdrawn areas would continue to be open to entlaws. 100 acres managed for Salable Minerals in 1 proposed community pit (currently under NEPA review). 

800 acres managed for Salable Minerals in 6 community pits. 

400 acres managed for Salable Minerals in 3 community pits. 

Same as Alternative A. 700 

Salacom

Page ES-12 
Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS April 2008 

Table ES-2 

Summary of Key Alternative Components 

(continued) 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Public Health & Safety 

Public lands would be managed to provide for public health and safety as required to address issues including, but not limited to, unexmining and milling waste, illegal dumping, undocumented immigration, other border issues, etc. 

Note: Approximate acres were used which reflects the best available data at the time document was prepared. 
Executive Summary 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Alternative A (No Action) describes the continuation of the present management of the 

planning area and provides a baseline from which to identify potential environmental 

consequences when compared to the Action Alternatives. This alternative describes current 

resource and land management plan direction as represented in the Yuma District Resource 

Management Plan (1987), as amended; Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan 

(1988), as amended; and Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983), as 

amended. This alternative results in no revision to the existing plans. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B generally places an emphasis on consumer-driven uses and the widest array of 

uses, emphasizing recreation, mineral, and energy development. It identifies areas most 

appropriate for these various uses. It places a greater emphasis on developed and motorized 

recreation opportunities and less on remote settings and primitive recreation. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C provides visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural resource 

values of the planning area. It allows visitation and development within the planning area, 

while ensuring that resource protection is not compromised. It is generally managed with 

decisions that have a greater balance of multiple uses. Alternative C identifies a combination 

of natural processes and active management techniques for resource and use management 

and it provides for both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D generally places emphasis on preservation of the planning area’s natural and 

cultural resources through limited public use and discontinuation of livestock grazing. It 

focuses on natural processes and other unobtrusive methods for natural resource use and 

management. It proposes greater opportunities for dispersed non-motorized recreation and 

fewer motorized and developed recreation opportunities. 

Alternative E (Proposed Plan) 

Alternative E (Proposed Plan) reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM 

goals and policies, meets the Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) purpose and need, addresses 

the planning issues, and considers the recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM 

specialists. The Proposed Plan proposes actions that include, but are not limited to, 

management of recreation, wildlife, minerals, cultural resources, livestock grazing, and land 

tenure; designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; access to public lands; and 

other topics. 

PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRMP/DEIS 

Notice of the release of the DRMP/DEIS for a 90-day public review period was published in the 

Federal Register on December 15, 2006. Five formal public meetings were held during the public 

comment period on the DRMP/DEIS. These meetings were held February 5 through 8, 2007, in 

Page ES-14 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Executive Summary 

Wellton, Town of Quartzsite, Yuma, and Tucson, Arizona, and in Blythe, California. The 

meetings provided an opportunity for interested members of the public to learn more about the 

analysis contained in the DRMP/DEIS, as well as provided an opportunity for attendees to 

submit comments, written and oral, on the document. 

The YFO received more than 430 comment letters (including public comment forms from public 

meetings, oral testimonies, postal letters, e-mails, and faxes) from individuals, agencies, 

organizations, and groups during the public comment period on the DRMP/DEIS. Public 

comment letters resulted in over 1,400 individual comments. Comments received by general 

topic (percent) are presented in Table ES-3. 

Table ES-3 

Comments Received by Topic during DRMP/DEIS Public Comment Period 

General Topics Percentage of Comments 

Natural Resource Management 37% 

Access/Transportation Management 24% 

Alternatives and Options 15% 

Process 7% 

Lands and Realty Actions 6% 

Recreation Management 5% 

Special Designations 5% 

Plan Specific Codes >1% 

Socio and Economic >1% 

TOTAL 100% 

All comments received during the public comment period were reviewed and considered. 

Comments that presented new data or addressed the adequacy of the document, the alternatives, 

or the analysis are responded to in Chapter 5 of this PRMP/FEIS pursuant to BLM policy. There 

were also many comments received which requested further clarification in the document. 

Although not required to be addressed, these comments requesting clarification may have 

resulted in additional language or revisions throughout the PRMP/FEIS. 

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

The planning area has hot summers, mild winters, low rainfall, high evaporation rates, and low 

humidity. Approximately 110 days per year have average temperatures over 100 degrees 

Fahrenheit; the daily average for July is 107 degrees Fahrenheit. In January, the average daily 

temperature is 67 degrees Fahrenheit. The average annual precipitation within the planning area 

is 3.5 inches with rainfall intensities generally low during winter and spring and high during 

summer and fall. Approximately 60 percent of the precipitation results from winter and spring 

storms and 40 percent from summer and fall storms. Relative humidity ranges from 4–40 percent 

in the summer and 25–50 percent during the winter months. Wind speeds in the district average 

approximately eight miles per hour. Prevailing wind direction is generally from the south during 

the spring and summer and from the north during the fall and winter. 

Yuma Field Office Page ES-15

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Executive Summary 

The topography of the YFO planning area is characterized by rugged mountain ranges, sloping 

plains, and broad valleys. Slopes range from 1–20 percent on valley floors to sheer bluffs in the 

mountains. Elevations range from 100 feet above sea level along the United States–Mexico 

Southerly International Boundary to 3,500 feet atop Eagletail Mountain. Mountain ranges in the 

planning area include the Big Maria, Chocolate, Dome Rock, Eagletail, Gila, Laguna, Little 

Horn, Mohawk, Muggins, New Water, Palomas, Tank, and Trigo Mountains. There are three 

broad desert plains in the planning area: the long and narrow La Posa Plain, extending south 

from the Buckskin Mountains to the Castle Dome Mountains; the Castle Dome Plain, extending 

south from the Middle and Castle Dome Mountain ranges; and the Palomas Plain, extending 

eastward from the Little Horn, Tank, and Palomas Mountains. 

The YFO planning area lies entirely within the Lower Colorado sub-basin of the Colorado 

Hydrologic Region. The Colorado River flows through the entire north–south length of the 

planning area, and the Gila River traverses the planning area from east to west where it joins the 

Colorado River. The Bureau of Reclamation regulates water flows on the lower Colorado River 

through dams, associated reservoirs, and backwater areas at various points along its length. 

Water quality of the Colorado and Gila rivers are naturally high in total dissolved solids but 

show little signs of degradation related to domestic, municipal, or industrial wastes. 

Page ES-16 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
 Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 

 Introduction ES-1 

 Purpose and Need ES-1 

 Public Scoping ES-2 

 Government and Public Involvement ES-3 

 Alternatives ES-4 

 Public Review of DRMP/DEIS ES-14 

 Environmental Setting ES-15 

CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 

1.1 Purpose and Need for a Resource Management Plan Revision 1-1 

1.1.1 Purpose 1-1 

 1.1.2 Need 1-3

1.2 Planning Area 1-3 

1.2.1 Bureau of Reclamation Project Lands 1-4 

 1.2.2 Historical Overview of Planning Area 1-4 

1.3 Planning Process 1-5 

1.3.1 Steps in the Process 1-5 

1.3.2 Public Involvement 1-7 

1.4 Planning Criteria and Legislative Constraints 1-8 

1.4.1 General Planning Criteria 1-8 

1.4.2 Program-specific Planning Criteria 1-10

1.5 Public Scoping Issues 1-14 

1.5.1 Issues Addressed in this PRMP/FEIS 1-15 

1.5.2 Issues Not Addressed in this PRMP/FEIS 1-17 

1.5.3 Laws and Regulations 1-18 

1.6 Collaboration and Partnerships 1-18 

1.6.1 Cooperating Agencies 1-19 

 1.6.2 Consultation with Native American Tribes 1-21 

1.7 Related Plans 1-22 

1.8 Vision 1-22 

CHAPTER 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2-1 

2.1 Introduction 2-1 

2.2 Land Health Standards 2-3 

2.2.1 Standard 1: Upland Sites 2-4 

2.2.2 Standard 2: Riparian-Wetland Sites 2-4 

2.2.3 Standard 3: Desired Resource Conditions 2-5 

Yuma Field Office Page i 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

2.3 Special Designations Management 2-6 

2.3.1 National Landscape Conservation System 2-7 

2.3.2 National Recreation Trail 2-10 

2.3.3 National Byways 2-10 

2.3.4 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 2-14 

2.4 Coordinated Management Areas 2-24 

2.4.1 Fortuna Pond Coordinated Management Area 2-25 

2.4.2 Limitrophe Coordinated Management Area 2-25 

2.4.3 Mittry Lake Wildlife Area 2-27 

2.5 Vegetation Management 2-27 

2.5.1 Desired Plant Communities Common to All Alternatives 2-29 

2.5.2 Vegetation Habitat Management Areas 2-31 

2.5.3 BLM Sensitive Plant Species Common to All Alternatives 2-33 

2.5.4 Priority Plant Species Common to All Alternatives 2-35 

2.5.5 Invasive Non-native Plants Common to All Alternatives 2-36 

2.5.6 Vegetative Use Authorization 2-38 

2.6 Wildland Fire Management 2-39 

2.7 Fish and Wildlife Management 2-42 

2.7.1 Priority Species 2-45 

2.7.2 Wildlife Habitat Management Areas 2-50 

2.8 Special Status Species Management 2-54 

2.8.1 Federally Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat 2-56 

2.8.2 Federal Candidate Species 2-64 

2.8.3 State-listed Species 2-65 

2.9 Livestock Grazing Management 2-71 

2.9.1 Arizona Guidelines for Grazing Administration 2-74 

2.9.2 Criteria for Classifying Allotments as Ephemeral 2-76 

2.10 Wild Horse and Burro Management 2-76 

 2.11 Recreation Management 2-78 

2.11.1 Recreation Management Areas 2-82 

2.11.2 Recreation Management Zones 2-83 

2.11.3 Description of All RMZs 2-89 

2.12 Travel Management 2-95 

2.12.1 OHV Management Areas 2-96 

2.12.2 YFO Transportation System 2-99 

2.12.3 Travel Management Areas 2-104 

2.13 Visual Resource Management 2-108 

2.14 Wilderness Characteristics Management 2-110 

Page ii Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
 Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

2.15 Cultural Resources Management 2-114 

2.15.1 Alternative A, No Action 2-114 

2.15.2 Management Common to Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan 2-115 

2.15.3 Allocation to Use Categories 2-116 

2.15.4 Special Cultural Resource Management Areas 2-121 

2.16 Paleontological Resource Management 2-125 

2.17 Air, Water, and Soil Management 2-126 

2.17.1 Air Resource Management 2-126 

2.17.2 Water Resource Management 2-128 

2.17.3 Soil Resource Management 2-130 

2.18 Lands and Realty Management 2-131 

2.18.1 Land Use Authorizations 2-134 

2.18.2 Land Tenure 2-143 

2.19 Mineral Resource Management 2-147 

2.19.1 Leasable Minerals 2-147 

2.19.2 Locatable Minerals 2-149 

2.19.3 Salable Minerals 2-150 

2.20 Public Health and Safety Management 2-152 

2.20.1 Abandoned Mines 2-152 

2.20.2 Unexploded Ordnance 2-153 

2.20.3 International Boundary Issues 2-153 

2.20.4 Hazardous Materials 2-154 

2.21 Best Management Practices 2-155 

2.21.1 Special Designations 2-155 

2.21.2 Vegetation Treatments 2-156 

2.21.3 Appropriate Management Response to Wildland Fires 2-162 

2.21.4 Wildlife Waters 2-163 

2.21.5 Species Reintroductions and Transplants 2-163 

2.21.6 Special Status Species 2-164 

2.21.7 Livestock Grazing Activities 2-169 

2.21.8 Typical Range or Habitat Improvements 2-170 

2.21.9 Wild Horse and Burro Activities 2-171 

2.21.10 Recreation 2-172 

2.21.11 Travel Management 2-173 

2.21.12 Visual Resources 2-173 

2.21.13 Cultural Resources 2-174 

2.21.14 Paleontological Resources 2-174 

2.21.15 Mineral Resource Activities 2-175 

2.21.16 Public Health and Safety 2-177 

Yuma Field Office Page iii 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

2.22 Implementation and Monitoring 2-179 

2.22.1 Implementation 2-179 

2.22.2 Adaptive Management 2-179 

2.22.3 Administrative Actions 2-180 

2.22.4 Monitoring and Evaluation 2-181 

2.23 Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 2-181 

CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 

3.1 Introduction 3-1 

3.1.1 Description of Planning Area 3-3 

3.2 Air, Water, and Soil Resources 3-4 

3.2.1 Air Quality 3-4 

3.2.2 Water Resources 3-8 

3.2.3 Soil Resources 3-17 

3.3 Vegetation Resources 3-20 

3.3.1 Terrestrial Vegetation 3-21 

3.3.2 Vegetation Communities and Resource Areas 3-22 

3.3.3 Aquatic Vegetation 3-25 

3.3.4 Riparian Habitats and Wetlands 3-26 

3.3.5 Priority Species 3-30 

3.3.6 Special Status Species 3-31 

3.3.7 Invasive Non-native Species 3-32 

3.4 Fish and Wildlife 3-35 

3.4.1 General Wildlife Habitat 3-35 

3.4.2 Key Habitat Features 3-36 

3.4.3 Game Species 3-37 

3.4.4 Non-game Species 3-39 

3.4.5 Fish 3-41 

3.4.6 Other Aquatic Species 3-42 

3.4.7 Special Status Species 3-42 

3.4.8 Key Habitat Features 3-44 

3.5 Wild Horse and Burro Management 3-44 

3.5.1 Cibola–Trigo Herd Management Area 3-45 

3.5.2 Herd Monitoring 3-46 

3.6 Wildland Fire Management 3-47 

3.6.1 Wildland Fire Management and Wildland–Urban Interface 3-47 

3.6.2 Fire Ecology 3-48 

3.6.3 Fire Regimes and Risk Conditions 3-49 

3.6.4 Fire Management Units and Wildfire History 3-51 

Page iv Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
 Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

3.7 Cultural Resources 3-53 

3.7.1 Cultural Sequence 3-53 

3.7.2 Cultural Affiliation 3-57 

3.7.3 Archaeological Inventory and Identified Sites 3-57 

3.7.4 Places of Traditional Cultural Importance 3-59 

3.7.5 National Register of Historic Places 3-59 

3.7.6 Evaluation of Cultural Resources 3-59 

3.7.7 Areas of High Cultural Resource Sensitivity 3-60 

3.8 Paleontological Resources 3-61 

3.8.1 Geology in the Planning Area 3-62 

3.8.2 Previously Recorded Paleontologic Resources 3-65 

3.9 Visual Resources 3-66 

3.10 Wilderness Characteristics 3-67 

3.11 Livestock Grazing 3-68 

3.11.1 Grazing Resources 3-68 

3.11.2 Grazing Administration 3-68 

3.11.3 Factors Influencing Grazing 3-71 

3.12 Mineral Resources 3-72 

3.12.1 Description of Mineral Resources 3-73 

3.12.2 Potential for Occurrence of Mineral Resources 3-82 

3.13 Recreation 3-86 

3.13.1 Recreation Fee Programs 3-87 

3.13.2 Recreation Concession Leases 3-91 

3.13.3 Other Recreation Opportunities 3-91 

3.13.4 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Inventory 3-94 

3.14 Travel Management 3-96 

3.14.1 Roads 3-96 

3.14.2 OHV Management Area Designations 3-97 

3.14.3 Public Access 3-97 

3.15 Lands and Realty 3-99 

3.15.1 Lands and Realty Management 3-99 

3.15.2 Land Use Authorizations 3-100 

3.15.3 Land Tenure 3-105 

3.16 Special Designations 3-106 

3.16.1 National Landscape Conservation System 3-106 

3.16.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 3-109 

3.16.3 National Recreation Trails 3-111 

Yuma Field Office Page v 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

3.17 Coordinated Management Areas 3-111 

3.17.1 Fortuna Pond 3-111 

3.17.2 Mittry Lake Wildlife Management Area 3-111 

3.18 Public Health and Safety 3-112 

3.18.1 Employee and Public Safety 3-112 

3.18.2 Abandoned Mines 3-112 

3.18.3 Hazardous Materials Management 3-113 

3.18.4 Border Issues 3-115 

3.18.5 Military Training Routes 3-115 

3.19 Social and Economic Conditions 3-115 

3.19.1 Social Conditions 3-116 

3.19.2 Economic Conditions 3-127 

3.20 Environmental Justice 3-138 

3.20.1 Methodology 3-138 

3.20.2 Baseline Analysis 3-138 

3.20.3 Public Involvement and Environmental Justice 3-141 

3.20.4 Summary 3-141 

3.20.5 Protection of Children 3-141 

CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1 

4.1 Introduction 4-1 

4.1.1 Types of Impacts 4-1 

4.1.2 Critical Elements not Addressed 4-2 

4.1.3 General Analytical Assumptions 4-2 

4.1.4 Specific Resource Assumptions 4-3 

4.2 Air Quality, Water, and Soil Resources 4-4 

4.2.1 Air Quality 4-4 

4.2.2 Water Resources 4-8 

4.2.3 Soil Resources 4-10 

4.3 Vegetation Resources 4-17 

4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 4-18 

4.3.2 Differences between Alternatives 4-22 

4.3.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-26 

4.3.4 Irretrievable and Irreversible Impacts 4-26 

4.4 Fish and Wildlife 4-27 

 4.4.1 Impacts Common to All Species 4-28 

4.4.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts – Special Status Species 4-33 

4.4.3 Differences between Alternatives 4-36 

4.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-39 

4.4.5 Irretrievable and Irreversible Impacts 4-40 

Page vi Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
 Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

4.5 Wild Horse and Burro 4-40 

 4.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 4-41 

4.5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-42 

4.6 Wildland Fire Management 4-42 

4.6.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 4-42 

4.6.2 Differences between Alternatives 4-46 

4.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-46 

4.6.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4-47 

4.7 Cultural Resources 4-47 

4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 4-48 

4.7.2 Differences between Alternatives 4-53 

4.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-59 

4.7.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4-60 

4.8 Paleontological Resources 4-60 

4.8.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 4-60 

4.8.2 Differences between Alternatives 4-63 

4.8.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-63 

4.8.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4-64 

4.9 Visual Resources 4-64 

4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 4-64 

4.9.2 Differences between Alternatives 4-67 

4.9.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-68 

4.10 Wilderness Characteristics 4-68 

4.10.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 4-68 

4.10.2 Differences between Alternatives 4-70 

4.10.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-71 

4.11 Special Designations 4-72 

4.11.1 Wilderness 4-72 

4.11.2 National Trails 4-74 

4.11.3 National Byways 4-76 

4.11.4 Area of Critical Environmental Concern 4-80 

4.12 Public Health and Safety 4-86 

4.12.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 4-86 

4.12.2 Differences between Alternatives 4-87 

Yuma Field Office Page vii 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

4.13 Social and Economic Conditions 4-88 

4.13.1 Social and Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing Management 4-90 

4.13.2 Social and Economic Impacts of Mineral Resource Management 4-95 

4.13.3 Social and Economic Impacts of Recreation Management 4-100 

4.13.4 Social and Economic Impacts of Travel Management 4-109 

4.13.5 Social and Economic Impacts of Lands and Realty Management 4-112 

4.14 Environmental Justice 4-119 

4.15 Cumulative Impacts 4-119 

4.15.1 Air Quality 4-120 

4.15.2 Water Resources 4-121 

4.15.3 Soil Resources 4-121 

4.15.4 Vegetation Resources 4-122 

4.15.5 Fish and Wildlife 4-123 

4.15.6 Wild Horse and Burro 4-125 

4.15.7 Wildland Fire Management 4-125 

4.15.8 Cultural Resources 4-126 

4.15.9 Paleontological Resources 4-126 

4.15.10 Visual Resources 4-127 

4.15.11 Wilderness Characteristics 4-128 

4.15.12 Special Designations 4-128 

4.15.13 Livestock Grazing 4-131 

4.15.14 Mineral Resources 4-131 

4.15.15 Recreation 4-131 

4.15.16 Travel Management 4-132 

4.15.17 Lands and Realty Management 4-133 

CHAPTER 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 5-1 

5.1 Introduction 5-1 

5.2 Specific Collaborative Planning Actions 5-1 

5.2.1 Meetings/Public Opportunity for Input 5-1 

5.2.2 Publications 5-2 

5.2.3 Web Site 5-3 

5.2.4 Mailing List 5-4 

5.3 Interrelationships 5-4 

5.3.1 Multi-agency Coordination 5-4 

5.3.2 Federal Agencies 5-4 

5.3.3 State and Local Governments 5-6 

5.3.4 Tribal Governments 5-8 

5.3.5 Private Land Owners and Other Entities 5-9 

Page viii Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
 Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

5.4 Cooperating Agencies 5-10 

5.4.1 Federal 5-10 

5.4.2 State 5-11 

5.4.3 Tribal 5-12 

5.4.4 County 5-13 

5.4.5 Local 5-13 

5.5 Comment Analysis Process 5-14 

5.5.1 Coding and Summary of Comments 5-14 

 5.5.2 Responses to Public Comments 5-17 

5.6 List of Preparers 5-167 

FIGURE 

1-1: Conceptual Planning Process & BLM Documents 1-6 

TABLES 

ES-1: Comments Received by Topic ES-2 

ES-2: Summary of Key Alternative Components ES-5 

ES-3: Comments Received by Topic during DRMP/DEIS Public Comment Period ES-15 

2-1: Special Designations by Alternative 2-6

2-2: Proposed National Scenic Byway and Back Country Byways 2-12 

2-3: Coordinated Management Areas by Alternative 2-24 

2-4: Vegetation Habitat Management Areas by Alternative 2-32 

2-5: Firewood Collection Closures by Alternative 2-39 

2-6: Wildlife Habitat Management Areas by Alternative 2-50 

2-7: Goals and Criteria for Categories I, II, and III of Desert Tortoise Habitat Areas 2-70 

2-8: Livestock Grazing Availability by Alternative 2-73 

2-9: Wild Horse and Burro Herd and Herd Management Areas by Alternative 2-77 

2-10: Wild Horse and Burro Management Actions by Alternative 2-78 

2-11: Prescribed Recreation Settings by Alternative 2-79 

2-12: Recreation Management Actions by Alternative 2-80 

2-13: Planning Area-wide Recreation Administrative Actions by Alternative 2-81 

2-14: Special Recreation Management Areas by Alternative (BLM acres) 2-83 

2-15: Colorado River Corridor SRMA by Alternative 2-84 

2-16: Greater Yuma SRMA by Alternative 2-85 

2-17: Gila River Valley SRMA by Alternative 2-87 

2-18: Yuma East SRMA by Alternative 2-88 

2-19: La Posa SRMA by Alternative 2-89 

2-20: OHV Management Area Designations by Alternative 2-96 

2-21: Ehrenberg-Cibola TMA 2-104 

2-22: Gila River Valley TMA 2-105 

Yuma Field Office Page ix 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

TABLES (CONT.) 

2-23: Greater Yuma TMA 2-106 

2-24: La Posa TMA 2-107 

2-25: Yuma East TMA 2-107 

2-26: VRM Land Use Designations by Alternative (BLM acres) 2-109 

2-27: Lands Managed to Maintain Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative 

 (BLM acres) 2-111 

2-28: Wilderness Characteristics Management Actions by Alternative 2-112 

2-29: SCRMAs by Alternative 2-121 

2-30: Lands and Realty Proposed Actions by Alternative 2-133 

2-31: Community Pit Names and Sizes 2-151 

2-32: Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 2-183 

3-1: Planning Area Acres within Arizona and California Counties 3-3 

3-2: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-5 

3-3: 1999 Emissions by County 3-6 

3-4: 1999 Emissions by Source Group 3-6 

3-5: Yuma PM10 Non-attainment Area Emissions Summary 3-8 

3-6: Lengths of Rivers, Ditches, and Washes in Planning Area 3-13 

3-7: Soil Order, Suborder, and Areas in Planning Area 3-18 

3-8: Vegetation/Cover Types along the Lower Colorado River and Lower 

 Gila River Corridors within Planning Area 3-27 

3-9: Wildland–Urban Interface/Communities at Risk by FMUs in the Yuma/ 

 Lake Havasu Zone 3-48 

3-10: Historical Fire Regimes Based on Fire Frequency and Severity 3-50 

3-11: Current Condition Classes Based on Departures from Historical 

 Fire Regimes 3-51 

3-12: Fire Management Units in Yuma/Lake Havasu Zone Overlapping Planning Area 3-52 

3-13: Geologic Time Scale 3-62 

3-14: Identified Fossils in the Vicinity of Wellton and Ligurta 3-66 

3-15: Wilderness Characteristics Assessment Results 3-68 

3-16: Allotments’ Administered and Authorized Use by BLM in Planning Area 3-70 

3-17: Mining District, Commodities, and Production Locations in Areas 

 for Mineral Entry 3-78 

3-18: YFO Recreation Site Descriptions 3-86 

3-19: Wind Power Classification/Energy Development Potential 3-104 

3-20: Wilderness Areas Managed by YFO in Planning Area 3-107 

3-21: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in Planning Area 3-110 

3-22: Population by County and Incorporated Place in 1990, 2000, and 2003 3-117 

3-23: General Demographic Characteristics of Yuma and La Paz Counties, 

 Arizona (2000) 3-119 

3-24: Population by Age and Gender in 1990 to 2000 3-120 

3-25: Household Income Distribution for 1989 and 1999 3-121 

3-26: Families under the Poverty Line by Household Type (1999) 3-122 

3-27: Poverty by Race (Individual) Percent of Total (1999) 3-122 

Page x Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
 Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

TABLES (CONT.) 

3-28: Education Attainment for Yuma and La Paz Counties (2000) 3-123 

3-29: Employment by County in 2003 3-128 

3-30: Gross Product: Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona, 2000–2005 3-130 

3-31: Economic Profile: Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona, 2000–2004 3-130 

3-32: Labor Data: Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona, 2000–2005 3-131 

3-33: Gross Transaction Privilege, Use, and Severance Tax Collections: 

 Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona, Fiscal Year 2000–2001 through 

 Fiscal Year 2004–2005 3-131 

3-34: Output, Value Added, and Employment in Yuma and La Paz Counties, 

 Arizona, 2003 3-133 

3-35: Agricultural Employment by County in 2002 3-137 

3-36: Agricultural Income by County in 1990 and 2000 3-137 

3-37: Minority Populations in 2000 3-139 

3-38: Low-income Populations in 1999 3-139 

4-1: Travel Management Designations by Alternative (BLM acres) 4-6 

4-2: Lands and Realty Proposed Actions by Alternative 4-7 

4-3: Potential Impacts to Soil Resources by Alternative 4-14 

4-4: Potential Impacts to Vegetative Resources 4-22 

4-5: Potential Impacts to Fish and Wildlife 4-36 

4-6: Proposed Byways on BLM-administered Lands within WHAs by Alternative 4-37 

4-7: Proposed Open OHV Management Areas within WHAs and 

 Sonoran Desert Tortoise Habitat 4-38 

4-8: Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources 4-53 

4-9: SCRMAs within VRM Classes by Alternative 4-57 

4-10: Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources from ROW Corridors by Alternative 4-58 

4-11: SCRMAs Crossed by ROW Corridors by Alternative 4-58 

4-12: Proposed Activities Impacting Paleontological Resources by Alternative 4-63 

4-13: VRM Land Use Designations by Alternative 4-67 

4-14: Lands Proposed to be Managed to Maintain Wilderness Characteristics 

 Differences by Alternative 4-70 

4-15: National Trails per VRM Class by Alternative 4-75 

4-16: Miles of National Byways on BLM-administered Lands and within VRM 

 Classes by Alternative 4-79 

4-17: Impacts to ACECs from OHV Area Designations, ROW Corridors, and 

 Withdrawals within ACECs by Alternative 4-85 

4-18: Perennial/Ephemeral Allotments Available for Grazing by Alternative 4-92 

4-19: Economic Analysis of Livestock Grazing on 428,170 Acres 

 Averaging 1,958 Head Annually 4-93 

4-20: Economic Analysis of Livestock Grazing per 10,000 Acres of Grazing 4-93 

4-21: Grazing Fees Collected from 2001 to 2005 for Planning Area 4-93 

4-22: Economic Analysis of Mineral Material (Sand and Gravel) Extractions 

 on BLM-administered Lands in Planning Area 4-97 

Yuma Field Office Page xi 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

TABLES (CONT.) 

4-23: Economic Analysis of Mineral Material (Sand and Gravel) Extractions 

 per 1,000 Cubic Yards 4-97 

4-24: Economic Analysis of Winter Visitors, La Paz and Yuma Counties 4-103 

4-25: Economic Analysis of 1,000 Winter Visitors, La Paz and Yuma Counties 4-104 

4-26: SRMA and ERMA Allocations by Alternative (acres) 4-105 

4-27: OHV Management Area Allocations by Alternative (acres) 4-110 

4-28: Lands and Realty Income from 2001 to 2006 4-114 

4-29: Economic Analysis of Communications Sites; Annual Maintenance 4-115 

4-30: Economic Analysis of First Year of the Proposed Palo Verde Gap 

 Communications Site 4-115 

4-31: Economic Analysis of First Year of the Proposed Laguna Mountains 

 High-Power Communications Site 4-115 

5-1: List of Preparers 5-167 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

REFERENCES CITED 

ACRONYMS 

INDEX 

APPENDICES 

1-A: Results of Scoping

1-B: Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders 

2-A: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Reports 

2-B: Lists of Federally Protected, State Listed, Special Status, Priority, and Invasive Species in 

Planning Area 

2-C: Proposed Conservation Measures 

2-D: Special Ephemeral Rule 

2-E: Description of the Route Evaluation Tree Process© 

2-F: Special Cultural Resource Management Areas 

2-G: Current Withdrawals in Yuma Field Office 

2-H: Guide to Stipulations with Codes 

2-I: Lands Proposed for Disposal, Alternatives A–E 

3-A: Reasonable Foreseeable Development 

Page xii Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
 Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

LIST OF MAPS 

1-1: Project Planning Area 

2-1a: Special Designations—Alternative A 

2-1b: Special Designations—Alternative B 

2-1c: Special Designations—Alternative C 

2-1d: Special Designations—Alternative D 

2-1e: Special Designations—Alternative E 

2-1e-1: Special Designations Alternative E—Big Marias ACEC Detail 

2-1e-2: Special Designations Alternative E—Dripping Springs ACEC Detail 

2-1e-3: Special Designations Alternative E—Sears Point ACEC Detail 

2-2a: Fortuna Pond Coordinated Management Area—Alternatives A through E 

2-2b: Limitrophe Coordinated Management Area—Alternatives B and E 

2-2c: Mittry Lake Coordinated Management Area—Alternatives A through E 

2-3a: Vegetation Habitat Management Areas—Alternative A 

2-3b: Vegetation Habitat Management Areas—Alternative B 

2-3c: Vegetation Habitat Management Areas—Alternative C 

2-3d: Vegetation Habitat Management Areas—Alternative D 

2-3e: Vegetation Habitat Management Areas—Alternative E 

2-4a: Wildlife Habitat Management Areas—Alternative A 

2-4b: Wildlife Habitat Management Areas—Alternative B 

2-4c: Wildlife Habitat Management Areas—Alternative C 

2-4d: Wildlife Habitat Management Areas—Alternative D 

2-4e: Wildlife Habitat Management Areas—Alternative E 

2-5a: Livestock Grazing Management—Alternative A 

2-5b: Livestock Grazing Management—Alternative B 

2-5c: Livestock Grazing Management—Alternatives C and E 

2-6a: Wild Horse and Burro Herd and Herd Management Areas— Alternative A 

2-6b: Wild Horse and Burro Herd and Herd Management Areas—Alternatives B–E 

2-7a: Prescribed Recreation Setting—Alternative B 

2-7b: Prescribed Recreation Setting—Alternative C 

2-7c: Prescribed Recreation Setting—Alternative D 

2-7d: Prescribed Recreation Setting—Alternative E 

2-8a: Special Recreation Management Areas—Alternative A 

2-8b: Special Recreation Management Areas—Alternative B 

2-8c: Special Recreation Management Areas—Alternative C 

2-8d: Special Recreation Management Areas—Alternative D 

2-8e: Special Recreation Management Areas—Alternative E 

2-9a: Travel Management Areas and OHV Area Designations—Alternative A 

2-9b: Travel Management Areas and OHV Area Designations—Alternative B 

2-9c: Travel Management Areas and OHV Area Designations—Alternative C 

2-9d: Travel Management Areas and OHV Area Designations—Alternative D 

2-9e: Travel Management Areas and OHV Area Designations—Alternative E 

2-9e-1: Travel Management Areas and OHV Area Designations—Alternative E: OHV Non-wilderness 

Closures—Detail 

Yuma Field Office Page xiii 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

LIST OF MAPS (CONT.) 

2-10a: Visual Resource Management Alternative A 

2-10b: Visual Resource Management—Alternative B 

2-10c: Visual Resource Management—Alternative C 

2-10d: Visual Resource Management—Alternative D 

2-10e: Visual Resource Management—Alternative E 

2-11a: Wilderness Characteristics—Alternatives B and E 

2-11b: Wilderness Characteristics—Alternative C 

2-11c: Wilderness Characteristics—Alternative D 

2-12a: Special Cultural Resource Management Areas— Alternative B 

2-12b: Special Cultural Resource Management Areas— Alternative C 

2-12c: Special Cultural Resource Management Areas— Alternative D 

2-12d: Special Cultural Resource Management Areas—Alternative E 

2-13a: Lands and Realty / Minerals—Alternative A 

2-13b: Lands and Realty / Minerals—Alternative B 

2-13c: Lands and Realty / Minerals—Alternative C 

2-13d: Lands and Realty / Minerals—Alternative D 

2-13e: Lands and Realty / Minerals—Alternative E 

3-1: PM-10 Nonattainment Area 

3-2: Groundwater Basins 

3-3: Surface Water Sub-Basins 

3-4: Soil Types 

3-5: Upland Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types 

3-6: Riparian Habitat 

3-7: Lower Colorado River Riparian Vegetation, North Area 

3-8: Lower Colorado River Riparian Vegetation, South Area 

3-9: Federally Listed Species, North Field Office Area 

3-10: Federally Listed Species, South Field Office Area 

3-11: Sonoran Desert Tortoise Habitat Categories 

3-12: Fire Management Units 

3-13: Fire Regime Groups 

3-14: Fire Risk Condition Classes 

3-15: Fire Occurrence Map 

3-16: Geologic Map 

3-17: Visual Resource Management Inventory Classification 

3-18: Lands with Wilderness Characteristics—Assessment 

3-19: Available Grazing Areas 

3-20: Oil and Gas Potential 

3-21: Metallic Locatable Mineral Potential Occurrences and Prospects 

3-22: Non-metallic Locatable Minerals 

3-23: Salable Minerals 

3-24: Recreation Sites 

3-25: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Inventory 

3-26: Travel Management (Proposed Route Inventory) 

Page xiv Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
 Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

LIST OF MAPS (CONT.) 

3-27: Communication Sites 

3-28: Military Training Routes 

ROUTE INVENTORY AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AREA MAPS 

TMA-1 Ehrenberg/Cibola Travel Management Area 

TMA-2 La Posa Travel Management Area 

TMA-3 Yuma East Travel Management Area 

TMA-4 Gila River Valley Travel Management Area 

TMA-5 Greater Yuma Travel Management Area 

Yuma Field Office Page xv 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Table of Contents 

Page intentionally left blank. 

Page xvi Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

CHAPTER 1.0 

INTRODUCTION 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Yuma Field Office (YFO) is revising the Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) for the YFO planning area (hereafter planning area). The revised RMP 

will direct management of Federal surface and mineral estate managed by the YFO within 

Yuma, La Paz, and Maricopa counties in Arizona, and portions of Imperial and Riverside 

counties in California. The planning area encompasses over 1.3 million acres along the lower 

Colorado River in southwest Arizona and southeast California, and extends eastward into 

Maricopa County in Arizona (Map 1-1). 

In accordance with BLM’s planning regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 

1600, and in fulfillment of the BLM’s obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA), the BLM is preparing this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze 

the effects of BLM’s Proposed Plan and a reasonable range of alternatives. This document has 

been prepared in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) for implementing procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and 

BLM's NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1). 

The BLM must comply with all Federal requirements and agency policies while developing a 

reasonable range of alternatives for an analysis of management actions for BLM-administered 

surface and mineral estate within the planning area. The analysis of resources and values within 

the planning area would permit the development of recommendations in alternatives for actions 

that could be taken on BLM-administered lands to enhance management of resources adjacent to 

and within the planning area. 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION 

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.13) require an EIS to “briefly specify the underlying purpose and 

need to which the agency is responding in proposing alternatives including the Proposed Plan.” 

The Purpose and Need Sections of this EIS provide a context and framework for establishing and 

evaluating the reasonable range of alternatives described in Chapter 2. 

1.1.1 PURPOSE 

The purpose of this RMP is to establish management directions for the balanced uses of 

resources within the planning area, including: rangeland, wildlife, wilderness, recreation, cultural 

resources, and other natural, scenic, scientific, and historical values. There are three existing 

RMPs (with amendments) which currently provide for the administration and management of the 

resources within the planning area. This RMP will consolidate these three plans and will guide 

the overall management of activities, as well as the use and protection of BLM-administered 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

resources within the planning area. Subsequent site-specific and more detailed planning will take 

place for certain geographic areas and resources within the planning area in conformance with 

this RMP. The RMP will create a framework for future planning and decision making. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended (43 United States 

Code [U.S.C.] 1711), requires BLM “to develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land 

use plans” (43 U.S.C. 1712 [a]). FLPMA directs BLM to manage the public lands and their 

various resource values for multiple use and sustained yield to ensure that they are utilized in a 

manner that would best meet the present and future needs of the public. As required by FLPMA 

and current BLM policy, YFO has prepared this RMP to establish management directions for the 

balanced uses 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 FLPMA’s requirement of the RMP is necessarily broad, since the RMP is a general 

framework document that will guide the overall management of activities within the planning 

area as well as the use and protection of BLM-administered resources. As is the case of any 

RMP, subsequent site-specific and more detailed planning will take place for certain geographic 

areas and resources within the planning area in conformance with this management plan. 

In many cases, existing management decisions that are still effective and valid would be carried 

forward. In other cases, existing management decisions are outdated and inconsistent. The 

revised RMP would provide the YFO an opportunity to consolidate three RMPs and several plan 

amendments. The RMP has been developed in compliance with FLPMA and current BLM 

Policy as set forth in the 2005 BLM H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook. 

The objective of the planning effort is to produce a revised RMP that achieves the following: 

 Creates a common vision for the planning area; 

 Updates existing management decisions for BLM-administered land within the planning 

area; 

 Addresses new uses of public land that have occurred since the 1986 and 1987 Records of 

Decision (ROD) for the Yuma District RMP, associated amendments, and 

management/activity plans were implemented; 

 Analyzes and incorporates data related to use of public lands that have become available 

since the 1987 Yuma District RMP, associated amendments, and management/activity plans 

were implemented; 

 Addresses land incorporated into the planning area from the Lower Gila South and Lower 

Gila North planning areas; and 

 Provides forward-looking, cohesive, and consistent land management through collaboration 

with neighboring communities, general public, interested groups, and all levels of 

government. Collaborators/partners would be involved in RMP implementation as well as 

RMP development. 

Page 1-2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

1.1.2 NEED 

This RMP is needed to respond to the changed conditions and circumstances which have 

occurred in the planning area and which may not have been previously addressed under current 

management, as set forth in the Yuma District RMP, as amended (United States Department of 

the Interior [USDOI BLM] 1987a); the Lower Gila South RMP, as amended (USDOI BLM 

1988a), and the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan, as amended (USDOI BLM 

1983). Those portions of existing management which are responsive to changed conditions and 

circumstances will be carried forward in the present plan. 

A Land Use Plan (LUP) Evaluation for the planning area was completed in December 2000. The 

evaluation concluded that a majority of RMP decisions were either being implemented or had 

been implemented. Resources within the planning area administered by the BLM are currently 

managed under three LUPs and their nine amendments. 

Additional conditions and changing circumstances which relate to the management of BLM 

resources within the planning area were considered. These include: 

 Population growth and changing demographics; 

 Increased and conflicting demands on the planning area’s resources and resource uses; 

 Increased complexity of resource management issues; and 

 Increased off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on public lands. 

This Proposed RMP/Final EIS (PRMP/FEIS) comprehensively evaluates these issues to balance 

resource uses in a way that satisfies both public demand and FLPMA’s requirements of multipleuse and sustained yield approach for natural resource management. 

1.2 PLANNING AREA 

The planning area extends northward along the lower Colorado River from the United States of 

America (U.S.)–United Mexican States (Mexico) border at San Luis, Arizona, to north of Blythe, 

California, and Ehrenberg, Arizona. The eastern boundary extends past the eastern side of the 

Eagletail Mountains Wilderness Area in Maricopa County and south to the northern boundary of 

the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR). The western boundary generally parallels the Colorado 

River to the west and includes land in California (see Map 1-1). 

The YFO manages a diverse combination of land and resources. The lower Colorado River is a 

destination for visitors seeking camping, year-round water-related recreation, and off-highway 

travel. On average, 250,000 winter visitors use the La Posa Long-Term Visitor Area (LTVA) and 

the five surrounding 14-day campgrounds on an annual basis. Within the planning area there are 

four Wilderness Areas in Arizona and portions of four other Wilderness Areas in California. The 

YFO maintains an active lands and realty program to oversee rights-of-way (ROWs) for major 

corridors connecting energy-rich states such as Texas, Wyoming, and New Mexico to California, 

through Arizona. The planning area encompasses lands within five counties: three in Arizona (La 

Paz, Maricopa, and Yuma) and two in California (Imperial and Riverside). RMP-related impacts 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

are most likely to occur in Yuma and La Paz counties, where approximately 95 percent of the 

planning area lands are located. 

Adjacent land jurisdictions that require management coordination in this RMP include Arizona 

Game and Fish Department (AGFD), Arizona State Lands, Luke Air Force–BMGR, BLM Field 

Offices (Lake Havasu, Lower Sonoran, and El Centro), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Cibola National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), 

Cocopah Indian Reservation, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort Yuma–Quechan Indian 

Reservation, Imperial NWR, Kofa NWR, Marine Corps Air Station–Yuma (MCAS–Yuma), 

U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), and private land including regional irrigation districts. 

Where urban interface issues are present, YFO collaborates with cities and towns adjoining 

public land including the City of Yuma and Town of Quartzsite; Arizona communities of San 

Luis, Somerton, Dateland, Wellton, Ehrenberg, and Hyder; and California communities of 

Blythe and Palo Verde, all of which have worked with YFO on various issues. 

1.2.1 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT LANDS 

Several hundred thousand acres of land in the planning area are withdrawn by Reclamation to 

accommodate Boulder Canyon and related projects from Davis Dam to Mexico. These 

Reclamation-withdrawn or -acquired lands that constitute a corridor along the lower Colorado 

River as identified in the Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan of 1964 are jointly managed by 

Reclamation and BLM for specific purposes as outlined by 613 Departmental Manual (DM 613) 

1.1 and the joint Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of July 15, 1991. 

The Secretary of the Interior has assigned recreation and wildlife management responsibilities on 

Reclamation-withdrawn lands to the BLM. These activities are conducted in coordination with 

Reclamation, and the provisions of this arrangement are found in DM 613 1.1. 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. 

BLM has the responsibility to maximize opportunities for recreation, wildlife, and other purposes 

not specified by Reclamation. Reclamation retains the responsibility for operation and 

maintenance of works and facilities, and environmental mitigation and enhancement associated 

with its mission of water delivery on the lower Colorado River. Throughout the planning 

process, YFO has coordinated with Reclamation to ensure that the PRMP/FEIS does not propose 

planning decisions that would conflict with existing and planned Reclamation project activities. 

The PRMP/FEIS will take Reclamation projects and plans into account when preparing the ROD 

for signature. 

1.2.2 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF PLANNING AREA 

The Lower Colorado River Land Use Office (Land Use Office) was established in Yuma by the 

USDOI in 1961 by Secretarial Order 2854. The Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan was 

published in 1964 by the DOI for 265 river miles between Davis Dam and the International 

Boundary. This multi-jurisdictional plan addresses trespass and water-based recreation issues to 

Page 1-4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

resolve illegal occupancy including trailer homes, shacks, commercial resorts, and agricultural 

development. 

In December 1968, the Land Use Office was assigned to the BLM to implement the plan. The 

Yuma District Office was established on August 23, 1972. The district included Reclamationwithdrawn lands of the Land Use Office along the lower Colorado River corridor and large areas 

of public land to the east in Arizona. Management issues on public lands included recreation, 

grazing, mining, wildlife, and realty actions. 

In October of 1997, through a reorganization of BLM lands within the State of Arizona, the 

Yuma District was split into the Yuma and Lake Havasu field offices. The YFO planning area 

expanded to manage 1.3 million acres, including portions of the Lower Gila North and South 

planning areas. In 2005, Arizona BLM reorganized to form a three-tiered organization composed 

of field offices, districts, and the Arizona State Office. The Colorado River District was formed, 

which includes the Yuma, Lake Havasu, and Kingman field offices. Planning area boundaries 

remained the same for each field office. 

A block of BLM-administered land on U.S. Highway 95 (Highway 95) about 10 miles north of 

the Town of Quartzsite was transferred to the State Land Trust 30 years ago at the request of the 

Governor of Arizona and under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior to enable the State 

Land Department to benefit from future growth in the Colorado River area. The block of land 

was transferred to the State Land Department after a special study by BLM, the State Land 

Department, and other Federal and State agencies in 1972. The study determined that this, along 

with several other blocks of BLM-administered lands along the lower Colorado River in 

Arizona, should be transferred to State Land Trust’s ownership. 

1.3 PLANNING PROCESS 

1.3.1 STEPS IN THE PROCESS 

The BLM uses a multi-step process when developing a LUP. Some of the steps may occur 

concurrently. Some situations may require the manager to supplement previous work as 

additional information becomes available. These steps have been fully integrated with the NEPA 

process and the CEQ guidelines, as depicted in Figure 1-1, and described below. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

Conceptual Planning Process & BLM Documents 

Figure 1-1 

A. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 

 Issue Notice of Intent (NOI) to begin the scoping process to identify issues and develop 

planning criteria and to begin public participation. 

 Identify issues. This sets the tone and scope for the entire planning process and is done with 

full public participation. 

B. DEVELOP PLANNING CRITERIA 

 Establish constraints and guides, and determine what will or will not be done or considered 

during the planning process. 

 Produce a scoping report for public review, including final planning criteria. 

C. INVENTORY DATA AND INFORMATION COLLECTION 

 Collect an inventory of data and information, which is an ongoing activity and not governed 

solely by the planning process. 

1. Frame the problem 

& gather information 

Pre-plan 

Analysis of the 

Management 

Situation 

Scoping Report 

2. Develop possible 

solutions 

Draft RMP/ 

Draft EIS 

Proposed RMP/ 

Final EIS 

3. Make decisions 

Approved 

RMP/Approved 

ROD 

Planning 

Evaluation Implementation 

Monitoring 

Page 1-6 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

D. ANALYZE THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION 

 Gather information on the current management situation. Describe pertinent physical and 

biological characteristics and evaluate the capability and condition of the resources. 

E. FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES 

 Alternative formulation is the step where the success of the planning effort hinges on clearly 

identified reasonable alternatives. 

F. ESTIMATE EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES 

 Estimate the impact or effects of each alternative on the environment and management 

situation. 

G. SELECT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

 Select the Preferred Alternative, which in the judgment of management best resolves the 

planning issues and promotes balanced multiple use objectives. 

 Issue a Notice of Availability (NOA) of Draft RMP/Draft EIS (DRMP/DEIS) for the 90-day 

public review. 

H. SELECT THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

 Review and analyze public comments, opinions, suggestions, and recommendations and use 

the important information/data in preparing the PRMP/FEIS. 

 Issue a NOA of PRMP/FEIS for the 30-day protest period, concurrent with the 60-day 

Governor’s review. 

 Issue a NOA for the ROD/Approved Plan after protests are resolved. 

I. TIERING TO THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

 Tiering is the incorporation by reference of the content of previous plans into future 

implementation level project planning. The YFO will tier project-specific NEPA documents 

to this RMP after the ROD is signed. 

 If a proposed project or site-specific action does not conform to or achieve consistency with 

the terms, conditions, and decisions in the approved RMP, the YFO may deny the proposal or 

prepare an RMP amendment in the form of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or EIS. 

1.3.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The RMP provides numerous opportunities for the public to be involved in the process. 

 Public scoping meetings are initially held to assist the BLM in assessing the scope of the 

RMP proposed actions and alternatives to be considered. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

 Public meetings are held once the DRMP/DEIS is released to garner public comments on the 

draft. 

 A public protest period is held after the PRMP/FEIS is finished to allow for public input 

before the decisions are finalized in the ROD/Approved Plan. 

Public participation is essential in making informed decisions. BLM believes that extensive 

public involvement improves communication, develops enhanced understanding of different 

perspectives, and identifies solutions to issues and problems. 

In addition to the public, there are numerous individuals within BLM and other Federal agencies 

who take an active role in the planning process. A wide variety of individuals both internal and 

external to BLM participate in the planning process. While most of the work occurs at the Field 

Office level, many individuals at higher levels of the organization are involved in the planning 

process as well. 

1.4 PLANNING CRITERIA AND LEGISLATIVE 

CONSTRAINTS 

The BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.4-2) require the development of planning criteria 

to guide preparation of the RMP. Planning criteria are the constraints or ground rules that guide 

and direct plan preparation. They ensure that the plan is tailored to the identified issues, and that 

unnecessary data collection and analyses are avoided. Planning criteria are based on applicable 

laws and regulations, agency guidance, the result of consultation and coordination with the 

public, other Federal, State, and local agencies, and Native American tribes. 

1.4.1 GENERAL PLANNING CRITERIA 

The following criteria were developed and distributed to all interested parties collaborating in the 

planning process. 

 The plan would be completed in compliance with FLPMA, the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), NEPA, and all other relevant Federal laws and Executive Orders (EOs) (including 

wilderness legislation) and management policies of the BLM. 

 The plan would result in determinations as required by special program- and resourcespecific guidance detailed in Appendix C of the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H1601-1). 

 Planning decisions from the existing RMP that remain valid would be carried forward into 

the plan. Relevant decisions and alternatives proposed in previous studies of the planning 

area would be brought forward into the plan for reassessment. 

 The planning team would work collaboratively with the State of Arizona, Yuma, La Paz, 

Imperial, Riverside, and Maricopa counties, Tribal governments, municipal governments, 

other Federal agencies, the Resource Advisory Council, and all other interested groups, 

agencies, and individuals. Decisions in the plan would strive to be compatible with existing 

plans and policies of adjacent local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and consistent with 

Page 1-8 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

Federal laws and regulations as long as the decisions are in conformance with legal mandates 

on management of public lands. 

 Native American Tribal consultations would be conducted in accordance with policy. Tribal 

concerns would be given due consideration. 

 Coordination would occur with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through the 

Section 7 consultation process to protect and enhance known habitat for threatened and 

endangered species and assist in the recovery of listed species to maintain biological 

diversity within the planning area. Special status species would be reviewed, including 

species proposed for listing under the ESA, throughout the planning area to conserve habitat 

through inventory, monitoring, and adoption of conservation measures needed to curtail 

listing. 

 Coordination would occur with the Arizona and California State Historic Preservation 

Officers (SHPOs) throughout the planning process. 

 The plan would recognize the States' responsibilities to manage wildlife populations, 

including uses such as hunting and fishing, within the planning area. 

 The plan would establish new guidance and identify existing guidance upon which the YFO 

would rely in managing public lands within the planning area. 

 The PRMP/FEIS would apply the following existing plans, plan amendments, and their 

decisions: Standards for Rangeland Health (USDOI BLM 1997a) as Land Health Standards 

applicable to all resources and activities, Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

(USDOI BLM 1997a), and Proposed Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated 

Management Plan (USDOI BLM 2002a). 

 The PRMP/FEIS would carry forward existing Wilderness Areas; national trails; Back 

Country Byways; wild and scenic river suitability recommendations; and, as appropriate, 

existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). 

 Geospatial data would be automated within a Geographic Information System (GIS) to 

facilitate discussions of the affected environment, alternative formulation, analysis of 

environmental consequences, and display of results. 

 Resource allocations would be reasonable, achievable, supported by technology, and within 

budgetary constraints. Resource allocations would also be consistent with current BLM 

policy. 

 The lifestyles and concerns of area residents would be recognized in the plan. 

 Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), BLM-administered lands were given a Class II air quality 

classification unless reclassified by the states of California and Arizona. This classification 

allows moderate deterioration associated with moderate well-controlled industrial and 

population growth. Actions within the Yuma County PM10 non-attainment area would be 

assessed for conformance with air quality standards. 

 The public would be protected from known safety hazards of abandoned mine lands (AML1) 

and hazardous materials sites within the planning area. As identified in the draft Instruction 

Memorandum titled Mitigating and Remediating Physical Safety Hazards at Abandoned 

Mine Land Sites, the YFO would address closure or signage of all AML1 sites close to 

Recreation Information Management System sites. Closures and signage would include 

temporary and remedial measures. 

 YFO would incorporate the Discovery Process®, developed by James Kent and Associates, 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

to detect emerging issues affecting public land by engaging local citizens in the land use 

planning process. 

1.4.2 PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PLANNING CRITERIA 

A. RIPARIAN AREAS, FLOODPLAINS, AND WETLANDS 

Riparian areas, floodplains, and wetlands would be managed to protect, improve, and restore 

their natural functions to benefit water storage, groundwater recharge, water quality, and fish and 

wildlife values. All management practices would be designed to maintain or improve the 

integrity of these high priority values, in accordance with the Clean Water Act (CWA), EO 

11988 (Floodplain Management), and Arizona’s Standards for Rangeland Health. Additional 

criteria are found in the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR 

MSCP), priority wildlife habitat designations, existing activity plans, and the current Lower 

Colorado River Fire Management Plan. 

B. WATER QUALITY 

Section 319 of the CWA obligates Federal agencies to be consistent with State Nonpoint Source 

Management Program Plans and relevant water quality standards. Section 313 requires 

compliance with State Water Quality Standards. YFO would coordinate with the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) regarding their Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) program and other relevant water quality programs. YFO would incorporate applicable 

best management practices (BMPs) or other conservation measures for specific programs and 

activities into the RMP. Water quality would be maintained or improved in accordance with 

State and Federal standards. 

C. SOIL 

Soils would be managed to protect long-term productivity. BMPs would be incorporated into 

other programs to minimize soil erosion and compaction resulting from management actions. 

D. VEGETATION 

Vegetation would be managed to achieve desired plant communities (considering the ecological 

site potential) that provide for: biodiversity; protection and restoration of native species; and 

non-consumptive uses including plant protection (fuel collection), visual quality, and watershed 

protection. The desired plant communities would provide wildlife habitat, watershed protection 

and stability, and forage for livestock and wildlife. Water quality would be given priority in all 

vegetation management decisions. 

There are several treatment methods and standard operating procedures that may 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 (MS) 1740, BLM Arizona’s Standards for Rangeland Health, 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, 

Page 1-10 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

Including Alaska (USDOI BLM 1991), and other general and specific program policies, 

procedures, and standards pertinent to implementation of renewable resource improvements. 

E. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Fish and wildlife habitat would be managed to maintain and/or improve the existing habitats 

including designated priority wildlife habitat. Management actions should minimize the extent of 

disturbance to fish and wildlife habitat. Vegetation management practices would be considered 

to achieve desired future conditions. 

F. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL STATUS 

SPECIES 

Management actions authorized, funded or implemented by BLM would be implemented not to 

jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Candidate species, 

species proposed for Federal listing, and BLM and State sensitive species would be given equal 

consideration as listed species. The intent would be to recover listed species and maintain 

healthy populations of all other species and therefore avoid the need for further Federal listing. 

As an agency operating within the DOI, the BLM would adhere to the LCR MSCP, approved by 

Secretary Gale Norton on April 5, 2005. 

G. WILDLAND FIRE 

Fire management prescriptions would be consistent with the Federal Wildland Fire Policy, the 

National Fire Plan, and the Lower Colorado River Fire Management Plan. Fire suppression 

would be accomplished with the least amount of surface disturbance to protect significant 

cultural or paleontological values. Public lands and resources affected by fire would be 

rehabilitated in accordance with the multiple use objectives identified for the affected area, 

subject to BLM policies and available funding. 

H. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Management of cultural resources is an integrated system of identifying and evaluating cultural 

resources, deciding on their appropriate uses, and administering them accordingly, both on 

public lands and on other lands where BLM decisions could affect cultural resources. All 

management for cultural resources in this plan would comply with the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended; BLM Manual 8100; and other applicable 

cultural resource laws, regulations, EOs, guidance, and policy. Areas with high cultural resource 

sensitivity would be evaluated for the new Special Cultural Resource Management Area 

(SCRMA) allocation. The plan would ensure that management measures are implemented in a 

manner that protects and provides access to sacred places in accordance with the American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act and EO 13007. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

I. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This plan would develop appropriate management strategies that are based upon the best 

scientific information available. Management of paleontological resources would emphasize: the 

non-renewable nature of fossils; their usefulness in deciphering ancient and modern ecosystems; 

the public benefits and public expectations arising from their scientific, recreational, and 

educational values; the BLM's interest in the continued advancement of the science of 

paleontology; and the importance of minimizing resource use conflicts within a multiple use 

framework. 

J. VISUAL RESOURCES 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) classification would be conducted to address the public’s 

concerns about open space and natural vistas. Some areas may be subject to special measures to 

protect resources or reduce conflicts among uses. 

K. WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

The YFO would review lands to be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. The YFO 

has the authority to address lands with wilderness characteristics and describe protective 

management prescriptions in the RMP. In keeping with the public involvement process that is 

part of all land use planning efforts, the YFO would be committed to considering public input 

regarding lands to be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. As appropriate, the YFO 

would identify lands to be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

L. LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Livestock grazing would be managed through existing laws, regulations, and policies. The plans 

would incorporate the statewide standards and guidelines established by the Arizona BLM State 

Director and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. They would include a strategy for 

ensuring that proper grazing practices are followed, while preserving habitats for sensitive plant 

and wildlife species. Appropriate BMPs would 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 would continue. 

M. MINERALS 

Minerals management would 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. Lands open to salable, leasable, and locatable minerals would 

be identified in the plan. Areas within the planning area may also be subject to constraints to 

surface use. Areas proposed to be closed to mineral entry would continue to be subject to valid 

existing rights for mining claims, leases, and salable permits that currently exist within these 

areas. 

Page 1-12 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

N. RECREATION 

Existing designated recreation sites would be carried forward and evaluated for additional 

facilities. Other public lands would also be evaluated for their suitability for recreational 

development. 

O. TRANSPORTATION 

Motorized and other access on the public lands in the planning area would be managed in 

accordance with existing law, EOs, proclamation, regulation, and policy. OHV use areas would 

be designated as open, limited, and closed designations. A network of roads and trails would be 

designated for all limited areas at least five years after the ROD is signed. 

P. LANDS AND REALTY 

All public lands would be retained in Federal ownership, unless determined that disposal of a 

particular parcel(s) would serve the public interest. Lands may be identified for withdrawal, 

disposal by sale, or exchange. Decisions to acquire private lands from willing sellers would be 

based on public benefits, management considerations, and public access needs. Specific actions 

to implement RMP land tenure decisions would include full public participation. There would be 

no net loss of public ownership along the lower Colorado River. 

Q. RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDORS 

Public lands would generally be available for transportation and utility ROWs subject to NEPA 

evaluation, except where specifically prohibited by law or regulation or in areas specifically 

identified for avoidance and exclusion to protect significant resource values. ROW Corridors 

would avoid areas of designation such as priority wildlife habitat, special status species 

management areas, ACECs, Wilderness Areas, and cultural areas. 

R. AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

As required by FLPMA, priority shall be given to the designation and protection of ACECs. The 

RMP would identify and evaluate new ACEC proposals to determine if special management 

attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, and 

scenic values; fish or wildlife resources; or other natural systems or processes; or to protect 

human life and safety from natural hazards. The plan would also re-evaluate the existing Big 

Marias and Gila River Cultural Area ACECs, to reassess needs for special management attention 

and re-determine appropriate acreages. Management prescriptions would be developed in the 

plan to guide management of ACEC proposals and to protect key relevant and important values. 

The plan may prescribe future ACEC plans or master interpretive plans for designated ACECs if 

necessary. 

S. WILDERNESS AREAS 

Wilderness Areas are designated by Congress and are managed according to the Wilderness Act 

of 1964, the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990, the California Desert Protection Act of 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

1994, regulations for wilderness management at 43 CFR 6300, BLM Manuals 8560 and 8561, 

BLM Handbook H-8560-1, and Wilderness Management Plans. The RMP would not address 

reducing or eliminating existing Wilderness Areas, changing existing wilderness boundaries, or 

allowing motor vehicle or other use of mechanical transportation in any Wilderness Areas not 

already authorized. Also consistent with policy, the YFO would not establish new Wilderness 

Study Areas (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. 

T. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Management actions would consider BMPs which protect the public to the greatest extent 

through existing policies. 

U. SOCIOECONOMICS 

Management actions would be evaluated for socioeconomic impacts by using the “Economic 

Profile System” and other tools such as IMPLAN. 

V. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The lifestyles of low-income and minority populations, and potential impacts to these residents 

would be considered in the RMP. 

X. COORDINATED PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 

YFO would collaborate with adjacent Federal, State, Tribal, city, and county governments. 

1.5 PUBLIC SCOPING ISSUES 

To allow an early and open process for determining the scope of issues and concerns related to 

preparation of the DRMP/DEIS (40 CFR 1510.7), a public scoping period was provided by 

BLM. A NOI to prepare the YFO DRMP/DEIS was published in the Federal Register on March 

30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 61, Pages 16608-16609 [AZ 050-04-1610-DO; 1610]). 

Publication of this notice in the Federal Register initiated a 90-day public scoping period for the 

DRMP/DEIS that ended on June 30, 2004. 

YFO contacted Federal, State, county, and local agencies to initiate coordination and 

collaboration efforts. Agencies received postcards and were invited to comment as part of the 

initial scoping process and during individual agency meetings with YFO management staff. The 

YFO mailed informational postcards to approximately 1,200 individuals and organizations 

announcing its intent to prepare a DRMP/DEIS for BLM-administered public lands in the 

planning area. Public scoping meetings were held by the YFO in Yuma, Quartzsite, and Roll, 

Arizona, and Blythe, California on June 1 through 4, 2004. Approximately 150 to 210 persons 

attended the public scoping meetings. A total of 207 responses identifying 626 issues were 

received during the comment period. Copies of all project notices and comment forms distributed 

during the scoping period are contained in the Final Scoping Report (USDOI BLM 2004a). 

Page 1-14 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

Public comments addressed a variety of issues and concerns regarding resources and resource 

uses, as well as management considerations. A summary of the most common public comments, 

issues, and management concerns follows. A listing of the issues, rationale for dismissal, and 

planning criteria are contained in Appendix 1-A within this document. 

1.5.1 ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS PRMP/FEIS 

The major emphasis and considerations within this PRMP/FEIS which were identified by the 

public scoping process include: 

 Special Designations; 

 Fish and Wildlife Management; 

 Recreation Management; 

 Transportation Management; 

 Lands to be Managed to Maintain Wilderness Characteristics; and 

 Lands and Realty. 

A. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Issues focused on the need to identify and protect new and existing special areas in general and 

from activities including oil/gas development, mining, OHV, grazing, and road construction in 

particular. ACEC designation was requested for Sonoran pronghorn and desert tortoise habitat. It 

was also requested that the river corridor be designated as a natural resource area rather than as a 

general use area. 

Comments were also received in opposition to special designations (specifically Wilderness) 

stating that these designations benefit only those few who are fit enough to hike into the areas to 

enjoy them, that there should be no further designations as there is designated Wilderness 

available in the area, and all currently designated areas should be opened for access. 

A considerable number of comments were received concerning Back Country Byway 

designations. Several commenters stated they would prefer that no Back Country Byways be 

designated in the planning area, as recreationists would be drawn to these particular areas. 

B. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Fish and wildlife issues included habitat fragmentation and impacts from OHV use and 

development. Impacts to wildlife, specifically ground-nesting birds, and impacts to forage 

availability and quality from grazing were also mentioned. Several comments were received 

regarding water catchments, including the desire that these be managed by BLM, concern that 

there are not enough catchments, and concern that some catchments are sometimes empty and 

others fenced making them unavailable for use by all wildlife. A few comments emphasized the 

benefit of agriculture to wildlife for food resources and one commenter expressed concern over 

policies to control predators and rodents. There were also requests to provide wildlife corridors 

between this planning area and adjacent areas. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

C. RECREATION 

Many members of the public used the comment cards to inform the YFO what they felt to be the 

most important recreation activities on BLM-administered land. These recreation uses included 

hunting, OHV use, camping, rock hounding, fishing, photography, hiking, wildlife viewing, 

scientific research, and shooting. Comments received indicated the need to maintain a multipleuse management approach. 

Other recreation comments were received regarding the need to maintain camping areas, 

including the LTVAs. Several comments were received requesting additional equestrian 

opportunities be provided, expressing a preference both for and against shooting in the area, and 

requesting trails be designated for specific uses. The need for additional recreational 

improvements and amenities were specifically mentioned for the Squaw Lake Campground and 

Day Use Area and the Sandy Cove Campground (Hippy Hole). 

Comments also stated there should be no fees for the use of public land. 

Education was also mentioned in comments. People felt the resources of the public lands provide 

important educational opportunities for themselves and future generations. Commenters also 

emphasized the importance of educating visitors about environmental stewardship of the public 

lands. Several comments were received about the scientific research and learning opportunities 

offered by the area, particularly for seed resources and geology. 

D. TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Many public comments were received concerning transportation planning and access. A 

frequently raised issue was access, with many users commenting that no further restrictions 

through road closures or Wilderness designation should occur. Another issue was the request for 

currently closed roads to be reopened. Other issues included: a desire for route designation to 

manage routes created by the lack of designation and illegal immigrants; the belief that public 

land should be publicly accessible; and the desire that current access should remain for future 

generations to enjoy the land. Other comments requested that there be no new roads established. 

Issues with OHV use included damage to natural resources, wildlife, cultural resources, and 

existing roads; lack of designated open, closed, and limited areas; lack of signs and enforcement; 

and the need to limit OHV to certain or designated areas. Some OHV supporters felt that OHV is 

the only way to enjoy remote areas, especially for older or disabled users. 

E. LANDS TO BE MANAGED TO MAINTAIN WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS 

The identification of lands to be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics was a frequently 

mentioned issue. Commenters raised issues concerning the BLM definition of wilderness 

characteristics and the evaluation process that was used in formulation of the alternatives. Some 

commenters wanted lands with wilderness characteristics identified, protected, and closed to 

OHV use and other land disturbing activities. Another public issue was the opposition to 

Page 1-16 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

managing for wilderness characteristics and the statement that managing for these resources 

essentially creates new wilderness in violation of Congressional intent. 

F. LANDS AND REALTY 

Numerous comments were received regarding land tenure and use authorizations and generally 

covered one of three categories: (1) general policy regarding disposal or exchange, (2) support 

for disposal, exchange, or lease of specific areas, and (3) agricultural use. Many commenters 

expressed concern over future disposals or exchanges. They requested no future disposals or 

exchanges or only limited ones. Some comments stated that wildlife habitat should be considered 

during potential land exchanges. Specific areas mentioned for disposal/exchange or leases 

included Harvey’s Fishing Hole, Martinez Lake, area along the Colorado River, and BLMadministered land within the Quartzsite town limits. Several comments were received supporting 

agricultural use in the area for a variety of reasons and expressing concern over potential 

termination of agricultural leases. 

One response discussed ROW Corridors and expressed a need for future corridors to be 

identified in the plan, but that there should be no amendments for future corridors. The comment 

also stated that existing corridors should be used instead of creating new ones. 

1.5.2 ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS PRMP/FEIS 

Throughout the scoping process, issues were raised by the public that were either not within the 

jurisdiction of BLM or that could be dealt with administratively and would not require a 

planning decision. A full discussion of these issues is included in the scoping report. Issues not 

addressed in this PRMP/FEIS are summarized below by topic. 

 Airspace—Airspace over public land is managed by other jurisdictions. 

 Fish and Wildlife—Wildlife population management is under the authority of AGFD and 

CDFG. 

 Recreation—The use of firearms on developed recreation sites and areas is addressed through 

43 CFR 8365.2-5(a). Shooting events would be managed through the Special Recreation 

Permit (SRP) process. Recreational shooting restrictions would be established as warranted 

through the development of supplementary rules according to the guidelines set forth in 43 

CFR 8365.1-6. Recreation fees are addressed in the YFO Recreation and Visitor Services 

Business Plan. 

 Lands and Realty—Land authorizations in the Martinez Lake area of the lower Colorado 

River are not within the jurisdiction of BLM. 

 Transportation—A travel management plan which would include route designations would 

be completed within five years of the ROD/Approved Plan. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

1.5.3 LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

The BLM planning process is governed by FLPMA and the BLM Planning Regulations in 43 

CFR Part 1600. LUPs ensure that public land is 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, public land 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, would preserve and protect certain public land in 

their natural condition; that would provide food and habitat for fish, wildlife, and domestic 

animals; and that would provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use by 

encouraging collaboration and public participation throughout the planning process. In addition, 

public land must be managed in a manner that recognizes the nation’s need for domestic sources 

of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from public land. LUPs are the primary mechanism for 

guiding BLM activities to achieve the mission and goals outlined in the BLM Strategic Plan. 

BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) contains program-specific guidance. 

In addition to FLPMA, NEPA, and their associated regulations, BLM must comply with the 

mandate and intent of all Federal laws (and any applicable regulations) and EOs that apply to 

BLM-administered lands and resources in the planning area. The PRMP/FEIS process is 

intended to develop LUP decisions that resolve such conflicts and meet the multiple use and 

sustained yield mandate of FLPMA. Appendix 1-B provides a listing of applicable laws, 

regulations, and EOs that apply to BLM-administered land and resources in the planning area. 

1.6 COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIPS 

The YFO has utilized a collaborative process to work with all other interested entities and 

individuals to address common needs and goals within the planning area. The effort involved 

early identification of the most appropriate, efficient, and productive type of working 

relationships to achieve meaningful results in land use planning initiatives. The YFO’s primary 

objectives of the proposed collaboration process include providing a comprehensive forum for 

public involvement to achieve defensible decisions for the RMP. The YFO follows 40 CFR 

1501.6 CEQ guidelines on roles of lead and cooperating agencies, as discussed in A Desk Guide 

to Cooperating Agency Relationships (USDOI BLM 2005a). This desk guide identifies BLM’s 

regulations for developing the cooperating agency relationship, where “Cooperating Agencies 

expect and deserve to be given a significant role in shaping plans and environmental analyses—

not merely commenting on them—commensurate with their available time and knowledge” 

(USDOI BLM 2005a). Several CFR sections are applicable to the BLM/cooperating agency 

relationship: 

 “The Field Manager will prepare criteria to guide development of the resource management 

plan to ensure...[i]t is tailored to the issues previously identified.... Planning criteria will 

generally be based upon applicable law, Director and State Director guidance, the results of 

public participation, and coordination with any cooperating agencies and other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes.” (43 CFR 

1610.4-2); 

Page 1-18 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

 “The Field Manager, in collaboration with any cooperating agencies, will arrange for 

resource, environmental, social, economic, and institutional data and information to be 

collected, or assembled if already available.” (43 CFR 1610.4-3); and 

 “At the direction of the Field Manager, in collaboration with any cooperating agencies, BLM 

will consider all reasonable alternatives and develop several complete alternatives for 

detailed study. Nonetheless, the decision to designate alternatives for further development 

and analysis remains the exclusive responsibility of the BLM.” (43 CFR 1610.4-5). 

Public meetings in March 2005 were held to gain public input for Alternative Development 

(March 7, Quartzsite; March 8, Yuma; March 9, Wellton; and March 10, Blythe). Public 

meetings in July 2005 were conducted for Preliminary Alternatives (July 25, Wellton; July 26, 

Quartzsite and Blythe; July 27, Yuma; and July 28, Tucson). Information gathered by the YFO at 

these public meetings has been incorporated into this PRMP/FEIS. 

Additionally, YFO met individually with local offices of several Yuma area agencies to discuss 

the DRMP/DEIS and to explain the statewide organizational change that BLM-Arizona is 

undergoing. The YFO staff distributed DRMP/DEIS materials and conducted presentations when 

requested. The YFO facilitated discussions with the agencies, which generated issues and 

concerns that are documented in the Final Scoping Report (USDOI BLM 2004a) on file at the 

YFO. Meetings with area agencies were conducted during June, July, and August 2004. 

The YFO continues to coordinate and consult with the Arizona and California SHPOs 

concerning cultural resources within the planning area. 

1.6.1 COOPERATING AGENCIES 

Numerous Federal, State, and local agencies and Tribal interests were identified by the YFO at 

the outset of the RMP/EIS effort, and these entities were contacted in writing to determine their 

interest in serving as cooperators on this PRMP/FEIS. As a part of initiating multiple planning 

efforts throughout the state, YFO compiled a list of Federal, State, county, and local agencies 

and Native American tribes that may have a relevant interest in the planning process. Letters 

were sent to more than 200 agencies to introduce the various RMP/EIS processes within the 

State of Arizona, identify the upcoming data gathering efforts, and offer an opportunity to 

become a cooperating agency in the planning effort. An initial cooperating agency meeting was 

held at the BLM Arizona State Office on October 30, 2002. The purpose of the meeting was to 

discuss BLM’s planning process, collaborative planning, and the meaning and responsibilities of 

cooperating agencies. The opportunity for involvement in BLM’s planning process without 

becoming a cooperating agency was also discussed. BLM emphasized the goal was to encourage 

involvement by all interested parties using whatever methods the parties preferred. 

In January of 2005, the YFO held a cooperating agency invitation/information meeting. 

Cooperating agency meetings for the YFO RMP/EIS were conducted in Yuma on June 8, July 

20, September 14, and December 13–14, 2005, and on January 12 and February 22, 2006. The 

June 8, 2005 cooperating agency meeting included an overview of the BLM cooperating agency 

status, a review of MOUs, milestones and schedules, and development of issues/alternatives. The 

July 20, 2005 cooperating agency meeting included discussion of preliminary alternatives. The 

September 14, 2005 cooperating agency meeting included discussion of alternatives and the 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

internal BLM development of a Proposed Plan for the YFO DRMP/DEIS. The December 13 and 

14, 2005, cooperating agency meeting included discussions on Special Designations (potential 

ACECs and potential Back Country Byways) and an overview of Chapter 3 of the DRMP/DEIS. 

On January 12, 2006 YFO met with Reclamation to discuss issues related to agency jurisdictions 

and the Colorado River. February 22, 2006 was a review and comment session by cooperating 

agencies of the draft Chapter 2. 

The BLM has a national Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the USFWS to cooperate on 

Section 7 Consultation for the ESA. AGFD, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), and 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have a statewide MOU with BLM and would use 

this agreement to work collaboratively with the YFO. 

To date, the following entities have signed MOUs to serve as cooperating agencies for the YFO 

PRMP/FEIS. 

A. FEDERAL 

 Bureau of Reclamation Yuma Area Office & Lower Colorado Regional Office 

 Cibola NWR 

 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol 

 Imperial NWR 

 Kofa NWR 

 MCAS–Yuma 

 U.S. Army YPG 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDOA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA 

B. STATE 

 ADOT–State 

 ADOT–Yuma 

 AGFD 

C. LOCAL 

 City of Yuma 

 Town of Quartzsite 

 Wellton–Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD) 

 Yuma County Department of Public Works 

D. TRIBAL 

 Cocopah Indian Tribe 

 Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe 

 Yavapai–Apache Nation 

Page 1-20 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

1.6.2 CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES 

YFO initiated coordination and consultation with 30 Native American tribes and groups within 

Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Oklahoma with a letter dated June 17, 

2004. In the letter, YFO requested the opportunity to make a presentation on the RMP/EIS 

planning process at a Tribal council meeting or a community meeting. At this early stage in the 

planning process YFO staff met with representatives from three tribes: the Fort Yuma Quechan 

Tribe on August 31, 2004; Hualapai Tribe on August 16, 2005; and Tohono O’odham Nation on 

July 15, 2004. 

Twice during the planning process YFO invited all interested tribes to the YFO office to discuss 

the plan and to share input on the preliminary alternatives. The first meeting on December 9, 

2005, was attended by representatives from the Cocopah Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian 

Tribes, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, and Tohono O’odham Nation. The second 

meeting was on December 12, 2006, and was attended by representatives from the Hualapai 

Tribe, Yavapai–Prescott Tribe, Chemehuevi Tribe, and Cocopah Indian Tribe. 

Once the DRMP/DEIS was distributed for public comment on December 15, 2007, YFO staff 

telephoned each interested tribe to offer to meet at either their Tribal offices or at a central 

location. The purpose of these meetings was to provide Tribal representatives with an 

opportunity to ask questions about the DRMP/DEIS and to provide verbal input on the plan. At 

each meeting, YFO staff also shared a presentation that illustrated the differences between 

alternatives. During the public comment period, YFO met with representatives from the 

following tribes: 

 Cocopah Indian Tribe on February 27, 2007; 

 Colorado River Indian Tribes on February 20, 2007; 

 Fort Mojave Tribe on March 1, 2007; 

 Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe on February 12 and March 26, 2007; 

 Four Southern Tribes (Ak-Chin Indian Community, Gila River Indian Community, Salt 

River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and Tohono O’odham Nation) on March 16, 2007; 

 Hualapai Tribe on March 15, 2007; 

 Yavapai-Apache Nation on March 14, 2007; and 

 Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe on March 14, 2007. 

Because several of these meetings occurred around the end of the public comment period, YFO 

decided to extend the timeframe for comments from the tribes to April 30, 2007. Notification of 

this extension was sent to each tribe in a letter dated March 22, 2007. 

Documentation of all meetings, written correspondence, and other coordination with the tribes 

throughout this planning effort can be found in the administrative record. All tribes with an 

interest in the planning area were invited to join the planning process as a cooperating agency. 

The Cocopah, Fort Yuma Quechan, and Yavapai–Apache tribes have signed cooperating agency 

MOUs. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-21 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
1.0 Introduction 

1.7 RELATED PLANS 

Title II, Section 202 of FLPMA provides guidance for the BLM land use planning process to 

coordinate planning efforts with Native American tribes, other Federal departments, and 

agencies of State and local governments. To accomplish this directive, 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 FLPMA are 

echoed in Section 1610.3 of BLM Resource Management Planning regulations. In keeping with 

the provisions 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 YFO PRMP/FEIS planning efforts: 

 U.S. Department of the Air Force’s Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Barry M. 

Goldwater Range Integrated Natural Resource Plan (2006), 

 U.S. Army’s YPG Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (1995), 

 City of Yuma General Plan (2002), 

 Imperial County General Plan (1993), 

 La Paz County Comprehensive Plan (2005), 

 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (USDOI Reclamation et al. 

2004), 

 Maricopa County—Managing for Results Strategic Plan (2005), 

 Riverside County General Plan (2003), and 

 Yuma County Plan 2010 Comprehensive Plan (2006). 

1.8 VISION 

The vision of the YFO in constructing this PRMP/FEIS is to manage BLM-administered lands 

comprehensively to accomplish needs for all resource uses, while acting as stewards of the land 

and its valuable resources. The BLM sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of the public 

lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. YFO has considered the 

public’s needs and stakeholder values in the management programs of resources proposed in this 

PRMP/FEIS. 

Page 1-22 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

CHAPTER 2.0 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This EIS evaluates five resource management alternatives identified by the letters A, B, C, D, 

and E (the Proposed Plan). The No Action (Alternative A) represents the continuation of current 

management direction. The YFO developed the Action Alternatives B, C, and D with input from 

the public during scoping, from cooperating agencies, and from YFO resource specialists. Once 

developed, the YFO analyzed Alternatives A through D to predict their impacts on the 

environment. 

The YFO used the impacts analysis of Alternatives A through D, along with knowledge of 

specific issues raised throughout the planning process; recommendations from cooperating 

agencies and YFO resource specialists; consideration of planning criteria; and resolution of 

resource conflicts to select Alternative E, the Proposed Plan. Each alternative provides a 

different emphasis for managing public lands and resources within the planning area, and each 

Action Alternative represents a complete and reasonable LUP that meets the purpose and need 

described in Chapter 1. This chapter is organized by resource rather than by alternative, so that 

readers may more easily compare how proposed management under each of the alternatives may 

affect the resources under YFO’s administration. 

Following is a brief general description of each of the five alternatives. Detailed management 

prescriptions are presented under the applicable resource headings. 

 Alternative A (No Action) describes the continuation of the present management of the 

planning area and provides a baseline from which to identify potential environmental 

consequences when compared to the Action Alternatives. This alternative describes current 

resource and land management plan direction as represented in the Yuma District Resource 

Management Plan 1986 and 1987, as amended (1987 Yuma District RMP); Lower Gila South 

Resource Management Plan (1988), as amended; and Lower Gila North Management Plan

(1983), as amended. This alternative results in no revision to the existing plans. 

 Alternative B generally places an emphasis on consumer-driven uses and the widest array of 

uses, emphasizing recreation, mineral, and energy development. It identifies areas most 

appropriate for these various uses. It places a greater emphasis on developed and motorized 

recreation opportunities and less on remote settings and primitive recreation. 

 Alternative C provides visitors with opportunities to experience natural and cultural 

resource values of the planning area. It allows visitation and development within the planning 

area, while ensuring that resource protection is not compromised. It is generally managed 

with decisions that have a greater balance of multiple uses. Alternative C identifies a 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

combination of natural processes and active management techniques for resource and use 

management and it provides for both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. 

 Alternative D generally places emphasis on preservation of the planning area’s natural and 

cultural resources through limited public use and discontinuation of livestock grazing. It 

focuses on natural processes and other unobtrusive methods for natural resource use and 

management. It proposes greater opportunities for dispersed non-motorized recreation and 

fewer motorized and developed recreation opportunities. 

 Alternative E (Proposed Plan) reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM 

goals and policies, meet the Interdisciplinary Team purpose and need, address the planning 

issues, and consider the recommendations of cooperating agencies and YFO specialists. The 

Proposed Plan proposed actions would include but are not limited to management of 

recreation, wildlife, minerals, cultural resources, livestock grazing, land tenure, designation 

of ACECs, access to public lands, and other topics. 

Throughout this chapter, information is displayed at a broad overview level which then moves to 

the specific. The chapter is organized by resource, the presence or abundance of which may vary 

from location to location within the planning area. Land use plan decisions are presented in this 

PRMP/FEIS as proposals for each resource by alternative. They would become valid when one 

alternative is chosen and the ROD is signed. 

According to the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook, land use plan decisions are broad-scale 

decisions which guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific 

implementation decisions. Land use plan decisions identify specific areas of public land or 

mineral resources where certain uses or management actions are allowed, are excluded, or may 

be restricted in order to achieve a desired future condition or to protect certain resource values. 

Land use plan decisions fall into two categories: Desired Future Conditions (Goals and 

Objectives) and Management Actions (Allowable Uses) to achieve outcomes. They are described 

as follows. 

 Desired Future Conditions (Goals and Objectives) provide overarching direction for BLM 

actions in meeting the agency’s legal, regulatory, policy, and strategic requirements. Goals 

and objectives initially were identified during the first workshop and refined through 

subsequent collaboration with cooperating agencies. Goals are broad statements of desired 

outcome, but generally are not measurable. Objectives are more specific statements of a 

desired condition that may include a measurable component. Desired Future Conditions 

represent land or resource conditions that are expected to result if planning goals and 

objectives are fully achieved. 

 Management Actions (Allowable Uses) are anticipated to achieve the desired future 

conditions. Management Actions identify where land uses are allowed, restricted, or 

prohibited on all BLM-administered surface lands and Federal mineral estate in the planning 

area. Alternatives may include specific land use restrictions to meet desired future conditions 

and may exclude certain land uses to protect resource values. For example, alternatives 

considered for this PRMP/FEIS revision may open, close, or limit OHV access, allow or 

prohibit firewood collection, or make certain lands available for livestock grazing. Because 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

the alternatives identify whether particular land uses are allowed, restricted, or prohibited, 

Management Actions often include a spatial (e.g., map) component. 

For each resource in the chapter, additional guidance is presented in the form of Administrative 

Actions. At the back of the chapter, BMPs are described by resource for implementation 

decisions which may take place throughout the life of the plan. Administrative Actions and 

Implementation Decisions are described as follows. 

 Administrative Actions are not RMP-level decisions. However, they are day-to-day 

activities conducted by BLM often required by FLPMA that to be accomplished do not 

require a NEPA analysis or a decision by a responsible official. Examples of Administrative 

Actions include mapping, surveying, inventorying, monitoring, collecting needed 

information such as research and studies, and completing project-specific or implementationlevel plans. Administrative Actions are included in this PRMP/FEIS because they guide 

future programs and budget planning. 

 Implementation Decisions generally constitute the BLM’s final approval allowing on-theground actions to proceed. Included at the end of the chapter are BMPs which provide a 

framework for implementation decisions. These types of decisions require site-specific 

planning and NEPA analysis. They may be incorporated into implementation plans (activity 

or project plans) or may exist as stand-alone decisions. At this time YFO has not identified 

specific implementation-level decisions within this PRMP/FEIS. 

2.2 LAND HEALTH STANDARDS 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (Standards 

and Guidelines) were developed, pursuant to 43 CFR 4180, through a collaborative process 

involving BLM staff and the Arizona BLM Resource Advisory Council and were approved by 

the Secretary of the Interior in April of 1997. The Standards and Guidelines have been developed 

to identify the characteristics of healthy ecosystems on public lands and the management actions 

that promote them. When approved, the Standards and Guidelines became Arizona BLM policy, 

guiding the planning for and management of BLM-administered lands. Arizona Standards and 

Guidelines, therefore, have been incorporated into this RMP. The following Arizona BLM 

Standards for Rangeland Health describe the conditions necessary to encourage proper 

functioning of ecological processes and are adopted as Land Health Standards that are applicable 

to Arizona BLM program-wide. The Guidelines for Grazing Administration are a series of 

management practices used to ensure that grazing activities meet the Standards. These 

Guidelines are incorporated into the RMP in the Livestock Grazing Management, Management 

Actions/Prescriptions section. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

2.2.1 STANDARD 1: UPLAND SITES 

Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to soil type, 

climate and landform (ecological 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 proper 

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, as indicated by the factors below, are minimal or diminishing 

for the ecological site as determined by monitoring over an established period of time. 

o Ground cover 

o Litter 

o Live vegetation, amount and type (e.g., grass, shrubs, trees) 

o Rock 

o Signs of erosion 

o Flow pattern 

o Gullies 

o Rills 

o Plant pedestaling 

 Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable): None. 

2.2.2 STANDARD 2: RIPARIAN–WETLAND SITES 

Riparian–wetland areas are in properly functioning 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 condition 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. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 The checklist for riparian areas is in 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 Condition for Lentic Riparian–Wetland 

Areas.” The checklists include the factors listed below. 

o Gradient 

o Width/depth ratio 

o Channel roughness and sinuosity of stream channel 

o Bank stabilization 

o Reduced erosion 

o Captured sediment 

o Ground water recharge 

o Dissipation of energy by vegetation 

 Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable): 

o 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, and 

o Water impoundments permitted for construction, mining, or other similar activities are 

exempt. 

2.2.3 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, 

FLPMA, ESA, Clean Water Act, and appropriate laws, regulations, and policies. 

 Desired plant community objectives would 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, would assure rangeland health, State water quality 

standards, and habitat for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. Thus, desired plant 

community objectives, as listed below, would be used as indicators of ecosystem function 

and rangeland health. 

o Composition 

o Structure 

o Distribution 

 Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable) 

o Ecological sites or stream reaches on which a change in existing vegetation is physically, 

biologically, or economically impractical. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-6 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

2.3 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS MANAGEMENT 

Special designations in BLM land use planning include designated Wilderness, National Historic 

Trails (NHTs), National Recreation Trails (NRTs), National Byways, and ACECs (Maps 2-1a 

through 2-1e). The planning area’s special designations by alternative are shown below in 

Table 2-1. 

Table 2-1 

Special Designations by Alternative 

Alternative 

Special Designation A B C D E 

Designated Wilderness (BLM acres) 

Big Maria Mountains (CA) 1,600 

Eagletail Mountains (AZ) 98,600 

Little Picacho (CA) 2,900 

Muggins Mountains (AZ) 7,700 

New Water Mountains (AZ) 24,700 

Palo Verde Mountains (CA) 800 

Riverside Mountains (CA) 1,100 

Trigo Mountains (AZ) 30,400 

Total Acres 167,800 

National Historic Trail (total miles) 

Juan Bautista de Anza 111 111 111 111 111 

National Recreation Trail (total miles) 

Betty’s Kitchen 0.5 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

National Byways (total miles) 

 Back Country Byways 

Agua Caliente 0 11 11 0 11 

Brenda 0 21 21 0 0 

Clanton Hills 0 52 0 0 0 

Gold Nugget 0 34 34 0 0 

Plomosa 0 10 10 0 10 

Red Cloud 0 53 0 0 0 

Red Raven 0 39 0 0 0 

Total Miles 0 220 76 0 21 

 Scenic Byway 

Highway 95 0 0 64 0 64 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (total acres) 

Big Marias 4,500 4,500 4,500 9,200 4,500 

Dripping Springs 0 0 11,700 9,800 11,700 

Gila River Terraces & Trails 0 0 0 140,400 0 

Limitrophe 0 CMA SCRMA 4,500 CMA 

Palomas Plain 0 WHA WHA 429,900 WHA 

Sears Point 3,700 3,700 28,500 28,500 28,500 

Walters Camp 0 0 SCRMA 4,500 SCRMA 

Total Acres 8,200 8,200 44,700 626,800 44,700 

CA = California; AZ = Arizona; ACEC = Area of Critical Environmental Concern; CMA = Coordinated Management Area; SCRMA = Special Cultural Resource Management Area; WHA = Wildlife Habitat Management Area 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

2.3.1 NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM 

In June 2000, the BLM responded to growing concern over the loss of open space by creating the 

National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). The NLCS brings into a single system some 

of the BLM's premier designations. By putting these lands into an organized system, the BLM 

hopes to increase public awareness of these areas’ scientific, cultural, educational, ecological, 

and other values. Inclusion in the NLCS does not create any new legal protections for these 

lands, but it does provide field offices with overall guidance and direction for management of the 

system. Components of the NLCS include National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, 

Wilderness Areas, WSAs, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Historic and Scenic Trails. 

Wilderness Areas and a NHT are the only components present of the NLCS within the YFO. 

A. DESIGNATED WILDERNESS 

The BLM, Forest Service, National Park Service (NPS), and USFWS all manage Congressionally Designated Wilderness as a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. There 

are 167,800 acres of designated Wilderness in the planning area (alternatives Maps 2-1a through 

2-1e). Wilderness is managed according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, 78 

Stat. 890), the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990, California Desert Protection Act of 1994, 

regulations for Wilderness management at 43 CFR 6300, BLM Manuals 8560 and 8561, BLM 

Handbook H-8560-1, and Wilderness Management Plans. This RMP would not address reducing 

or eliminating existing designated Wilderness Areas, changing existing Wilderness Area 

boundaries, or allowing motorized vehicles or other use of mechanical transportation in any 

Wilderness Areas not already authorized. Only Congress can change the boundaries of 

designated Wilderness Areas. 

YFO manages four Wilderness Areas in Arizona and shares management with the BLM 

California Desert District on four Wilderness Areas in California. The Little Picacho and Palo 

Verde Mountains Wilderness Areas are managed with the El Centro Field Office; Big Maria 

Mountains and Riverside Mountains Wilderness Areas are managed with the Palm Springs/South 

Coast Field Office. 

Management provisions for these areas are: 

 BLM would classify all Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas as VRM Class I; 

 Wilderness Areas were withdrawn from mineral entry under the Arizona Desert Wilderness 

Act of 1990 and California Desert Protection Act of 1994; and 

 Under the Wilderness Act of 1964, no motor vehicles, motorized equipment or other form of 

mechanical transport are permitted in Wilderness Areas. 

Guidance for the application of special provisions permitted by the Wilderness Act and 

subsequent laws would be provided by the following plans: 

 Muggins Mountains Wilderness Management Plan; 

 Eagletail Mountains Wilderness Management Plan; 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-8 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Kofa New Water Mountains Wilderness Management Plan; and 

 Trigo Mountains Wilderness Management Plan (in progress). 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Provide for the long-term protection and preservation of the designated area’s wilderness 

character under the principle of non-degradation. Wilderness Areas’ naturalness and 

untrammeled condition, opportunities for solitude, opportunities for primitive and unconfined 

types of recreation, and any ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, 

educational, scenic, or historic value would be managed so that they remain unimpaired. 

 Manage uses permitted by the Wilderness Act’s special provisions and subsequent laws in a 

manner that would prevent undue degradation of the area’s wilderness character. In 

managing these uses, emphasis would be placed on maintaining wilderness character. 

 Accommodate the traditional or sacred uses that may be identified in the future by Native 

American tribes who traditionally used the Wilderness Areas. 

Management Actions 

 Continue management of 167,800 acres of Congressionally Designated Wilderness under all 

alternatives. 

 Delineate base camps and install the appropriate facilities adjacent to Wilderness boundaries 

to accommodate equestrian use and hunting groups. 

 Within the Eagletail Mountains Wilderness, prohibit recreational equestrian use within one 

quarter mile of Indian Springs to prevent impacts to wildlife habitat and cultural resource 

values. At equestrian trailheads, promote low-impact hitching methods that the public can 

use prior to entering the Indian Springs area. 

 Limit equestrian use authorized by SRPs to pre-selected trails on a case-by-case basis. 

Administrative Actions 

 Coordinate with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to consider using horses or other noninvasive means of travel if patrols are needed within Wilderness. 

 Complete a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide analysis prior to all non-emergency 

actions within Wilderness. 

 Arizona BLM would continue to coordinate with California BLM on the portions of four 

California Wilderness Areas administered by YFO. 

B. NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL 

The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (Anza Trail) extends from Mexico to 

California for a total length of approximately 1,200 miles in the U.S. (Maps 2-1a through 2-1e). 

Congress designated this trail through Public Law 101-365 in 1990. The Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Comprehensive Management and Use Plan - Juan Bautista de Anza National 

Historic Trail, Arizona and California (1996) authorizes the NPS to provide oversight for 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

coordinated management of the trail. The Anza Trail is currently defined as a one-mile-wide 

corridor. Approximately 111 miles of the trail corridor are within the planning area and 

approximately 21 miles of the trail corridor are located on BLM-administered land. Proposed 

actions would require extensive coordination and partnerships, as these BLM-administered lands 

are not contiguous within the designated corridor. Establishing an operational trail for 

recreational use within the designated corridor would remain common to all alternatives. The 

National Trail System Act of 1992 provides that connecting or side trails may be established and 

designated as components of a NHT. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Accommodate increased recreational use of the trail while providing for resource protection 

and public education regarding the route’s cultural, historical, and natural resource values. 

 Provide adjacent communities with convenient opportunities to exercise and improve their 

physical fitness at the multiple-use recreational Anza Trail. 

 Provide recreational trail connectivity along the Anza Trail through the planning area to both 

the BLM El Centro and Lower Sonoran Field Offices. 

 Management activities along Anza Trail would be conducted to assure that no adverse 

impacts occur to those resources and values identified in the legislation designating the trail. 

Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

 Reduce hazardous fuels and non-native invasive species along the Anza Trail. 

 Designate portions of the Anza Trail through BLM-administered lands for motorized and 

non-motorized recreation as appropriate. 

 Upon designation of motorized portions of the Anza Trail, use of motor vehicles would be 

limited to the designated NHT only and would not be allowed to drive 100 feet from the 

centerline of the route. Motorized use shall remain within the route with reasonable use of the 

shoulder and immediate roadside for vehicle passage, parking/overnight camping, and 

emergency stopping. 

 Install NHT signs and interpretive materials in conformance with the NPS Anza Trail 

Management Plan. 

Administrative Actions 

 Manage the Anza Trail consistently with the NPS Anza Trail Management Plan and in 

cooperation with the NPS to the extent practicable. 

 Work with interested stakeholders to identify the appropriate locations of a recreational Anza 

Trail and its associated trailheads and campsites. 

 Nominate the designated Anza Trail for inclusion in the Arizona State Parks Trail System. 

 Work with interested stakeholders to secure legal public access to the Anza Trail and its 

associated trailheads. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-10 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Support the development of an MOU and/or cooperative agreements with interested 

stakeholders to develop, manage, maintain, and monitor the Anza Trail and its associated 

facilities within the YFO. 

 Monitor the operational trail to identify and mitigate impacts to sensitive cultural resources at 

risk along the trail corridor. 

2.3.2 NATIONAL RECREATION TRAIL 

The existing one-half mile Betty’s Kitchen NRT (Maps 2-1a through 2-1e) is managed by YFO. 

This trail would be carried forward under all alternatives. YFO proposes a trail extension under 

Alternative B that would head northward approximately five miles toward a point south of the 

Hidden Shores Recreational Vehicle (RV) Village BLM concession lease. Options to extend the 

trail would be addressed in cooperation with AGFD when a revision to the Mittry Lake Wildlife 

Area Management Plan is done. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Provide universal accessibility on the existing portion of the Betty’s Kitchen NRT. 

 Ensure that any NRT extension proposed under the alternatives accommodates hiking, 

bicycling, and equestrian use. 

Management Actions 

 Develop and construct a 5.0-mile extension under Alternative B. 

 Continue management of an existing 0.5-mile trail under Alternatives A, C, D, and the 

Proposed Plan. 

 Install and maintain interpretive signs along the existing and extended NRT, as needed. 

Administrative Actions 

 Any trail extension would be developed and constructed in accordance with NRT standards 

in coordination with AGFD and Reclamation as funding and labor become available. 

 Continue to provide environmental education and interpretation opportunities related to 

recreation and wildlife. 

2.3.3 NATIONAL BYWAYS 

The National Byways program was established by the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT)/ FHWA under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and 

reauthorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century in 2003. The BLM Back 

Country Byway system is a component of the National Byway System. BLM can nominate 

National Scenic Byways, but the nominations must be submitted and approved by State 

government before they are eligible for consideration by the Secretary of Transportation. BLM 

Back Country and Scenic Byway designations are approved by the State Director within the 

parameters established for the State byway program. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

The alternatives identify one proposed National Scenic Byway and one to seven proposed Back 

Country Byways, which vary by alternative (Maps 2-1a through 2-1e). Coordination would occur 

with adjacent BLM field offices, and RODs would be coordinated prior to signing. 

To be eligible for designation, a road must meet criteria for at least one of six intrinsic qualities 

which are considered unique, irreplaceable, or distinctly characteristic of an area: scenic, historic, 

recreational, cultural, archaeological, and/or natural qualities. The National Scenic Byways 

Discretionary Grants program provides funding for byway-related preservation projects annually 

as part of the FHWA Discretionary Grants Program. The planning area currently has no byways 

as defined by BLM Handbook H-8357-1. 

The four types of Back Country Byways are described below based on the characteristics of the 

roads. 

 Type I. Roads which can accommodate normal touring cars. These roads are paved or have 

an all-weather surface and have grades that are negotiable by a normal touring car. These 

roads are usually narrow, slow speed, secondary roads. 

 Type II. Roads which require high-clearance-type vehicles. These roads are usually not 

paved, but may have some type of surfacing. Grades, curves, and road surface are such that 

they can be negotiated with a two-wheel drive high-clearance vehicle without undue 

difficulty. 

 Type III. Roads which require four-wheel-drive vehicles or other specialized vehicles such as 

dirt bikes and OHVs. These roads are usually not surfaced. However, the roads are 

maintained for safety and resource protection purposes. They have grades, tread surfaces, and 

other characteristics that require specialized vehicles to negotiate. 

 Type IV. Trails that are managed to accommodate dirt bike, mountain bike, snowmobile, or 

OHV use. They are usually single-track trails. 

Further details on prescribed recreation settings and VRM classifications along proposed byways 

are found in the Recreation and VRM sections of this chapter. Additional details of proposed 

National Scenic Byway and Back Country Byways are shown in Table 2-2. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Byways expose visitors to local recreation opportunities and various multiple-use 

management programs, and interpret natural, cultural, geological, and scenic features. 

 Provide interconnectivity between local communities and a working partnership for regional 

development of eco- and recreational tourism. 

 Provide for public safety by communicating to the public the type of vehicle needed to safely 

travel on each byway. 

 Promote sustainable outdoor ethics along the byways to educate the OHV community on 

how to reduce potential impacts to natural and cultural resources. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-12 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Table 2-2 

Proposed National Scenic Byway and Back Country Byways 

Alternative 

Name 

Outstanding Resources or 

Destination 

Byway 

Length 

(total miles) Type A B C D E 

National Scenic Byway 

Highway 95 • Views of Castle Dome, 

Chocolate, Laguna, and Gila 

Mountains 

• Information on the differing 

missions of BLM, Kofa NWR, 

and YPG along the route 

• Connectivity of major winter 

visitor destinations 

• Horse and burro viewing 

64 Paved road X X 

National Back Country Byways

Agua Caliente • Wildlife habitat 

• Views of Gila Bend Mountains 

• Geologic features (lava flows 

and cinder cones) 

• Prehistoric and historic sites 

11 Type II X X X 

Brenda • Views of New Water Mountains 

• Wildlife viewing 

• Geologic features 

• Unique vegetation 

21 Type III X X 

Clanton Hills • Views of Eagletail Mountains 

• Wildlife viewing 

• Unique vegetation 

52 Type III X 

Gold Nugget • Views of New Water Mountains 

• Connectivity to proposed 

Plomosa Back Country Byway 

and proposed Highway 95 

Scenic Byway 

34 Type III X X 

Plomosa • Adjacent public use cultural site 

• Views of Plomosa Mountains 

• Values of and connection to 

Lake Havasu Field Office Back 

Country Byway nomination 

10 Type I X X X 

Red Cloud • Views of Yuma Wash, Imperial 

NWR, Trigo Mountains, Cibola 

NWR, Cibola Lake, Martinez 

Lake, Fishers Landing 

• Burro viewing 

• Historic mining 

53 

Segment I 

Highway 95 to 

Imperial NWR 

headquarters turn 

off is Type I; 

Segment 2 Imperial 

Refuge to Oxbow 

is Type III. 

X 

Red Raven • Views of Eagletail Mountains 

• Wildlife viewing 

• Unique vegetation 

39 Type III X 

BLM = Bureau of Land Management; NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; YPG = Yuma Proving Ground 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Manage the byways in partnership that would address the public demand for OHV 

experiences in a sustainable manner. 

 Focus OHV travel into corridors that YFO and its byway partners would be capable of 

managing. 

 Maintain the long-term scenic quality on BLM-administered lands within the view shed of 

the byways through application of the BLM VRM system. 

 Byway plans would strive to minimize impacts to wildlife and would provide appropriate 

wildlife viewing opportunities. 

Management Actions 

 Designate the 11-mile Agua Caliente, 21-mile Brenda, 52-mile Clanton Hills, 34-mile Gold 

Nugget, 10-mile Plomosa, 53-mile Red Cloud, and 39-mile Red Raven Back Country 

Byways under Alternative B. 

 Designate the 64-mile Highway 95 Scenic Byway, the 11-mile Agua Caliente, 21-mile 

Brenda, 34-mile Gold Nugget, and 10-mile Plomosa Back Country Byways under 

Alternative C. 

 Designate the 64-mile Highway 95 Scenic Byway, the 10-mile Plomosa Back Country 

Byway, and the 11-mile Agua Caliente Back Country Byway under the Proposed Plan. 

 Upon completion of the nomination process and final approval, a management plan would be 

developed for each Back Country Byway with cooperating partners. Ensure that the 

following issues are addressed in the byway management plans: 

o Prevent habitat fragmentation by maintaining Type III and IV byway segments within 

their existing classification and do not upgrade them by means of widening, grading, 

paving, or surfacing; 

o Install speed limit, directional, vehicle safety, and interpretive signs to enhance public 

use, enjoyment, and stewardship of byways; 

o Install byway facilities outside of allocated Wildlife Habitat Management Areas (WHAs); 

o Manage for compatibility between minerals and energy development including ROWs, 

leases, and permits and other resource uses; 

o Coordinate with byway partners to ensure legal public access to and along proposed 

routes; 

o Maintain road conditions in a manner to protect and maintain air quality; 

o Restore recreational surface disturbances adjacent to byways to deter route proliferation; 

o Coordinate with the AGFD to implement temporary byway closures within WHAs 

through adaptive management in order to reduce the potential impacts to sensitive 

wildlife species; 

o If high visitor use is adversely impacting wildlife or other resources, byway use may be 

limited through issuing permits or other means; and 

o Identification of cultural resources that might be affected by byways would be conducted 

in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and the guidelines specified in BLM AZ 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-14 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

IM-2006-043, Section 106 Compliance for Designating Off-Highway Vehicle Routes and 

Areas in Land Use Plans. 

Administrative Actions 

 Prior to the Back Country Byway nomination process, complete locale-specific visitor use 

and potential resource impact studies to determine if byway designation is appropriate. 

 Follow the nomination and designation process outlined within BLM H-8357-1-Byways by 

partnering with interested agencies and organizations. 

 Manage byways for compatibility with the prescribed recreation settings, mining, and other 

resource uses. 

 Develop maps and brochures of the byways. 

 Continuously coordinate with the AGFD to develop limits of acceptable change for resources 

and road conditions within byway corridors. Monitor for increases in byway width, sensitive 

cultural resources, and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat, and negative 

effects to wildlife populations adjacent to byway corridors. If impacts exceed limits of 

acceptable change, Management Actions would be implemented to reduce resource impacts 

accordingly. This could include reducing or eliminating use of the byway, until a historic 

treatment plan is developed and implemented. 

 For the Plomosa and Agua Caliente proposed byways, Lake Havasu and Lower Sonoran 

Field Offices would lead nomination, implementation, management, and partnerships. 

2.3.4 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

YFO is evaluating five proposed ACECs and the expansion of two existing ACECs under 

various alternatives in this PRMP/FEIS (Maps 2-1a through 2-1e). The guidance for ACEC 

management is included in FLPMA and states that Federal agencies are directed to protect and 

conserve ecosystems in need of “special management attention” by designating them as “areas of 

critical environmental concern” in their land use planning process (FLPMA 43 U.S.C. § 1702 

[a]). ACECs must meet the relevance and importance criteria in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b) and must 

require special management (43 CFR 1601.0-5[a]) to: 

 Protect the area and prevent irreparable damage to resources or natural systems, or 

 Protect life and promote safety in areas where natural hazards exist. 

Areas qualifying for consideration as ACECs must have substantial significance and value 

including qualities of more than local significance and special worth, consequence, meaning, 

distinctiveness, or cause for concern. The values for which ACECs are designated are considered 

the highest and best use for those lands, and protection of those values would take precedence 

over multiple uses. An ACEC Evaluation Report can be found in Appendix 2-A which clarifies 

special management attention needed for each area proposed as an ACEC under the Proposed 

Plan. Appendix 2-A also describes other management prescriptions which would provide 

adequate resource protection for areas not proposed as ACECs in the Proposed Plan. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Desired Future Conditions Common to All ACECs 

 Provide protection for special status species, wildlife, scenic, riparian, and significant cultural 

resource values. Maintain the viewsheds and landscape character of ACECs to the extent 

practicable through the BLM’s VRM system. 

 Vegetation diversity would be maintained in accordance with ecological site description 

guides (USDOA NRCS 2005). 

 Manage OHV access in a manner which does not damage important cultural resources and 

wildlife habitat. 

Management Actions Common to All ACECs 

 New land use authorizations would be discouraged within ACECs and only authorized when 

it is necessary for resource protection and/or when no reasonable alternative exists. 

 Protection of resource values would take precedence over leasable/locatable materials. If an 

area is not withdrawn from mineral entry, special mitigation would be required to avoid 

impacts to resources. All locatable mineral actions would require an approved Mining Plan of 

Operations in accordance with BLM Manual 3809 regulations. Leasable mineral exploration 

and development would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

 New mineral material disposal (salable mineral) sites would not be authorized. Existing 

material sites would be evaluated and closed, if found to be impacting significant resources. 

 Treatment for hazardous fuels reduction and non-native invasive species would be allowed. 

These treatments would be carried out in a manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to 

important resources. 

 Grazing for commercial purposes would not be allowed within designated ACECs. 

 Prohibit new routes within the proposed ACECs except as needed to manage and interpret 

resources or as required by law, such as access to valid mining claims or private property. 

 OHV travel would be limited to existing inventoried routes, until future route evaluation and 

designation is complete within the ACEC. Upon designation of motorized routes within 

ACECs, use of motor vehicles would be limited to the designated routes only and would not 

be allowed to drive 100 feet from the centerline of the route. Motorized use shall remain 

within the route with reasonable use of the shoulder and immediate roadside for vehicle 

passage, parking/overnight camping, and emergency stopping. 

 Limit equestrian use to existing inventoried routes within ACECs until the route designation 

process is complete. If determined necessary, designate equestrian trails and install 

equestrian trailhead facilities to reduce user and resource conflicts. Limit equestrian use to 

these trails once they have been designated. 

 Install interpretation to increase public awareness of resource sensitivity, promote public 

stewardship, and reduce inadvertent damage to important resources. 

 Implement protection measures to stop, limit, or repair damage to cultural resource sites. A 

variety of protection measures described in BLM Manual 8140 may be used to protect the 

integrity of sites at risk, such as signs, fencing or barriers, trash removal, target shooting 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-16 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

closures, erosion control, backfilling, repairing, shoring up, or stabilizing structures, 

restricting uses, access, and closures. 

 Establish Supplementary Rules to enforce any restrictions within ACECs according to the 

guidelines set forth in 43 CFR 8365.1-6. 

Administrative Actions Common to All ACECs 

 Work collaboratively with stakeholders for coordinated management purposes. 

 Provide opportunities for participation in interpretation by Native Americans and other 

interested entities. 

 Issue SRPs for public use of the ACEC on a case-by-case basis, when it is determined that 

adverse impacts can be avoided. 

 The YFO would retain the ACEC in public ownership and seek to acquire non-Federal lands 

and interests in lands within the ACECs from willing sellers by purchase, exchange, or 

donation. Acquisitions would include surface and subsurface rights, and water rights 

whenever possible. Future acquisitions of inholdings and edgeholdings would be managed in 

accordance with the designated ACEC. 

 Horseback riders would be encouraged to use weed-free hay and use feed buckets. (Refer to 

Management Actions in the Section 2.5.5 Vegetation Management, Invasive Species). 

 Inventory, document, monitor, and protect cultural resources of importance and relevant 

features prior to developing interpretation programs in order to preserve the future integrity 

of the site prior to public use. 

 Monitor resources within the ACECs to detect change and prevent future deterioration. 

 Ensure that commercial tour operators provide appropriate educational information on 

archaeological site etiquette and resource conservation to their customers. Tour operators 

would be required to report any vandalism or damage to sites. 

 Monitor and maintain designated recreational trails to reduce trail use, proliferation, and 

damage to resources within ACECs. 

A. BIG MARIAS ACEC 

The Big Marias ACEC, located about 12 miles north of Blythe, California, was designated in the 

1987 Yuma District RMP (Map 2-1e-1). The relevance and importance for this ACEC includes a 

high concentration of nationally significant intaglio features; a density of other archaeological 

features including petroglyphs, pictographs, trail networks, campsites, and artifact scatters; the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed Blythe Intaglios site; and the presence of 

sensitive plant species. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Promote the Blythe Intaglios Complex as a heritage tourism destination to enhance public 

understanding and appreciation. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Improve interpretation design and protection measures at the Blythe Intaglios Complex in 

coordination with interested partners. 

 Protect and conserve the important cultural resource sites contained within the ACEC, 

including the many rare intaglio features that are situated on the desert pavement covered 

terraces above the Colorado River. 

Management Actions 

 Under Alternatives A, B, C, and the Proposed Plan, continue management of the existing 

4,500 acres of the Big Marias ACEC. 

 Under Alternative D, expand the existing 4,500-acre Big Marias ACEC to encompass 9,200 

acres. 

 Close the ACEC to all vegetative product sales. 

 In the event that Reclamation relinquishes their second form withdrawal in the Big Marias 

ACEC, YFO would propose to withdraw 2,900 acres of the ACEC from mineral entry under 

Alternatives A, D, and the Proposed Plan. The withdrawal would be subject to all existing 

rights. 

 Allow no leasable mineral development surface occupancy within the ACEC to protect 

cultural resources. 

 Allow construction, maintenance, and improvement of existing or new hiking trails, barriers, 

and signs as necessary. 

 Limit parking within the Blythe Intaglios Complex to designated areas. 

 Install and maintain interpretive materials at main points of access and interest within 2,900 

acres of the ACEC (see Map 2-1e-1). Interpretive locations include but are not limited to 

parking areas, hiking trails, and cultural resource sites. 

 Limit 2,900 acres of the Big Marias ACEC to day-use only (see Map 2-1e-1). 

 Restrict any additional communications facilities to the currently authorized Big Maria 

Communications Site boundaries. 

 Restrict utilities, to the extent practical, to the Highway 95 corridor. 

 Require visitors to stay on the designated interpretive hiking trails inside the Blythe Intaglio 

Complex. 

 Prohibit collection of dead, downed, and detached firewood and vegetative materials within 

2,900 acres of the ACEC (see Map 2-1e-1). 

Administrative Actions 

 Develop an interpretive plan for the Blythe Intaglios Complex in coordination with interested 

partners. 

 Develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan for the ACEC that addresses appropriate 

monitoring and protection measures for each known intaglio feature. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-18 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Coordinate any modifications or amendments to designated routes with the California Desert 

District. 

 Consider constructing platforms for visitors to view fenced intaglio areas that are allocated to 

public use. 

 Authorize no new routes within the ACEC, unless they are the only feasible access to private 

land. 

B. DRIPPING SPRINGS ACEC 

The relevance and importance of the Dripping Springs ACEC includes a perennial water source, 

desert bighorn sheep habitat, an important petroglyph site, and the remains of several historic 

stone structures (Map 2-1e-2). A 640-acre area around the spring is proposed as a core area for 

management purposes described below. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Balance public use and interpretation of the proposed ACEC with the conservation of the 

many relevant and important resource values of the area. 

Management Actions 

 Designate the 11,700-acre Dripping Springs ACEC under Alternative C and the Proposed 

Plan. 

 Designate the 9,800-acre Dripping Springs ACEC under Alternative D. 

 Under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan, withdraw the 640-acre core area (rounded to 

600 acres) from mineral entry (see Map 2-1e-2). The proposed withdrawal would not affect 

valid existing mining claims. 

 Designate a Closed OHV Management Area within 440 acres of the core area. 

 Limit 440 acres of the core area to day-use only. 

 Except for prior existing rights, surface occupancy for discretionary actions, including but 

not limited to oil and gas leases, mineral material disposals, and ROWs, would not be 

authorized inside the 640-acre core area. Surface occupancy for discretionary actions within 

the ACEC but outside of the core area would be avoided to the extent practicable. Installation 

of facilities to protect, interpret, or manage ACEC resource values would be allowed within 

the entire ACEC, including the core area. 

 Prohibit new routes within the proposed ACEC, except as needed to manage and interpret 

resources or as required by law, such as for access to valid existing mining claims or private 

property. 

 Establish a parking area at both the north and south sides of the proposed ACEC. Install postand-cable or other barriers as needed to manage access. 

 Install and maintain interpretive materials at main points of access and interest. Interpretive 

locations include, but are not limited to, parking areas, hiking trails, the spring, historic 

structures, and petroglyph concentrations. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Close the proposed ACEC to all vegetative product sales. 

 Close the proposed 640-acre core area around the spring to public use during extreme or 

severe drought conditions to protect desert bighorn sheep populations, as recommended by 

AGFD. 

 Prohibit wood collection inside the proposed ACEC boundaries. 

 Construct, maintain, and improve designated hiking trails as necessary. 

 Develop an interpretive hiking trail in the vicinity of the spring. Require visitors to stay on 

this trail when visiting the area surrounding the spring. 

Administrative Actions 

 Create a detailed map of the interpretive area that shows locations of interpretive and 

informational signage, protection measures, and the interpretive hiking trail in relation to the 

natural and cultural resource features. 

 Develop an interpretive plan for the area around the spring in coordination with interested 

partners. 

 Discourage new routes within the proposed ACEC, except as needed to manage and interpret 

resources or as required by law, such as access to valid existing mining claims or private 

property. 

C. GILA RIVER TERRACES AND TRAILS ACEC 

The proposed Gila River Terraces and Trails ACEC includes public lands along the Gila River 

which were the location of the Gila Trail, Butterfield Overland Stage Route, Anza Trail, 

Southern Overland Trail, and Mormon Battalion Trail. The proposed ACEC would also 

encompass the Sears Point ACEC, Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt Vegetation Habitat Management 

Area (VHA), and upland river terraces which contain prolific cultural resources. This area would 

adjoin with the proposed Gila River Terraces and Southern Trail Cultural Resource ACEC 

within the BLM Lower Sonoran Field Office (Phoenix District) DRMP/DEIS. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain properly functioning riparian areas that provide habitat for neotropical and game 

birds, and other wildlife. 

 Ensure that significant cultural resources are available for appropriate uses by present and 

future generations. 

 Ensure historic trail corridors are accessible for cultural and historical interpretation and 

visitation. 

 Restore or rehabilitate riparian habitat along the Gila River to meet habitat requirements for 

breeding and migratory birds. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-20 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Management Actions 

 Designate the 140,400-acre Gila River Terraces and Trails ACEC under Alternative D. 

 Sign trails according to NPS standards, in a manner consistent with the Anza Trail NPS 

Management Plan. 

 Implement Management Actions for Anza Trail as outlined in Section 2.3.2 

Administrative Actions 

 Work with stakeholders to write a management plan for the ACEC. 

D. LIMITROPHE ACEC 

The Limitrophe ACEC name refers to the Limitrophe Division of the lower Colorado River, 

which is a riverine corridor extending from the Northerly International Boundary (1.1 miles 

north of Morelos Dam) downriver to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico at San 

Luis, Arizona. The Limitrophe area forms the International Boundary, both sides of which 

contain significant natural resource values, traditional values for local Native Americans, and 

conditions that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy concerns about safety and public welfare. 

The Limitrophe was analyzed as a Coordinated Management Area (CMA) under Alternative B 

and the Proposed Plan for 4,500 acres, and a SCRMA under Alternative C for 4,500 acres. The 

relevance and importance of this ACEC includes neotropical migratory bird habitat, endangered 

species habitat, riparian values, traditional use values, proximity to the International Border, 

hunting and fishing opportunities, and public health and safety concerns. 

The area is a focal point of several U.S. agencies. For example, the United States section, 

International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) is proposing to physically mark the 

boundary, may possibly develop a pilot channel, and is responsible for treaty agreements with 

Mexico. Reclamation is responsible for the Colorado River water delivery and maintenance of 

some of the structures, such as canals, in the proposed ACEC. A recently signed MOU among 

U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, USDOI, and USDOA regarding cooperation on Federal 

lands along the U.S. borders explains some of the interrelationships between these agencies 

operating along the border (USDOI BLM 2006a). 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Balance public health and safety issues (resulting from illegal immigration, diversionary fires 

and litter, and general criminal activity) with resource protection and appropriate recreation 

opportunities, while considering diverse agency constraints. 

 Protect and maintain riparian habitat and marsh vegetation to retain biological diversity and 

enhance potential habitat to support neotropical migratory birds, special status species, and 

other wildlife. 

 Protect and maintain the characteristics of the Limitrophe area that have been identified by 

Native American tribes as important for traditional use. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-21 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Provide for use of and access to sacred sites and other places of traditional cultural 

importance by Native American tribes, when such places are identified through governmentto-government consultation. 

Management Actions 

 Designate the Limitrophe ACEC under Alternative D for a total 4,500 acres. 

 Prepare an ACEC management plan in cooperation with stakeholders upon designation. 

 Allow no surface occupancy for leasable minerals. 

 BLM would retain jurisdictional authority for the management of BLM-administered lands. 

Administrative Actions 

 Work collaboratively with interested stakeholders for coordinated management purposes. 

 Remove litter and illegal dumping as funding and personnel allow. 

E. PALOMAS PLAIN ACEC 

The proposed Palomas Plain ACEC is considered to be the largest contiguous area of public land 

within the planning area and would be designated for its extensive natural resource values. The 

BLM Lower Sonoran Field Office (Phoenix District) proposed an adjacent 265,400-acre area as 

the Gila Bend Mountains WHA. The Palomas Plain ACEC was analyzed as a WHA under 

Alternatives B and C (704,800 acres), and the Proposed Plan (627,700 acres). The relevance and 

importance of this ACEC includes unfragmented wildlife habitat, big game, plant community 

values, and Sonoran Desert tortoise habitat. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain a balance between the undeveloped nature and character of land, while providing 

for undeveloped recreational opportunities and wildlife management actions. 

Management Actions 

 Under Alternative D, designate the 429,900-acre Palomas Plain ACEC. 

 Maintain and enhance suitable habitat for the potential reintroduction of the endangered 

Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) in coordination with AGFD. 

 Require vehicles to stay on existing inventoried routes until designated or within existing 

camping areas and pull-outs. Close or limit motorized routes, if necessary, to maintain 

suitable habitat and reduce habitat fragmentation. 

F. SEARS POINT (GILA RIVER CULTURAL AREA) ACEC 

The approved RMP would supersede the plan previously written for the Gila River Cultural Area 

in 1990 when it was located in the BLM Lower Gila South Planning Area (Phoenix District). 

The relevance and importance of the Sears Point ACEC includes an NRHP-listed archaeological 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-22 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

district with extensive petroglyph displays, prominent basalt mesas, historic trail corridors, and 

important riparian vegetation including a mesquite bosque and the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt 

(Map 2-1e-3). 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Reduce visitor impacts to Sears Point by enhancing public understanding and appreciation of 

the cultural resources in the ACEC. 

 Manage the Anza Trail corridor inside the ACEC for public use while providing protection 

and preservation for cultural and natural resources. 

 Provide reliable and safe legal administrative access to the ACEC from Interstate 8. 

Management Actions 

 Under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan, the ACEC would be expanded to 

encompass 28,500 acres (Map 2-1e-3). 

 An ACEC plan would be written in coordination with interested partners. The plan would 

provide additional management prescriptions for cultural resources protection and proactive 

management of public visitation. Until the plan is written, the ACEC would be managed 

according to the Management Actions listed below. 

o Designate hiking and equestrian trails and OHV routes within the ACEC to control 

access to the ACEC and prevent damage to cultural resources. 

o Maintain and improve designated hiking trails as necessary. 

o Establish a parking area and install post-and-cable or other barriers as needed to manage 

access. Determine an appropriate location for the parking area in coordination with 

stakeholders and Native American tribes. 

o Install interpretive exhibit panels at the central mesas that have been allocated to public 

use. 

o Install and maintain interpretive materials at main points of access and interest. 

o Provide facilities for public health and safety as needed. 

o Establish a visitor host location under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan to 

monitor sensitive resources and maintain a presence in the area. 

o Install traffic counters at main points of access into the ACEC. 

o Establish recreational trail connectivity from the Anza Trail to the Sears Point 

interpretive area once sensitive resources are adequately protected. 

 Under all alternatives, all non-Federal lands acquired within the Gila River Cultural ACEC 

boundary established and withdrawn by Public Land Order 7212 (September 5, 1996) would be 

managed under the current existing withdrawal. Under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan, 

continue to acquire from willing sellers those non-Federal lands within the current boundary of 

the Gila River Cultural ACEC withdrawn by Public Land Order 7212. 

 Under Alternatives C and D, propose withdrawing up to an additional 1,200 acres of land within 

the Sears Point ACEC. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-23 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Under the Proposed Plan, propose withdrawing up to an additional 4,900 acres within the 

proposed Sears Point ACEC expansion (see Map 2-1e-3). 

 Except for prior existing rights, surface occupancy for discretionary actions, including but not 

limited to oil and gas leases, mineral material disposals, and ROWs, would not be authorized 

inside the 3,700-acre core area. Surface occupancy for discretionary actions within the ACEC, 

but outside of the core area, would be avoided to the extent practicable. Installation of facilities 

to protect, interpret, or manage ACEC resource values would be allowed within the entire 

ACEC, including the core area. 

 Prohibit collection of dead, downed, and detached firewood and of vegetative materials inside 

the 3,700-acre core area (see Map 2-1e-3). 

 Limit the 3,700-acre core area to day-use only (see Map 2-1e-3). 

 Follow the management actions for the Fred J. Weiler Vegetation Management Area, which are 

located in Section 2.5, Vegetation Management. 

 Administrative Actions 

 The existing Gila River Cultural Area ACEC would be renamed as the Sears Point ACEC 

under Alternatives B, C, D and the Proposed Plan. 

 Develop an ACEC plan that includes specific management prescriptions for balancing 

increasing public visitation with protection of natural and cultural resources, in coordination 

with interested partners. 

 Require visitors to stay on designated hiking trails in the interpretive area once the trails are 

established. 

 Throughout the life of the plan, determine the public demand for overnight camping 

opportunities within the ACEC expansion area. If structured overnight camping opportunities 

are needed to reduce impacts to natural and cultural resources, designate a campground 

within the proposed ACEC expansion area at a reasonable distance away from sensitive 

resources. 

 Work with interested partners to establish an operational recreational trail within the 

designated Anza Trail Corridor. 

 Inventory and monitor mesquite trees along the Gila River to determine age, structure, and 

health. Develop protection measures if necessary. 

G. WALTERS CAMP ACEC 

The Walters Camp ACEC lies adjacent to the Colorado River and an existing 18-acre BLM 

recreation concession lease. The private lands adjacent to the proposed ACEC are being developed 

for seasonal housing. The recreational opportunities and development in this area is causing 

increased public use, including OHV and boater/personal watercraft use, in and around the proposed 

ACEC. The proposed area was also analyzed as a SCRMA under Alternative C and the Proposed 

Plan. The relevance and importance for this ACEC includes significant cultural and biological 

resources which include cultural resource sites, Native American traditional use, riparian corridors, 

washes, wildlife habitat, rare geologic features, high scenic quality, and river access. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-24 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain properly functioning riparian areas that provide habitat for neotropical migratory 

birds and other wildlife. 

 Ensure that the proposed ACECs recreational, natural, and cultural resources remain 

available for present and future generations. 

Management Actions 

 Designate the 4,500-acre Walters Camp ACEC under Alternative D. 

 Acquire available private and State inholdings from willing sellers for improved 

comprehensive management. 

Administrative Actions 

 Inventory vegetation and wildlife within the ACEC to understand the riparian habitat values 

that exist in the area. 

 Coordinate management objectives utilizing the Final Ehrenberg-Cibola Recreation Area 

Management Plan (USDOI BLM 1994a). 

 Coordinate and collaborate with Native American tribes, Reclamation, CDFG, and USFWS 

on issues including habitat restoration, invasive species, and water quality and delivery. 

2.4 COORDINATED MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Currently there are two areas within the planning area that are managed in coordination with other 

agencies. These are Fortuna Pond (30 acres) and Mittry Lake Wildlife Area (3,800 acres) (see Maps 

2-2a and 2-2c). CMAs are not allocations under the Land Use Planning Handbook or FLPMA. 

However, they are recognized areas with specific management prescriptions and partnerships. 

Fortuna Pond and Mittry Lake were established under different authorities than FLPMA. FLPMA 

applies to these areas because BLM takes actions to manage the areas as agreed to by other agencies 

(i.e. DM 613, management responsibilities for recreation, endangered species, etc.). 

Table 2-3 

Coordinated Management Areas by Alternative 

Coordinated Management Alternative (total acres) 

Area A B C D E 

Fortuna Pond 30 30 30 30 30 

Limitrophe n/a 4,500 SCRMA ACEC 4,500 

Mittry Lake Wildlife Area 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-25 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

2.4.1 FORTUNA POND COORDINATED MANAGEMENT 

AREA 

The Fortuna Pond CMA would continue the existing 30-acre area under all alternatives (Map 2-

2a). The approved RMP would carry forward BLM responsibilities to manage recreation and 

wildlife activities in the Fortuna Pond area under DM 613. Reclamation and AGFD also have 

responsibilities for managing the pond under their individual authorities. The pond is a 

mitigation requirement to replace lost fishing opportunities on the Colorado River as a result of 

the Colorado River Salinity Control Project. 

Vision for Coordinated Management 

 Ensure that Fortuna Pond continues to provide recreational fishing opportunities as 

mitigation under the Title I contract for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project. 

 Provide adequate facilities for the site to accommodate visitor use. 

Management Actions 

 Continue managing the 30-acre Fortuna Pond in cooperation with the AGFD and 

Reclamation. 

 Finalize and implement the Fortuna Pond Management Plan, which would guide 

management of the area. Until the document is finalized and implemented by the three 

agencies, the Draft Fortuna Pond Management Plan would serve as guidance. 

Administrative Actions 

 Identify the responsibilities of each agency having management authority. 

 Achieve consensus with Reclamation, AGFD, and resource stakeholders to cooperatively 

manage Fortuna Pond for recreation and fishing opportunities. 

 Remove litter and illegal dumping as funding and personnel allow. 

2.4.2 LIMITROPHE COORDINATED MANAGEMENT AREA 

The Limitrophe Division of the lower Colorado River was identified as the proposed Limitrophe 

CMA in Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. The Limitrophe CMA would encompass the same 

4,500 acres of land along the International Boundary with Mexico identified in the Limitrophe 

ACEC under Alternative D (Map 2-2b). There are numerous jurisdictions managing varying 

aspects of the resources, along with a variety of stakeholders with interests in the Limitrophe. 

The intent of the proposed Limitrophe CMA is to unite the mandates, communicate activities, 

and responsibilities of multiple jurisdictions and stakeholders while providing a level of 

protection to the riparian, cultural, and traditional resource values of the area. BLM land use 

planning decisions which apply to the Limitrophe area are found in other sections in the RMP. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-26 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Vision for Coordinated Management 

 A group would constitute the guiding body for the U.S. side of the Limitrophe area to share 

information for the future of the Limitrophe, and would not be controlled by any single 

agency. 

 Develop an MOU and promote cooperation between its signers to create a partnership for the 

future of the Limitrophe. 

 Ensure that each resource value or issue identified by the stakeholders is addressed in the 

planning and management of the area. 

 Each agency or sovereign nation with land management jurisdiction would make decisions 

independently of the stakeholder group, using information and facts from group meetings and 

the MOU. A charter would not be needed, because the group would not have voting 

capability for actions where decisions are required by agencies. 

 Protect and maintain riparian habitat and marsh vegetation to retain biological diversity and 

enhance potential habitat to support neotropical migratory birds, special status species, and 

other wildlife. 

Management Actions 

 Prepare a CMA management plan in cooperation with stakeholders using facts and 

information from the group. Develop coordinated goals and objectives for management based 

on input from all stakeholders. 

 The management plan would: 

o Define roles, jurisdictions, and working relationships of each agency, non-government 

stakeholders, private landowners, and other partners. 

o Identify goals and objectives to maintain important riparian habitat values within the 

constraints of differing agency jurisdictions in the area. 

o Contain goals and objectives to protect and maintain the characteristics of the Limitrophe 

area that have been identified by Native American tribes and groups as important for 

traditional use. 

o Contain goals and objectives to provide for use of, and access to, sacred sites and other 

places of traditional cultural importance by Native American tribes, when such places are 

identified through government-to-government consultation. 

o Balance International Border public health and safety issues with resource protection. 

o Incorporate decisions which apply to the Limitrophe area from other sections of this 

RMP to clarify BLM roles and sideboards to the group. 

o Address the following BLM issues: recreational uses of the area; dead, downed, and 

detached firewood collection; fire management; invasive non-native species; endangered 

species and conservation measures to protect them, cultural resources; traditional use; 

habitat integrity; access; habitat restoration; water sources; and public health and safety. 

 Allow no surface occupancy for leasable minerals. 

 Allow no salable mineral materials within the Limitrophe area. 

 Restore degraded or salt cedar habitats to appropriate vegetation when and where practicable. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-27 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Administrative Actions 

 Participate in working groups, meetings, and task force settings to collaborate with interested 

stakeholders. 

 Invite public as well as agencies and organizations to participate in the RMP. 

 Remove litter and illegal dumping as funding and personnel allow. 

2.4.3 MITTRY LAKE WILDLIFE AREA 

The Mittry Lake Wildlife Area is cooperatively managed by AGFD, BLM, and Reclamation 

under a lease, cooperative agreement, contract agreement, and wildlife area management plan to 

provide for wildlife-related recreation. The Mittry Lake Wildlife Area CMA would continue the 

3,800-acre CMA within all alternatives (Map 2-2c). The approved RMP would carry forward 

BLM responsibilities to manage recreation and wildlife activities on Reclamation-withdrawn 

land at Mittry Lake under DM 613. 

Vision for Coordinated Management 

 Provide wildlife habitat for the benefit of wildlife and compatible opportunities for fish and 

wildlife-oriented recreation. 

Management Actions 

 Follow the lease, cooperative agreement, contract agreement, and wildlife area management 

plan to guide management of the wildlife area under the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act. 

Administrative Actions 

 Each agency would coordinate activities on a regular basis under guidance of the contract 

agreement. 

 Remove litter and illegal dumping as funding and personnel allow. 

 Implementation of the NRT extension at Betty’s Kitchen would be a site-specific action and 

would be coordinated with AGFD under the Mittry Lake Wildlife Area lease and cooperative 

agreement and according to the Sikes Act. Before any ground-disturbing activity, AGFD, 

Reclamation, and BLM would need to reach agreement on specific aspects of the trail 

extension. The Federal action would be disclosed to the public for comment according to the 

NEPA process. 

2.5 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 

Vegetation management on BLM-administered lands follows guidance from the BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook. The guidance instructs the BLM to identify the desired mix of vegetation 

types, vegetation management areas, sensitive plant species, priority plant species, management 

for invasive non-native plants, and vegetative use authorizations. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-28 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Vegetation communities within the planning area include mixed riparian habitat and wetlands, 

mesquite bosques, desert wash woodlands or xeroriparian scrub, paloverde-mixed cacti on 

bajadas and rocky slopes, creosote-bursage, mountain uplands, and isolated dune complexes. 

YFO strives to maintain the health of upland vegetation and riparian-wetland communities 

according to Arizona BLM’s Land Health Standards 2 and 3 (see Land Health Standards Section 

of this chapter) and according to Riparian 2000, a BLM initiative which identifies a goal of 75 

percent of riparian areas in proper functioning condition. 

The basis for managing vegetation, riparian-wetland, and invasive or noxious weeds on BLMadministered lands can be found in the following Federal and State laws, regulations, policies, 

and guidance: Arizona Native Plant Law of 1993; FLPMA of 1976; Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act of 1978; CWA of 1977; EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands; EO 11988 

Floodplain Management; Colorado River Floodway Protection Act of 1986; Federal Noxious 

Weed Act of 1974; EO 13112 Invasive Species Control; BLM MS 1740 Renewable Resource 

Improvements and Treatments; BLM Manual 9011 Chemical Pest Control; Environmental 

Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments, Watersheds and Wildlife Habitats on Public Lands 

Administered by the BLM in the Western United States, including Alaska (USDOI BLM 1991); 

LCR MSCP (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004); USDOA NRCS Ecological Site Guides; BLM 

Manual 6500 – Wildlife, Fish and Plant Resources; and BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status 

Species. 

Guidance for the management of riparian areas, both flowing lotic systems and stationary lentic 

systems, is derived from BLM Technical Reference on Proper Functioning Conditions (1737-9, 

1737-11, and 1737-15). 

Desired Future Conditions 

The following Desired Future Conditions would be applied throughout the entire planning area. 

 Biological diversity of native plant communities and rare species is maintained in balance 

with multiple-uses of the land and sustained ecological function. 

 Upland and riparian–wetland areas exhibit a mosaic of native plant communities. 

 Riparian–wetland areas achieve or are moving towards properly functioning condition. 

Riparian, floodplain, and wetland areas enhance water quality, improve water storage, 

increase groundwater recharge, and provide quality fish and wildlife values. 

 Forage on rangelands continues to support wildlife and grazing in a manner consistent with 

other resource management objectives or uses. 

 Special status species and VHAs are protected from ground-disturbing recreation, such as 

OHV use. 

Management Actions 

The following management actions would be applied throughout the entire planning area. 

 Protect or restore native species in upland and riparian communities through an integrated 

weed management approach emphasizing prevention, containment, and early detection of 

invasive weeds. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-29 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Maintain vegetation communities that stabilize soils and reduce erosion and air quality 

degradation. 

 Unproductive or non-functioning upland and riparian–wetland sites would be restored to 

desired plant communities based on ecological site and capability potential. 

 Ensure that restoration and maintenance actions would benefit special status and priority 

plant and animal species and their habitats. (Appendix 2-B lists special status and priority 

plants and animals). 

Administrative Actions 

 Assess rehabilitation of burned areas on a case-by-case basis. Preference would be given to 

VHAs, riparian areas with habitat for special status species, ACECs, and WHAs. 

2.5.1 DESIRED PLANT COMMUNITIES COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

The following Desired Future Conditions would be applied wherever the following desired plant 

communities exist in the planning area. 

A. MIXED RIPARIAN HABITAT AND WETLANDS 

 Riparian habitats would contain a diversity of native trees and herbaceous plants adapted to 

hydric soils. Lands along the Colorado and Gila rivers would exhibit strong species diversity 

and are composed of native riparian obligate trees (such as cottonwood [Populus spp.] and 

willow [Salix spp.]) of various age and size classes from seedlings and saplings to large 

mature trees with spreading canopies. 

 Bank vegetation would be composed of native species capable of withstanding flood events 

to reduce soil loss and bank erosion. 

 River corridor (including floodplains) and riparian-wetland associated habitat types covered 

in the LCR MSCP would provide a variety of habitat types for resident or migratory aquatic 

and terrestrial species. These habitat types include riparian areas, open water, backwaters, 

and marshes. 

B. MESQUITE BOSQUES/WOODLANDS 

 Mesquite bosques/woodland communities would contain trees of various size and age 

classes, with an understory of native perennial grasses, forbs, and shrub species. 

 Identify and protect mesquite bosque communities within the planning area. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-30 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

C. DESERT WASH WOODLANDS 

 Multi-layered desert wash woodlands (xeroriparian scrub) would be dominated by perennial 

vegetation including trees, grasses, shrubs and forbs which provide for hydrologic 

connectivity and geomorphic integrity (i.e., sediment capture and storage, energy dissipation, 

bank stability). 

 Diverse vegetative composition and structure would include such species as foothills 

paloverde (Cercidium microphyllum), blue paloverde (Cercidium floridum), desert willow 

(Chilopsis linearis), ironwood (Olneya tesota), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), smoke tree 

(Psorothamnus spinosus), and catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii). Size and growth form, such 

as overhanging branches, mid-story and under-story vegetation are represented by naturally 

occurring species of moderate density. 

 Ensure sufficient bank and floodplain vegetation (including along braided channel 

floodplains) that provides landscape habitat connectivity and physical stability which in turn 

supports ground- and stem-dwelling species. 

D. PALOVERDE–MIXED CACTI ON BAJADAS AND ROCKY 

SLOPES 

 Paloverde–mixed cacti communities would have diverse vegetative composition and 

structure, from small shrubs to large trees (such as ironwood, paloverde, and mesquite) 

interspersed with a variety of cacti, such as mammalaria (Mammalaria spp.), prickly pear 

(Opuntia spp.), cholla (Opuntia spp.), barrel cactus (Ferocactus wislizenii), hedgehog 

(Echinocereus spp.), and saguaro (Cereus giganteus). Where potential exists, saguaro forests 

would support medium-to-high densities of saguaro, with all age classes represented. 

E. CREOSOTE–BURSAGE 

 Maintain unfragmented creosote-bursage habitats that function as landscape connectivity 

corridors (i.e., movement corridors and foraging areas) between adjacent plant communities. 

 Maintain ground cover in this vegetation type, with native or naturalized species at the 

maximum amount appropriate for the site conditions to provide hiding cover and forage for 

wildlife species. 

F. MOUNTAIN UPLANDS 

 Botanically diverse vegetative communities would include a combination of desert, 

chaparral, and semi-desert grassland species in amounts appropriate to site conditions. Some 

areas may include relict populations of oak and elephant tree (Weinstein et al.2003). 

G. DUNE COMPLEXES 

 Dunes support a diverse mix of native species composed of shrubs, grasses and annual forbs. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-31 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Identify the location of intact dune complexes throughout the planning area. 

 Sensitive or rare species endemic to dunes are found in all size classes (i.e., scaly sand plant 

[Pholisma arenarium] in the north of La Posa Plain). 

Management Actions Common to all Desired Plant Communities 

 Mitigate where plants and parts of plants would be destroyed from an unavoidable impact as 

a result of development, disturbance, or disposal. 

 For BLM-authorized surface disturbing activities, impacts to vegetation would be mitigated 

through: 

o Avoidance; 

o Use of minimum reasonable and practical tools and equipment (such as trimming trees 

instead of removal where appropriate, use of existing routes and ROWs instead of 

creation of new ones, crushing vegetation instead of blading it); 

o Soil stabilization and vegetative rehabilitation; 

o Replacement, which would follow an approved protocol and use of previously disturbed 

sites; 

o Transplanting of plant species (e.g., beavertail cactus, cholla, barrel cactus, pincushion 

cactus) directly on site or onto neighboring public lands where feasible using approved 

protocol would be encouraged; and 

o Salvage of plants and plant parts. Salvage would be authorized and encouraged on a caseby-case basis pursuant to applicable Federal and State laws and regulations governing the 

sale, disposal, and transportation of plants. Plants salvaged would be limited to those 

allowable under the Arizona Native Plant Law. Plants and parts of plants would be 

replanted on public lands or salvaged for public, private, commercial, educational, 

research, or other appropriate purposes. Special consideration would be given to 

educational facilities, botanic gardens, and public institutions. 

 Follow ROWs construction with rehabilitation measures including imprinting, contouring, 

debris and brush replacement, and invasive plant treatment. Avoid blading new routes to the 

greatest extent possible. Where access is needed to accomplish objectives, crush vegetation 

instead of blading and denuding the ground surface. 

 Avoid desert wash woodlands to the greatest extent possible during BLM-authorized surface 

disturbing activities. 

 Require use of native plant materials for landscaping at developed recreation sites within 

public lands. 

 Require concessions to get BLM approval for landscaping plans. Require the use of native 

plants and drought adapted vegetation. 

2.5.2 VEGETATION HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREAS 

YFO is proposing three VHAs in various alternatives in the planning area (Maps 2-3a through 

2-3e), as authorized by IM AZ-2005-007. These areas contain populations of priority plant 

species (Appendix 2-B) and native plant assemblages and would be allocated as VHAs. The 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-32 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

BLM Land Use Planning Handbook states that VHAs are areas of ecological importance that are 

recognized for significant factors such as density, diversity, size, public interest, remnant 

character, or age. An Elephant Tree Community VHA is proposed under Alternative D and the 

Proposed Plan for 10,000 acres. The Blue Sand Lily Community is proposed under Alternative D 

and the Proposed Plan for 500 acres. Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt is an existing area which is also 

proposed under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan (12,400 acres). 

VHA alternatives are presented in Table 2-4 below and Maps 2-3a through 2-3e. VHAs may 

increase or decrease in acreage based upon new information through adaptive management. 

Table 2-4 

Vegetation Habitat Management Areas by Alternative 

Vegetation Habitat Alternative (BLM acres) 

Management Areas A B C D E 

Elephant Tree community 

(Bursera microphylla) n/a 0 0 10,000 10,000 

Blue Sand Lily community 

(Triteleiopsis palmeri) n/a 0 0 500 500 

Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt 12,400 0 12,400 12,400 12,400 

The Elephant Tree VHA would protect a proposed priority plant, Bursera microphylla, which 

is a shrub with subtropical affinities. The trunk and lower branches are thickened, the bark 

exfoliates in sheets, the plant exudes resin, and the leaves are aromatic. It is found in isolated 

populations of the Sonoran Desert on mountains. The population in the Gila Mountains is one of 

the most well represented stands in the U.S. 

The Blue Sand Lily VHA would protect the Triteleiopsis palmeri, a flowering plant listed as an 

Arizona BLM sensitive species. This rare plant grows from bulblets and only flowers in wet 

years. The VHA is located on stabilized sand dunes of the Gila River Mesa and is the 

northernmost known population in the U.S. It is also found in Baja California and the Gran 

Desierto in Sonora, Mexico. 

The Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt includes portions of Gila River riparian habitat located in the 

planning area and would be designated as a VHA to perpetuate a previous land designation. The 

greenbelt was originally segregated as a Resource Conservation Area in 1970 to set aside the 

riparian habitat for game birds for hunting along the Gila River. The VHA would emphasize the 

original values of the Resource Conservation Area, such as “nesting areas for white-winged 

dove, mourning dove, and songbirds, public recreation, historic significance, flood and erosion 

control and water conservation” (Federal Register Vol. 32, No. 178, September 14, 1967). 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Ensure that plant species-populations are stable or increasing with recruitment over all age 

classes with no net loss of habitat or fragmentation of plant communities. 

 Ensure the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt is managed for habitat values, specifically to benefit 

dove, quail, and thrasher populations. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-33 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Management Actions 

 Continue Management of the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt under Alternatives A, C, D, and the 

Proposed Plan. 

 Allocate the 10,000-acre Elephant Tree Community as a VHA under Alternative D and the 

Proposed Plan. 

 Allocate the 500-acre Blue Sand Lily Community as a VHA under Alternative D and the 

Proposed Plan. 

 Restrict BLM-authorized ground-disturbing activities in the VHAs to protect focal plant 

species-populations. Restricted activities would include mineral extraction, unmanaged OHV 

use, and livestock grazing. 

 Develop a management plan for the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt in cooperation with AGFD and 

USFWS. 

 Protect mesquite bosques and native woodlands through implementation of fire breaks and 

hazard fuels reduction. 

 Prioritize treatment of non-native invasive species, where appropriate to meet management 

objectives. 

Administrative Actions 

 Inventory and map the focal plant communities in the VHAs. Monitor ground-disturbing 

activities by OHV use and other sources of disturbance or habitat alterations to assess the 

conditions and trends of plant species-populations. 

 Assess the potential threats to blue sand lily populations in the foothills area of Yuma, 

Arizona. These focal plant species-populations are potentially threatened by OHV and 

invasive, non-native species such as Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii). 

 Identify additional plant populations which meet VHA criteria. 

2.5.3 BLM SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

BLM sensitive species are taxa that are not already included as BLM special status species under 

(1) federally listed, proposed, or candidate species; or (2) State of Arizona/State of California 

listed species (see Appendix 2-B). BLM policy is to provide these species with the same level of 

protection as is provided for candidate species in BLM Manual 6840.06 C, that is to “ensure that 

actions authorized, funded, or carried out do not contribute to the need for the species to become 

listed.” The sensitive species designation is normally used for species that occur on BLMadministered lands for which BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation 

status of the species through management. BLM Manual 6840.06 E provides factors by which a 

native species may be listed as “sensitive” if it: 

 Could become endangered or extirpated from a State, or within a significant portion of its 

range in the foreseeable future; 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-34 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Is under status review by the USFWS and/or National Marine Fisheries Service; 

 Is undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in (1) habitat capability that 

would reduce a species’ existing distribution; and/or (2) population or density such that 

federally listed, proposed, candidate, or State listed status may become necessary; 

 Typically consists of small and widely dispersed populations; 

 Inhabits ecological refugia, or specialized or unique habitats; or 

 Is State-listed, but which may be better conserved through application of BLM sensitive 

species status. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Conserve sensitive plant species and other species at risk where the quantity and quality of 

habitat to support population persistence is a concern. Maintain or restore unique habitats 

(e.g., unique assemblages of rare plant species) throughout the planning area. 

 Protect sensitive plant species and associated habitats to keep them from becoming listed 

under the ESA. Provide habitat capable of maintaining native plant species and supporting 

plant biodiversity to meet ecological integrity and social needs. 

 Achieve stable or increasing populations of sensitive plant species over time with adequate 

pollination, nurse plants, recruitment, and survivorship. Maintain desired habitat conditions 

or restore degraded habitats to promote pollinator success and survival. 

 Enhance public understanding of the importance of maintaining rare and culturally important 

plants through educational programs regarding native plant conservation, biodiversity, and 

invasive non-native plant species. 

Management Actions 

 Protect sensitive plant species and relict populations that are vulnerable to habitat 

disturbance. Minimize potential threat of imperiled status as a result of land and resource 

uses-related disturbances on BLM-administered lands. 

 Implement protection and restoration measures, such as fencing, seeding by using native 

species, and native plant seed collection, for sensitive plant species. 

 Acquire lands from willing landowners for conservation banking of natural communities 

with sensitive plant species, especially if loss of essential habitat is anticipated. 

 Populations of non-native plants would be reduced or eradicated in occupied and potential 

rare plant habitat. Aggressively treat non-native invasive species where appropriate to protect 

sensitive plant species. 

Administrative Actions 

 Continue to survey and map locations of suitable habitat occupied by sensitive plant species. 

 Collect seeds of native plants to be used in rehabilitation and restoration activities. Seeds 

must be collected in accordance with seed zones or breeding zones for native plants. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-35 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Monitor and evaluate the status and trends of rare and endemic plant species with emphasis 

on sensitive plant species. Monitor the rare plant populations according to BLM botanical 

standards and Rare Plants 2000 Strategy.

 Collaborate with academic institutions and non-governmental organizations (i.e., Arizona 

and/or California Native Plant Society, Arizona or California Natural Heritage Program) for 

research and monitoring of sensitive plant species. Support research efforts for sensitive 

plants to determine species distribution, phenology, pollination ecology, habitat dynamics, 

and susceptibility to disturbances during key life stages. 

 During site/project-level analysis, inventory occupied and potential sensitive plant habitats 

and prioritize opportunities for protection and/or restoration. Also, identify and map areas of 

non-native plant invasions within rare plant habitats. 

 Continue to identify potential botanical special interest areas (i.e., areas with unique habitat 

features, rare plant communities; or areas with high-quality cryptogrammic soil crusts with 

lichens, bryophytes, and fungi) and recommend them for protection. 

2.5.4 PRIORITY PLANT SPECIES COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

Priority plant species are rare, unusual, or key species that are not BLM sensitive or listed as 

threatened and endangered. They are worthy of special treatment and indicate ecological health, 

biological diversity, and unique habitats. Priority plant species have been located on or near the 

planning area. The priority plant species list (Appendix 2-B) would be updated on a regular basis 

to reflect new information and survey data. These species are considered priority species due to 

ecological importance, rarity, and human interest. Identification of priority plant species would 

help prevent the avoidable loss of these plants due to development and implementation of other 

multiple use objectives. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Ensure that plant species-populations are stable or increasing, with adequate recruitment 

given the ecological conditions and dynamics associated with the Sonoran Desert. No net 

loss of habitat or fragmentation of plant communities. 

 Promote landscape-scale conservation of priority plant species to protect or restore botanical 

resources of concern and to ensure consistent management across jurisdictional boundaries. 

 Protect priority plant species and relict populations that are vulnerable to habitat disturbance. 

Minimize the potential threat of imperiled status as a result of land- and resource-uses-related 

disturbances on BLM-administered lands. 

Management Actions 

 Implement protection and restoration measures, such as fencing, seeding by using native 

species, invasive weeds treatment, and native plant seed collection, for priority plant species. 

 Acquire lands from willing landowners for conservation banking of natural communities 

with priority plant species, especially if loss of essential habitat is anticipated. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-36 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Populations of non-native plants would be reduced or eradicated in occupied and potential 

rare plant habitat. Aggressively treat non-native invasive species where appropriate to protect 

priority plant species. 

Administrative Actions 

 Survey, map, and monitor natural plant communities with special emphasis on priority plant 

species. 

 Follow and implement the BLM Rare Plants 2000 Strategy (USDOI BLM 2000) for rare 

plants and natural plant communities to maintain biological diversity through the 

conservation of natural plant communities and rare plant species. 

 Identify status of rare and endemic plant species or communities through collaborative efforts 

between BLM and other governmental and non-governmental agencies (i.e., USFWS, 

AGFD, CDFG, Arizona and California Natural Heritage Programs, Arizona and California 

Native Plant Societies, The Nature Conservancy, and others). 

 Survey the presence of invasive, non-native species within the scrub oak relict populations at 

three sites in the Eagletail Mountains Wilderness and at Dripping Springs. 

 Use regional databases such as Southwest Environmental Information Network 

(http://seinet.asu.edu/) to further understand species status. 

2.5.5 INVASIVE NON-NATIVE PLANTS COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

Non-native, invasive and State and federally listed noxious weed species collectively constitute a 

major threat to the biodiversity on BLM-administered lands. Two critical components of 

managing these species are (1) identifying and assessing those species that threaten biodiversity 

and other ecological functions and values and (2) prioritizing species for management efforts, 

which must be based, at least in part, on the ecological impacts imparted by these invaders (see 

Appendix 2-B). 

Non-native invasive species often degrade aesthetic vegetation values, tourism opportunities, or 

degrade recreational value of public lands. Native species in upland and riparian ecosystems are 

competitively reduced and the ecological process altered when non-native plants (both noxious 

and invasive weeds) become established and flourish. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Prevent the introduction or spread of non-native, invasive and State and federally listed 

noxious weed species. 

 Enhance non-native invasive species management through a collaborative approach with fire 

management. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-37 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Management Actions 

 Use an integrated pest management approach to ensure that the best methods available are 

implemented to prevent the introduction and control the spread of non-native plants, invasive 

plants, and noxious weeds. 

 Treat invasive, non-native plant species using a combination of chemical, mechanical, 

manual, and biological methods. 

 Treat non-native invasive species that constitute significant fuel load and fire threat directly 

by using integrated pest management or managed through fire breaks and other tactics. 

 Conduct vegetation treatments of riparian areas dominated by salt cedar (Tamarix 

ramosissima/chinensis) along the lower Colorado River and Gila River corridors where 

ecological enhancement is possible. Where salt cedar is removed for the purposes of 

replanting with native species and restoration of a site, BLM would assess the likelihood of 

success on a case-by-case basis prior to implementation. Factors to consider include salinity, 

depth to groundwater, and soil structure. Salt cedar may also be removed to create permanent 

fire breaks, decrease hazard fuel load, protect existing native vegetation pockets, and allow 

for public health and safety as well as homeland security. 

 Treat giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) and other invasive, non-native species in aquatic 

ecosystems along the lower Colorado River. 

Administrative Actions 

 Conduct risk assessments and formulate BMPs to control infestations and spread of noxious 

or invasive weeds. The integrated pest management approach would include (1) early 

detection and rapid response (early treatment of newly invading species); (2) containment 

and treatment (control of established widespread infestations); (3) inventory, monitoring, and 

evaluation; and (4) public awareness, education, and outreach. 

 Promote coordinated partnership for landscape-scale weed management across jurisdictional 

boundaries to achieve the desired conditions in a cost-efficient manner. Establish or update 

cooperative agreements and participate in local councils (i.e., Lower Colorado River Giant 

Salvinia Task Force and Steering Committee, Sonoran Desert Invasive Species Council, and 

King of Arizona Cooperative Weed Management Area) to maximize coordination and 

implement an integrative framework for weed management. 

 Implement public outreach and interpretive programs to enhance public awareness regarding 

noxious or invasive weeds and associated impacts on biodiversity. 

 Collaborate with State efforts of both California and Arizona (e.g., Arizona Invasive Species 

Council). 

 Encourage equestrian groups to use weed-free hay. 

 Require BLM contractors and employees to clean vehicles after traveling in areas with high 

noxious or invasive weed infestations. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-38 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

2.5.6 VEGETATIVE USE AUTHORIZATION 

BLM manages vegetation for habitat, multiple use, and sustained yield. This section describes 

firewood collection allocations, permitted uses, and non-permitted uses of vegetation resources. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Ensure that vegetation resources are used at a sustainable level. 

 Promote appropriate levels of dead, downed, and detached wood on the ground to provide 

wildlife habitat and reduce soil erosion. 

Management Actions 

Vegetative use authorizations apply to the entire planning area. 

 Wood Cutting. Wood cutting of native species for commercial or household fuel wood use 

is currently not allowed in the planning area. It is not a sustainable activity due to the slow 

growth habit of most native trees. However, in order to achieve management objectives, such 

as hazardous fuels reduction or native plant propagation, commercial wood cutting would be 

allowed by issuance of a permit on a case-by-case-basis under Alternatives B, C, D and the 

Proposed Plan. 

 Plant and Seed Collection. Commercial seed collection would require a permit on BLMadministered lands and must follow permit stipulations. 

 Plant Salvage. Plant salvage would be allowed within the planning area on a case-by-case 

basis. Plant salvage would require prior written authorization from BLM as well as a permit 

from the Arizona Department of Agriculture as required by the Arizona Native Plant Law. 

 Scientific Plant Collection. Scientific collection of vegetative materials, including seeds, 

would be permitted where appropriate through an annual letter of permission by the Arizona 

BLM State Office. 

 Native American Traditional Use. Fees would not apply on BLM lands to Native 

Americans for the collection of non-commercial, personal use quantities of herbals, 

medicines, traditional use items, or items necessary for traditional, religious, or ceremonial 

purposes. Collection of federally listed threatened and endangered species would not be 

authorized (see Appendix 2-B). 

 On Site Campfire Wood Collection. The public may collect dead, downed, and detached 

wood for personal campfire use, while camping on BLM-administered land. Standing dead 

wood is not authorized for use, nor is removal by any mechanical means. 

 Firewood Collection. Under Alternative A, continue 134,700 acres of firewood collection 

closures. Under Alternative B, close 142,800 acres to firewood collection (Table 2-5). Under 

Alternative D, close 1,318,000 acres to firewood collection. Under Alternative C close 

179,300 acres to firewood collection. Under the Proposed Plan, close 153,000 acres to 

firewood collection. On-site firewood collection would be closed in the areas illustrated in 

Maps 2-3a through 2-3e. New closures to firewood collection would be implemented through 

the establishment of supplementary rules, as outlined in 43 CFR 8365.1-6. Additional 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-39 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

closures to firewood collection may be implemented, if assessments indicate potential 

resource degradation. 

Table 2-5 

Firewood Collection Closures by Alternative 

Alternative (BLM acres) 

Area A B C D E 

La Posa Plain Planning Area 131,500 131,500 131,500 131,500 131,500 

Imperial LTVA 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 

Big Marias ACEC 0 4,400 4,400 4,400 2,900 

Sears Point ACEC 0 3,700 28,500 28,500 3,700 

Dripping Springs ACEC 0 0 11,700 11,700 11,700 

Remaining Field Office 0 0 0 1,138,700 0 

Total Acres Closed 134,700 142,800 179,300 1,318,000 153,000 

BLM = Bureau of Land Management; LTVA = Long-term Visitor Area; ACEC = Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

 Other Vegetative Collection. The public does not need written authorization to collect small 

amounts of commonly available renewable resources such as flowers, berries, nuts, seed, 

cones, and leaves for non-commercial purposes. Saguaro skeletons may not be collected for 

personal use or burned in campfires, as such use is not sustainable for this product in the 

planning area. The collection and possession of dead, downed, and detached ironwood at any 

one time is limited to three pieces, with an approximate weight not to exceed 10 pounds. The 

collection of standing dead plant material would not be allowed. 

2.6 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

YFO coordinates with other agencies to manage fire in accordance with the nationwide BLM fire 

policy and the National Fire Plan. This integrates fire and fuels management with other land and 

resource management activities to benefit natural resources and implement multiple-use on 

BLM-administered lands within Arizona and the portion of California that falls within the 

planning area. 

The basis for fire management on BLM-administered lands can be found in Federal and State 

laws, regulations, policies, and guidance. 

The Lower Colorado River subdivision of the Sonoran Desert is the predominant vegetation 

community within the planning area. This vegetation community is not considered to be fire 

adapted or dependent. The invasion of non-native species has created areas that are now prone to 

high intensity fires with high rates of spread. 

Prior to 1935, wildfire was not a major cause of disturbance within the lower Colorado River 

riparian ecosystem. Flood control activities initiated after the completion of Hoover Dam 

allowed the widespread establishment of the exotic salt cedar. Suppression of annual floods has 

limited the ability of native plant communities to regenerate and has created a system where 

wildfire has become the major disturbance influencing riparian stand development. Wildfire and 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-40 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

the subsequent progression towards monotypic stands composed of salt cedar have been 

detrimental to many riparian obligate species. 

The entire planning area would be managed as non-fire use. The management of lands is based 

on the Desired Future Condition of vegetation communities, ecological conditions, and 

ecological risks. The management of lands is determined by contrasting current and historical 

conditions and ecological risks associated with any changes. The condition class concept helps 

describe alterations in key ecosystem components such as species composition, structural stage, 

stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings. 

The non-fire use management includes areas where mitigation and suppression are required to 

prevent direct threats to life or property. It includes areas where fire never played a large role, 

historically, in the development and maintenance of the ecosystem, and some areas where fire 

return intervals were very long. It also includes areas (including some Wildland Urban Interface 

[WUI] areas) where an unplanned ignition could have adverse effects to the ecosystem unless 

some form of mitigation takes place. Mitigation may include mechanical, biological, chemical, 

or prescribed fire to maintain non-hazardous levels of fuels, reduce the hazardous effects of 

unplanned wildland fires, and to meet resource objectives. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Protect human life (both firefighters and public) and communities, property, and the natural 

resources on which they depend. Firefighter and public safety are the highest priority in all 

fire management activities. 

 Improve public awareness of the role of fire in ecosystem restoration, wildfire risk and 

mitigation strategies, and wildfire safe community, preparedness, and response planning. 

 Foster interagency and community interactions and cooperation to develop effective and 

integrated wildland fire and fuel management strategies across administrative boundaries to 

meet landscape-scale resource condition objectives. 

 Reduce hazardous fuels around communities at risk within the WUI using mechanical 

treatment and prescribed fire, where applicable. 

 Appropriate Management Response (AMR) for resource benefits would be full suppression. 

Management Actions 

 Implement the WUI fuels reduction program, with wildland fuels decreased and maintained 

at a manageable level, creating conditions conducive to safe, efficient, and effective 

firefighting. 

 Prescribed and wildland fire techniques would be used to protect the values-at-risk (life and 

property) and to maintain or enhance the ecosystem health. 

 Fire and fuels management strategies may include fire suppression, prescribed fire, and nonfire treatments (manual, chemical, mechanical, or biological treatments). 

 Identify areas where prescribed fire use would be appropriate to maintain or restore desirable 

plant communities. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-41 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Identify, prioritize, and implement an estimated annual average of 1,000 acres per year of 

fuel management over the life of the plan. Fuel treatments to reduce wildland fire risk would 

focus on the WUI areas and shrublands characterized as Fire Regime Condition Class II and 

III. 

 Identify and implement post-fire stabilization and rehabilitation actions in burned areas to 

restore a functional landscape to meet the natural resource management objectives. 

 Include wildfire hazard mitigation strategies in the Fire Management Plan for the planning 

area by identifying appropriate areas for prescribed fire use and mechanical, biological, or 

chemical treatments to reduce hazardous fuels to minimize the adverse effects of 

uncharacteristic wildland fires and meet resource objectives. The plan would also identify 

areas for exclusion from fire (through fire suppression), chemical, mechanical, and/or 

biological treatments. 

 To the extent possible, implement the fire management activities-related conservation 

measures presented in Appendix 2-C to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts on 

federally protected species and habitats. Of the adopted conservation measures, some are 

mandatory and others are recommended. If the mandatory conservation measures for 

federally protected species and habitats cannot be implemented during wildland fire 

management activities (i.e., suppression, rehabilitation and restoration, and hazardous fuels 

reduction), YFO would be required to initiate ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS 

for the specific projects. 

 In wilderness areas, when wildland fire suppression occurs, minimum impact suppression 

tactics identified in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations would be 

applied. 

 Conduct fire management activities along NHTs in a manner that would avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts to existing resources and values identified in the legislative designation of 

the trails. For ACECs and Back Country Byways, the desired conditions and management 

prescriptions would be considered in implementing fire management activities. 

 Wildland fire suppression activities would utilize methods with lesser ground disturbance to 

minimize potential adverse impacts on existing species and habitats. No heavy equipment 

(such as bulldozers) would be used unless approved by the YFO Manager. 

 Use of fire retardants or chemicals adjacent to waterways would be in accordance with the 

Environmental Guidelines for Delivery of Retardant or Foam near Waterways, in accordance 

with the Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations (National Interagency Fire 

Center 2007). 

 Protect all known cultural resources from fire management activities-related disturbance 

through consultation with cultural resource specialists. 

Administrative Actions 

 Establish an approved burn plan and follow the environmental prescriptions identified in the 

plan for fuels treatment using prescribed fire. 

 Identify, prioritize, and plan fuels reduction projects using a uniform system for determining 

wildland fire risk in WUI (e.g., risk assessment and mitigation strategy). 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-42 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Identify AMR-related goals, objectives, and constraints for each fire management unit. 

 Comply with Federal and State standards for smoke and air quality management for fuel 

treatment using prescribed fire. 

 Collaborate with communities at risk within the WUI to develop strategies for wildfire 

hazard mitigations. 

 Coordinate implementation of fuel reduction treatments with landowners, agencies, and 

Native American tribes. 

 Establish or update cooperative agreements to maximize coordination with BLM’s 

cooperators. 

 Undertake education, enforcement, and administrative activities as measures to minimize 

human-caused wildfires. Education measures would include dissemination of information 

through various media on the natural role of fire within terrestrial ecosystems, interpretive 

sign program, and participation in fairs, parades, and other public outreach or contacts. 

 Accomplish enforcement by providing training opportunities for BLM employees interested 

in fire-cause determination. 

 Include expanded fire prevention media outreach and stakeholder/cooperating agencies 

involvement in administrative activities. 

2.7 FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

The Sikes Act of 1974 authorized the USDOI in cooperation with State agencies responsible for 

the administration of fish and wildlife laws to plan, develop, maintain and coordinate programs 

for the conservation and rehabilitation of fish and wildlife (both game and non-game) on public 

lands within its jurisdiction. 

In addition to the Sikes Act, the following laws, regulations, and policies direct the management 

of fish and wildlife on BLM-administered public lands: Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918; Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958; Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980; FLPMA; 

ESA of 1973, as amended; EO 12962- Recreational Fisheries; EO 13112—Invasive Species 

Control; EO 13186- Conservation of Migratory Birds; BLM Manual 6500—Wildlife, Fish, and 

Plant Resources; and BLM Manual 6840—Special Status Species. 

The LCR MSCP is a multi-stakeholder Federal and non-Federal partnership responding to the 

need to balance the use of lower Colorado River water resources and the conservation of native 

species and their habitats in compliance with the ESA and other environmental laws. This is a 

long-term (50-year) plan to conserve at least 26 species along the lower Colorado River from 

Lake Mead to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico through the implementation of 

a Habitat Conservation Plan. Most of the covered species are Federal and/or State listed and 

special status species. Reclamation is the lead Federal agency responsible for implementing the 

LCR MSCP over the 50-year term of the program. A Steering Committee consisting of 56 

entities provides input and oversight functions in support of LCR MSCP implementation. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-43 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

BLM would consider the goals and objectives of the AGFD’s Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (AGFD 2006), Wildlife Management Program Strategic Plan (AGFD 

2007), and subsequent State Wildlife Action and Strategic Plans when implementing 

management actions. Such plans identify wildlife species and habitats, assess threats to their 

survival, and identify long-term conservation actions. The State of Arizona manages wildlife, 

while the BLM manages wildlife habitat. The Arizona BLM's Five Year Strategy for the 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Botany, and Threatened and Endangered Species Programs (USDOI BLM 

2004b) would guide management actions. 

Desired Future Conditions 

The following Desired Future Conditions would be applied throughout the entire planning area. 

 Priority habitats (i.e., mountain ranges, riparian areas, desert washes, sand dunes, abandoned 

mines and natural caves) and associated wildlife assemblages for terrestrial ecosystem 

management would remain in their present quality and quantity, at a minimum. 

 Retain high-quality, connected, and sustainable fish and wildlife habitat. 

 Fish and wildlife habitats capable of sustaining healthy populations would meet conservation, 

socio-economic (e.g., hunting, fishing, watchable wildlife), and Tribal needs. 

 Suitable habitats and habitat linkages would remain available in both quality and quantity to 

promote genetic integrity for priority fish and wildlife species when planning terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

 All livestock waters would provide safe, usable water for wildlife. 

 Natural wildlife waters, such as unmodified tinajas and Dripping Springs, would remain in 

their natural state. Such waters are essential for ecological integrity and promote biological 

diversity. Any modifications to unmodified tinajas would be minimal to allow trapped 

animals to escape (e.g. stairs or escape ramps), and would be analyzed through site-specific 

NEPA. 

 Limit the distribution and abundance of invasive plants and animals to current levels and 

reduce, from current levels, the impact of invasive species on native ecosystems through 

active management. 

 Minimize the undesirable effects to fish and wildlife populations resulting from human 

activities, especially during critical life stages, through mitigation of potential impacts. 

 Restore native species habitat distribution and occurrence (especially for priority species), 

conserve biological diversity, and maintain genetic integrity and exchange, and improve 

availability of suitable habitats and habitat linkages. 

Management Actions 

The following Management Actions would be applied throughout the entire planning area. 

 Establish ground-level wildlife water developments at livestock waters where feasible. An 

enclosure of three to seven acres containing the water source, storage, and related riparian 

habitat would be built to exclude livestock. Where terrain permits, livestock water would be 

provided at least 0.5 mile outside of the fenced enclosures. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-44 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Modify existing livestock water facilities for safe wildlife use as funding and opportunities 

permit. The following standards apply to the design and modification of livestock waters. 

o The above-ground height of livestock troughs and tanks would not exceed 20 inches. 

o YFO would install wildlife escape ladders in each facility and provide ramps for small 

bird and mammal access in cooperation with AGFD and CDFG. 

o Storage tanks would have either a metal or floating vinyl cover to reduce evaporation and 

prevent wildlife from drowning. 

 Initiate restoration activities in priority habitats to move toward desired habitat conditions 

and provide functional landscapes to sustain the fish and wildlife species-populations. 

Wildlife habitat improvement projects for the planning area would be implemented in 

coordination with AGFD, CDFG, and/or USFWS, as necessary. 

 Support reintroductions, transplants, and supplemental stockings (augmentations) of wildlife 

populations (as defined in BLM Manual 1745) in current or historic ranges in collaboration 

with AGFD, CDFG, and/or the USFWS and other agencies where such reintroductions are 

within areas deemed suitable through BLM policy and procedure to (1) maintain populations, 

distributions and genetic diversity; (2) conserve or recover threatened or endangered species; 

(3) restore or enhance native wildlife diversity and distribution; and (4) maintain isolated 

populations. Species that could be reintroduced, transplanted or augmented include but are 

not limited to Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), cactus ferruginous 

pygmy-owl (CFPO) (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum), desert mule deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana), javelina (Pecari tajacu), desert 

tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), beaver (Castor canadensis), lowland leopard frog (Rana 

yavapaiensis), Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis), desert pupfish 

(Cyprinodon macularius), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), razorback sucker 

(Xyrauchen texanus), woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus), bonytail chub (Gila elegans), 

flannel mouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), roundtail chub (Gila robusta), burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia hypugea), and Aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis). 

 Manage non-native species identified as pests in accordance with applicable BLM, AGFD, 

and CDFG management policies depending on administrative area. 

 Design and implement vegetation, fire and fuels, and watershed resource managementrelated projects that would promote enhancement of existing habitat conditions or restoration 

of degraded habitat conditions for the selected fish and wildlife species of emphasis. 

Vegetation and fuels management for wildlife habitat improvement should consider the 

following habitat conditions or features: (1) amount, quality, and distribution of suitable 

habitats; (2) juxtaposition and connectivity to other habitat areas; (3) influence of roadsrelated degradation; and (4) ecosystem disturbance processes that develop and modify 

habitats. 

 Construct, maintain, restore, redevelop, or enhance wildlife waters for native wildlife 

species-populations. Water developments would include design features to ensure safety and 

accessibility to water by wildlife. 

 The planning area contains suitable habitat for relocating and releasing individual animals 

and release of rehabilitated wildlife. These types of wildlife releases are not intended to 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-45 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

establish new populations but are appropriate in areas of suitable habitat. Wildlife species 

that could be released include mountain lion (Puma concolor); burrowing owl; and other 

raptor, reptile, and game species. 

Administrative Actions 

The following Administrative Actions would be applied throughout the entire planning area. 

 Develop landscape-specific habitat management plans through collaborative partnership with 

appropriate agencies. 

 Enhance public awareness of fish and wildlife management through conservation education 

and interpretive programs. 

 Maintain all existing wildlife waters to provide a perennial water source. 

 Coordinate animal damage control with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and 

AGFD and CDFG. 

 Cooperate with AGFD and CDFG to conduct wildlife surveys, research, and other 

management actions. 

2.7.1 PRIORITY SPECIES 

Potential priority species for the planning area include bats, big game mammals, non-game 

migratory birds, raptors, and game birds. A list of priority species that occur or may occur in the 

planning area is found in Appendix 2-B. 

Desired Future Conditions Common to All Priority Species 

The following Desired Future Conditions would apply throughout the entire planning area where 

habitat for priority species exists. 

 Provide well-distributed habitat and connectivity corridors capable of supporting selfsustaining populations of interacting groups of priority species for biodiversity, socioeconomic, and Tribal needs. 

 Provide suitable habitat capable of maintaining stable or increasing trends in abundance to 

help keep species from becoming federally listed. 

 Prevent, where and when possible, human-caused disturbance to habitats that result in animal 

mortalities or undesirable effects to populations of priority species during critical stages. 

 Maintain suitability of existing bat roost sites and maintain or enhance accessibility to key 

open watering sites. 

 Minimize adverse effects to big game habitat from project-related disturbance, particularly 

during lambing and fawning seasons. Lambing and fawning areas and periods should be 

determined during site/project-level planning to address big game exposure to stress during 

critical periods. 

 Maintain, restore, or enhance raptor populations through proper habitat management. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-46 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

A. BATS 

Management Actions 

 Install bat gates at abandoned mine sites that do or could support bat roosts. 

Administrative Actions 

 Inventory and monitor caves, mines, and other natural and artificial roosts and habitats that 

support, or once supported, the most important bat colonies and populations. 

 Identify key open watering sites for bats. 

 Prioritize natural and manmade roosts for protection, especially those containing large 

populations of a single species or diverse collections of species. 

 Monitor the potential effects of land management and resource use, and other natural or 

human-caused disturbances on bat habitat. 

 Evaluate the effectiveness of conservation measures or management actions implemented 

including bat gates, manmade roosts, and other habitat protection and restoration actions. 

 Educate the public on bat conservation through collaborative partnership with Bat 

Conservation International, a non-governmental organization, and by integrating education 

materials into other successful programs. 

B. BIG GAME SPECIES 

Management Actions 

 Comply with BLM guidelines to prohibit domestic sheep and goat grazing within nine miles 

of desert bighorn sheep habitat to avoid disease transmission according to Instruction 

Memorandum (IM) 98-140 Revised Guidelines for Management of Domestic Sheep and 

Goats in Native Wild Sheep Habitat. 

 Roads traversing bighorn sheep habitat may be closed, limited, or rerouted during the 

lambing season in specific areas consistent with safety and maintenance requirements of 

authorized uses in corporation with AGFD and CDFG. 

Administrative Actions 

 Coordinate with AGFD and CDFG regarding their management objectives for big game 

species when YFO management actions may affect those objectives (including development 

of water catchments). 

 In cooperation with AGFD and CDFG, identify existing and potential areas where big game 

mortality from vehicles may be a concern. Implement temporary, seasonal, or permanent area 

and transportation route closures or reroutes, if necessary, to address big game vulnerability 

to mortality. Any changes would consider public access needs and the prior existing rights of 

potentially affected parties. Coordinate any changes with the appropriate Federal, State, 

county, and Tribal governments, and all potentially affected parties. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-47 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

C. NON-GAME MIGRATORY BIRDS 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Ensure that YFO actions promote programs and recommendations of comprehensive 

migratory bird planning efforts such as Partners-in-Flight, U.S. National Shorebird Plan, 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004), North American Colonial Waterbird 

Plan, and other planning efforts, as well as guidance from other sources. 

 Support the conservation intent of the conventions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by 

integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into YFO activities and by 

avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird 

resources when conducting BLM actions. 

Management Actions 

 Restore and enhance the habitat of migratory birds, as practicable. 

 Integrate fire management into upland and riparian habitat restoration actions for non-game 

bird species. 

 Prevent or abate the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environment for the benefit of 

migratory birds, as practicable. 

 Consolidate areas with high actual or potential value for non-game migratory bird habitat 

through voluntary land exchange or acquisition. 

 Restore degraded habitats (both upland and riparian) to ecological conditions consistent with 

non-game migratory bird habitat management objectives, emphasizing maintenance and/or 

enhancement of natural biological diversity. 

Administrative Actions 

 Prioritize breeding and migratory stopover bird habitat for protection or mitigation. 

 Identify major habitat modifications and other threats that may have significant negative 

effects on the survival of migratory bird species-populations. 

 Provide notice to the USFWS in advance of conducting an action that is intended to “take” 

(see glossary) migratory birds or annually report to the USFWS on the number of individuals 

of each species of migratory birds intentionally taken during the conduct of any BLM action 

including but not limited to banding or marking, scientific collecting, taxidermy, and 

depredation control. 

 Identify where unintentional take reasonably attributable to BLM actions is having, or is 

likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations, focusing first on 

species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk factors. With respect to those actions so 

identified, the YFO shall develop and use principles, standards, and practices that would 

lessen the amount of unintentional take, developing any such conservation efforts in 

cooperation with the USFWS. These principles, standards, and practices shall be regularly 

evaluated and revised to ensure that they are effective in lessening the detrimental effect of 

YFO actions on migratory bird populations. The YFO also shall inventory and monitor bird 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-48 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

habitat and populations within the BLM’s capabilities and authorities to the extent feasible to 

facilitate decisions about the need for and effectiveness of conservation efforts. 

 Within the scope of its statutorily designated authorities, control the import, export, and 

establishment in the wild of live exotic animals and plants that may be harmful to migratory 

bird resources. Collaborate with AGFD on the control of exotic animals. 

 Identify possible mitigation measures through project-specific NEPA analysis. Avoid to the 

degree practicable, adverse impacts on non-game bird habitats. 

 Through public outreach and education, develop a broad awareness and understanding of the 

importance of non-game bird species and their value to our natural heritage. 

 Promote recreational opportunities for bird watching and photography. 

 Develop interpretive displays for use at professional meetings, county fairs, and other 

outreach opportunities. 

 Provide training and information to appropriate employees on methods and means of 

avoiding or minimizing the take of migratory birds and conserving and restoring migratory 

bird habitat. 

 Promote migratory bird conservation in international activities and with other countries and 

international partners, in consultation with the Department of State, as appropriate or relevant 

to the BLM’s authorities. 

 Recognize and promote economic and recreational values of birds, as appropriate. 

 Develop partnerships with non-Federal entities to further bird conservation. 

 Promote research and information exchange related to the conservation of migratory bird 

resources, including coordinated inventorying and monitoring, and the collection and 

assessment of information on environmental contaminants and other physical or biological 

stressors having potential relevance to migratory bird conservation. Where such information 

is collected in the course of BLM actions or supported through Federal financial assistance, 

reasonable efforts shall be made to share such information with the USFWS, the Biological 

Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, and other appropriate repositories of such 

data (e.g., the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology). 

 Design migratory bird habitat and population conservation principles, measures, and 

practices into BLM plans and planning processes (natural resource, land management, and 

environmental quality planning including but not limited to forest and rangeland planning, 

coastal management planning, watershed planning, etc.) as practicable, and coordinate with 

other agencies and non-Federal partners in planning efforts. 

 Ensure that environmental analyses of Federal actions required by NEPA or other established 

environmental review processes evaluate the effects of actions and BLM plans on migratory 

birds, with emphasis on species of concern. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-49 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

D. RAPTORS 

Management Actions 

 Pursue all land acquisition options (i.e., purchase, exchange, donation, and easement from 

willing land owners) to consolidate important raptor habitats that are located on State or 

privately owned lands within Key Raptor Areas (i.e. Mittry Lake Wildlife Area and the 

Colorado River corridor) (USDOI BLM 1992a). 

 Plant trees in suitable areas to provide perch sites and enhance foraging habitat for raptors. 

Administrative Actions 

 Identify important parcels for land tenure adjustments within the Key Raptor Areas. Allocate 

funding for appraisals, cadastral surveys, and other lands and realty-related actions necessary 

to process the land acquisition options. 

 Ensure that all new power lines are safe for raptors. Inventory power lines to ensure that they 

meet established standards as described in BLM Manual 2800 and in the 2006 Suggested 

Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

2006). Inventories of power lines within areas of known high raptor use should be completed 

first. 

 Assess the adverse and beneficial effects of fire and fuels management on raptor habitats and 

the opportunities for integrating fire as a restorative action for raptor habitat management. 

 Participate in cooperative research initiatives with other Federal and State agencies, 

universities, and non-governmental organizations. 

 Identify major habitat modifications and other threats that may have significant negative 

effects on the survival of raptor species-populations. 

E. GAME BIRDS 

Management Actions 

 Create or maintain habitat for dove and quail at suitable sites such as riparian restoration 

areas or retired agricultural leases. 

 Create a management plan for the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt through cooperation with the 

AGFD. 

Administrative Actions 

 Coordinate with AGFD to provide hunting opportunities for dove and quail. 

 Monitor the potential effects of land management and resource use, and other natural or 

human-caused disturbances on game bird habitat. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-50 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

2.7.2 WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Priority Wildlife Habitats were designated as wildlife-related special interest areas under the 

1987 Yuma District RMP, as demonstrated under Alternative A. Five types of WHAs are 

proposed for the entire planning area and generally vary by acres between alternatives. These 

management areas are as follows: Colorado and Gila River Riparian, Desert Mountains, Dunes, 

Palomas Plain, and Wildlife Movement Corridors. These five areas are proposed under 

Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan with the following two exceptions: Dunes is 

excluded from Alternative B (0 acre), and Palomas Plain is proposed as an ACEC under 

Alternative D (429,900 acres). 

WHA designations are presented by alternative in Table 2-6 below and Maps 2-4a through 2-4e. 

Desired Future Conditions Common to All 

 Promote healthy terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems for biological diversity, 

ecological integrity and sustainability, and social and cultural needs. 

 Reduce fragmentation of land cover by land use to sustain ecosystem composition, structure, 

functions, and processes. 

 Emphasize conservation measures for special status species, priority species, and other atrisk species while balancing the multiple uses of public lands. 

 Provide well-distributed habitats and connective corridors for a functional landscape to 

maintain self-sustaining, complex interacting groups of species or wildlife assemblages. 

 Limit additional human-caused disturbance and land-cover changes that may cause adverse 

effects on native and desired non-native fish and wildlife species habitats. 

Table 2-6 

Wildlife Habitat Management Areas by Alternative 

Alternative (BLM acres) 

Wildlife Habitat Management Areas A B C D E 

Priority Wildlife Habitat 539,500* 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River and Gila River Riparian n/a 38,900 38,900 38,900 38,900 

Desert Mountains n/a 664,000 664,000 664,000 664,000 

Dunes n/a 0 59,400 59,400 57,500 

Palomas Plain n/a 704,800 704,800 ACEC 627,700 

Wildlife Movement Corridors n/a 138,100 138,100 138,100 138,100 

Note: The total WHA acres are greater than the total YFO administered lands due to overlap between WHA areas. 

*1987 Yuma District RMP identified Priority Wildlife Habitat. Acreage includes portions of the Lake Havasu Field Office.

Management Actions Common to All 

 When impacts within WHAs are unavoidable, allow no net loss or no net impact to occur so 

that the ecosystem composition, structure, functions, and processes are maintained. 

 Where practicable, additional uses in WHAs would be limited to compatible activities and 

those actions whose impacts could be mitigated to preserve or enhance wildlife values. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-51 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Limit developments where practicable (i.e., livestock facilities, roads, lands actions, mining 

and minerals) on WHAs to those that are compatible with wildlife habitat. 

 Acquire private and State lands in WHAs from willing landowners through purchase or 

exchange. 

 Transmission class ROWs within WHAs would be confined to designated ROW Corridors 

whenever practicable. 

A. COLORADO AND GILA RIVER RIPARIAN WHA 

This proposed WHA includes the riparian areas along the Colorado and Gila rivers. Although 

riparian areas make up less than three percent of the public lands, they are one of the most 

productive and important areas, providing for an even greater diversity of wildlife species. In the 

desert southwest, wildlife use riparian areas disproportionately more than any other type of 

habitat, and many species are riparian-obligates (i.e., use only riparian habitats). For example, 

within the planning area, more than 400 species are either directly dependent on riparian areas or 

use them more than other habitats (USDOI BLM 1987b). Many riparian-obligate wildlife 

species, as well as many native fish species, are either federally listed or are considered special 

status species by the Federal government (USFWS and BLM) or State wildlife agencies in 

Arizona and California. Much of the native riparian habitats on public lands within the planning 

area have been severely fragmented, degraded, or otherwise substantially altered from a variety 

of causes, thereby affecting the wildlife populations and species that inhabit them. Large areas of 

riparian habitats have been invaded by the exotic (invasive) and less desirable salt cedar. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Provide suitable habitat for aquatic and riparian species in the lower Colorado and Gila 

rivers. 

 Promote restoration of native fish habitat in the lower Colorado River. 

 Enhance desired watershed conditions in the lower Colorado River and Gila River through 

maintenance of hydrologic integrity, reduction of accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, 

and protection of water quality from point- and non-point-source pollutants. 

 Maintain riparian-wetland and floodplain areas in proper functioning condition along the 

lower Colorado River and Gila River corridors. 

Management Actions 

 Allocate 38,900 acres to Colorado and Gila River Riparian WHA under Alternatives B, C, D, 

and the Proposed Plan. 

 Implement management prescriptions for aquatic and riparian ecosystems described in the 

LCR MSCP to conserve or recover special status species and at-risk priority species. 

 No salable mineral permits would be issued within the Colorado and Gila River Riparian 

WHA. 

 No surface occupancy for oil and gas leases would be applied within the Colorado and Gila 

River Riparian WHA. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-52 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Implement vegetation management to rehabilitate riparian plant communities dominated by 

non-native species such as salt cedar. 

B. DESERT MOUNTAINS WHA 

This proposed WHA includes the overlapping habitat areas of desert bighorn sheep and desert 

tortoise. The Desert Mountains provide important habitat for desert bighorn sheep, desert tortoise 

and other wildlife species that could not survive on the arid plains of lower elevations. Mountain 

ranges provide some of the best remaining bighorn sheep habitat in the southwest, with stable 

populations in several areas. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain well-distributed habitats and connective corridors to support self-sustaining 

populations of native wildlife species (i.e., desert bighorn sheep, desert tortoise [Sonoran and 

Mohave populations], CFPO, raptors, and bats). 

 Maintain habitat to promote stable or increasing population trends in the Desert Mountainsassociated priority species. 

Management Actions 

 Allocate 664,000 acres to Desert Mountains WHA under Alternatives B, C, D, and the 

Proposed Plan. 

 Limit mineral materials permits within the Desert Mountains WHA, by making appropriate 

use of the proposed community pits. 

 No surface occupancy for oil and gas leases would be applied within the Desert Mountains 

WHA where AGFD has identified sensitive desert bighorn sheep habitat. 

 Confine distribution and transmission-class ROWs within Desert Mountains WHA to 

designated corridors whenever practical. 

Administrative Actions 

 Monitor OHV usage to ensure that vehicles are staying on designated routes and within 

existing camping areas and pull-outs within the WHA. 

C. DUNES WHA 

This proposed WHA includes four areas of dune habitat. Dunes are a sensitive and unusual 

habitat in the low deserts and host a variety of plants and wildlife, many of which occur in no 

other habitat. The principle of managing this WHA would be that the amount of human 

disruption should decrease in proportion to the significance of the sand dune features, with more 

intensive use directed to sand dune areas of lesser significance or sensitivity. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-53 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain sand dune habitats that support native wildlife and plant species that include but are 

not limited to Cowle’s fringe-toed lizard (Uma notata rufopunctata), scaly sand plant, flattailed horned lizard (FTHL) (Phrynosoma mcallii), and sand food (Pholisma sonorae). 

 Reduce non-native invasive species (e.g., Russian thistle [Salsola kali] and Sahara mustard) 

that threaten dune complexes. 

Management Actions 

 Allocate the Dunes WHA 57,500 acres under the Proposed Plan and 59,400 acres under 

Alternatives C and D. 

 Dune areas which support sensitive, special status, and/or priority species would not be 

available for future Open OHV Management Area designations. 

 Lands authorizations would avoid to the extent practicable, minimize, or mitigate impacts to 

dunes with sensitive species. 

Administrative Actions 

 Identify areas of high ecological sensitivity. 

D. PALOMAS PLAIN WHA 

The Palomas Plain proposed WHA is the largest unfragmented habitat in southwest Arizona for a 

myriad of wildlife, including bighorn sheep and mule deer. It contains braided channel 

floodplains and mixed cacti paloverde communities on rocky slopes and bajadas. The large, 

contiguous, unfragmented habitat is significant to the hunting community. This area is a potential 

reintroduction area for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn. The Lower Sonoran Field Office 

proposed an adjacent 265,400-acre area as the Gila Bend Mountains Wildlife Management Area. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Promote landscape juxtaposition and connectivity with adjacent planning areas. 

 Maintain unfragmented, functional landscapes with well-distributed habitat and connective 

corridors to support native wildlife populations (including Sonoran pronghorn, mule deer, 

desert bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, and raptor species). 

Management Actions 

 Allocate the Palomas Plain WHA 704,800 acres under Alternatives B and C, and 627,700 

acres under the Proposed Plan. 

 Concentrate developments such as utility facilities in areas already developed or disturbed. 

Administrative Actions 

 Monitor OHV usage to ensure that vehicles are staying on designated routes and within 

existing camping areas and pull-outs within the WHA. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-54 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Monitor and evaluate habitat use by native wildlife populations (including mule deer, desert 

bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, and raptor species). 

 In cooperation with AGFD and other agencies, determine the feasibility of reintroduction of 

Sonoran pronghorn to its historic range. 

E. WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS WHA 

This proposed WHA includes areas identified by AGFD and the Arizona Wildlife Linkages 

Group as being used by wildlife to move between habitats. Migration corridors are traditional 

movement paths between adjacent mountain ranges. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain functional habitats through landscape connectivity and reduced habitat 

fragmentation to support terrestrial wildlife species and provide big game species-related 

movement corridors between and within mountain ranges. 

Management Actions 

 Allocate 131,800 acres to Wildlife Movement Corridors WHA under Alternatives B, C, D, 

and the Proposed Plan. 

 Minimize new developments or improvements (i.e., roads, fences, canals, quarries, 

developed campgrounds) which would impede or inhibit wildlife movement within a corridor 

to the maximum extent practicable. Where new developments or improvements cannot be 

avoided within a wildlife movement corridor, appropriate mitigation to provide for wildlife 

movement must be included. 

Administrative Actions 

 Coordinate with ADOT to reduce wildlife highway fatalities in problem areas. 

2.8 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES MANAGEMENT 

Special status species are fish, wildlife, and plants that require specific conservation measures or 

management directions due to species-population or species-habitat concerns (special status 

plants are addressed in the Vegetation Management section of this chapter). Special management 

measures within BLM-administered lands are necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse 

impacts to species or habitats, particularly measures to reduce the likelihood of adverse effects to 

species listed under the ESA. Special status species land use planning falls under the following 

broad categories: (1) Federally Listed Species: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate 

Species (and Designated or Proposed Critical Habitat); (2) State Listed (Arizona’s draft list of 

Wildlife of Special Concern or California Endangered Species Act) Species; and (3) BLM 

Sensitive Species. Appendix 2-B contains a list of special status species in the planning area. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-55 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

YFO shall carry out management for the conservation of State listed plants and animals. State 

laws protecting these species apply to all BLM programs and actions to the extent that they are 

consistent with FLPMA (43 USC. 1701 et seq.) and other Federal laws. 

The protection provided by the policy for candidate species shall be used as the minimum level 

of protection for BLM sensitive species. 

LUP decisions would be consistent with BLM’s mandate to protect and recover species listed 

under the ESA and would be consistent with objectives and recommended actions in approved 

recovery plans, conservation agreements and strategies, MOUs, and applicable biological 

opinions for threatened or endangered species. 

In addition to the ESA, the following laws, regulations, and policies direct the management of 

special status species on BLM-administered public lands: Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as 

amended; Bald Eagle Protection of 1940, as amended 1962; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

of 1958; California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977; California Endangered Species Act of 

1984; Arizona Native Plant Law of 1993; EO 12962 - Recreational Fisheries; EO 13186 - 

Conservation of Migratory Birds; USDOI Manual 520 - Riparian Habitat; BLM Manual 6500 - 

Wildlife, Fish, and Plant Resources; BLM Manual 6840 - Special Status Species; BLM Manual 

1737 - Riparian; Recovery Plans for 12 Federally Listed Species; FTHL Rangewide 

Management Strategy (2003; Conservation Agreement signed in 1997); Management Plan for 

the Sonoran Desert Population of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona (1996); Biological Opinion for 

Small Projects Affecting [Mojave] Desert Tortoise Habitat in California; Biological Opinion on 

Yuma District LUP 1998 and amendments; LCR MSCP EIS/Environmental Impact Report

(USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004), Appendix B (dated September 3, 2004); and Biological and 

Conference Opinion for the BLM Arizona Statewide LUP Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air 

Quality Management (File number AESO/SE: 02-21-03-F-0210). 

The following Desired Future Conditions, Management Actions, and Administrative Actions for 

special status species would be applied to the entire planning area. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain, enhance, and restore terrestrial and aquatic habitats for the survival and recovery of 

species listed under the ESA and to help keep proposed or candidate species from becoming 

listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Management actions either contribute to or 

do not prevent recovery or delisting of species listed under the ESA. 

 Achieve applicable species- or habitat-specific goals and objectives addressed in established 

and approved recovery plans, conservation strategies and agreements, and MOUs (including 

the LCR MSCP). 

 Maintain, enhance, or restore habitat historically or currently supporting special status 

species and existing habitat capable of supporting special status species in the future. 

Ecological restoration actions would address long-term threats to special status species and 

the short-term need to protect special status species and their habitats. 

 Ensure no net loss or fragmentation of habitat for major life history requirements (i.e., 

breeding, feeding, or resting cover) for special status species. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-56 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Management Actions 

 No activities or projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of special status 

species would be permitted on BLM-administered lands. 

 Avoid or minimize negative behavioral impacts to special status species resulting from 

human caused disturbances by either prohibiting or constraining human activities during 

breeding or migratory seasons, on a case-by-case basis. 

 Require projects and land-use authorizations to minimize adverse impacts to special status 

species through mitigation. 

 Avoid or minimize the following situations for special status species and associated habitat 

management on BLM-administered public lands: (1) species becoming endangered in or 

extirpated from a State, or within a significant portion of its distribution; (2) species 

undergoing significant current or predicted downward trend in habitat capability that would 

reduce a species’ existing distribution; and (3) species undergoing significant current or 

predicted downward trend in population or density. 

 Minimize or avoid human-caused habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation to 

protect special status species. Habitat modifications from land and resource uses would be at 

levels that do not threaten the persistence of threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate 

species populations. 

Administrative Actions 

 During site/project-level analysis, identify practices or facilities that would adversely affect 

special status species or their habitats, and prioritize opportunities to mitigate, through 

avoidance or minimization, the adverse effects to the species or their habitats. 

 Design and implement Management Actions to provide suitable ecological conditions that 

constitute well-distributed habitats and connective corridors to support reproductive needs 

and free-flow movements of special status species for population persistence. 

 Implement the applicable species-specific conservation measures within rendered biological 

opinions. 

 Cooperate with USFWS, AGFD, and CDFG for management of species listed under the 

ESA, and with the AGFD and CDFG for species of special concern or State-listed species. 

 Enhance scientific knowledge and public awareness on special status species through 

research, and interpretive and outreach programs. 

2.8.1 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

A. CALIFORNIA BROWN PELICAN (ENDANGERED) 

The planning area does not contain any habitat or populations of the California brown pelican 

(Pelecanus occidentalis californicus). All birds that incidentally occur in the planning area are 

considered vagrants. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-57 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Desired Future Conditions 

 None. 

Management Actions 

 None. 

Administrative Actions 

 Provide public education, outreach, and interpretive programs. 

 Enforce existing State and Federal regulations for protection of listed species. 

 Continue to assist USFWS in retrieving weakened, transient California brown pelicans for 

rehabilitation. 

B. GILA TOPMINNOW, BONYTAIL CHUB, AND DESERT 

PUPFISH (ENDANGERED) 

Adopt and implement the Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan (USDOI USFWS 1998a), 

which identifies the following as actions needed: (1) Prevent extinction by protecting remaining 

natural and long-lived reestablished populations; (2) reestablish and protect populations 

throughout historic range; (3) monitor natural and reestablished populations and their habitats; 

(4) develop and implement genetic protocol for managing populations; (5) study life-history, 

genetics, ecology, and habitat of Gila topminnow and interactions with nonnative aquatic 

species; and (6) inform and educate the public and resource managers. 

The Bonytail Chub Recovery Goals (USDOI USFWS 2002a) identifies similar management 

actions addressed in the Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USDOI USFWS 2002c). 

Adopt and implement the Desert Pupfish Recovery Plan (USDOI USFWS 1993), which 

identifies the following as actions needed: (1) protect natural populations and their habitats; (2) 

re-establish populations; (3) establish a refugium population of Quitobaquito pupfish; (4) 

develop protocol for exchange of genetic material; (5) monitor natural and replicated 

populations; (6) determine factors affecting population persistence; and (7) provide information 

and education. 

YFO would implement applicable recovery objectives consistent with the recovery plans and any 

future revisions for these three species. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Provide suitable perennial waters capable of supporting self-sustaining populations of Gila 

topminnow, bonytail chub, and desert pupfish, as appropriate. Protection of populations in 

currently occupied habitat is the highest priority, followed by reintroduction into suitable 

habitat within their historic range. Retain sufficient shoreline vegetation to reduce soil 

erosion and protect spawning habitat along shorelines of perennial waters from excess 

siltation above natural or background levels. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-58 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 In cooperation with the AGFD and the USFWS, reestablish Gila topminnow, bonytail chub, 

and desert pupfish into currently or potentially suitable habitat areas within the planning area. 

 Limit streambank vegetation alteration due to recreation activities and livestock grazing in 

riparian areas along stream reaches occupied by Gila topminnow, bonytail chub, and desert 

pupfish. 

Management Actions 

 Limit domestic livestock utilization of native riparian trees along stream reaches occupied by 

Gila topminnow, bonytail chub, and desert pupfish to 30 percent of the apical stems per 

growing season. 

 Limit fuel treatments in watersheds with occupied reaches or sites of Gila topminnow, 

bonytail chub, and desert pupfish to no more than 1⁄2 of the watershed area in any two-year 

period. 

Administrative Actions 

 None. 

C. MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE (THREATENED) 

Adopt and implement the recovery strategy addressed in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave 

Population) Recovery Plan (USDOI USFWS 1994). The overall recovery objective is to provide 

habitat capable of maintaining stable or increasing trends in abundance and survivorship of 

Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii [xerobates]) in all recovery units in the Mojave 

region. The planning area partially overlaps with the Eastern Colorado recovery units in 

southeastern California (USDOI BLM 2002b). Recovery goals, objective, strategy, and delisting 

criteria are described in the recovery plan. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Ensure no net loss in the quality or quantity of Category I and II desert tortoise habitats to the 

extent practicable. 

 When possible, prohibit activities that would fragment or further isolate existing populations 

of desert tortoises (i.e., canals, highways). 

 Reduce take of desert tortoises through the removal of these animals to undisturbed areas out 

of harm’s way. 

 Ensure that wild horse and burro abundance is in ecological balance with existing desert 

tortoise and other wildlife populations. 

 Reduce the attraction of predators, such as the common raven, to project areas to the 

maximum extent possible. 

 Establish the goals and criteria for three categories of desert tortoise habitat areas. These 

categories are: 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-59 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

o Category I. Maintain stable, viable populations, retain natural shelter sites, protect 

existing tortoise habitat values, and increase populations where possible; 

o Category II. Maintain stable, viable populations, retain natural shelter sites, and halt 

further declines in tortoise habitat values; and 

o Category III. Limit tortoise habitat and population declines to the extent possible through 

mitigation. 

Management Actions 

The following management actions would apply to all Mojave Desert tortoise habitat within the 

planning area. 

 Review land use requests during the March 1 through October 15 critical period on a caseby-case basis. Requests may be denied and/or mitigated to achieve Desired Future 

Conditions (for example, no net loss of Category I and II habitat). 

 Compensate for loss of desert tortoise habitat in accordance with the Arizona Interagency 

Desert Tortoise Team Management Plan (1996). 

 Reduce take of desert tortoises, by injury or death due to the straying of construction and 

maintenance equipment beyond project areas through establishment of clearly defined work 

areas. 

 Modify activities to avoid injury or harm if a tortoise is found in a project area. 

 Confine the period of leasable mineral exploration and major construction work from 

November 1 to March 1. Minimize surface disturbance associated with authorized activities. 

Perform complete preconstruction inspections of areas to be developed and mitigate for 

actions to protect desert tortoises and their habitat, including reclamation and bonding, if 

appropriate. After project completion, measures would be taken to facilitate restoration of the 

disturbed site. 

 Fence new paved roads and highways or major modifications of existing roads through desert 

tortoise habitat with tortoise barrier fencing. Culverts, to allow safe passage of tortoises, shall 

be constructed approximately every mile of new paved roads and railroads. Require erection 

of tortoise barriers around projects that would be sources of mortality (such as canals, heavily 

used roads, steep-walled reservoirs), and promote methods that allow safe movement across 

project areas. 

 Minimize blading of new access or work areas. Disturbance to shrub cover would be avoided 

if possible. If shrubs cannot be avoided during equipment operation or vehicle use, they 

should be crushed wherever possible rather than excavated or bladed and removed. 

 Cover or modify project features that might trap or entangle desert tortoises, such as open 

trenches, pits, pipes, and others, to prevent entrapment during the active season or when an 

on-site biologist is not available. After completion, these features would be filled in, covered, 

or otherwise modified so they are no longer a hazard to desert tortoises. 

 All BLM-authorized surface-disturbing projects would be located in previously disturbed 

areas or outside of Mohave desert tortoise habitat. When at all possible, avoid habitat, 

otherwise mitigate. If a desert tortoise is found in a project area, activities should be modified 

to avoid injuring or harming it. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-60 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Enclose an entire site with a tortoise-proof fence where project activities are to extend over 

90 days in desert tortoise habitat. For project activities that are to occur in fewer than 90 

days, a temporary fence would be erected around the area of activity. 

 Limit vehicular travel and non-motorized competitive events to designated routes. 

 Close and rehabilitate existing roads where no public or administrative need exists. 

 Limit seismic exploration, new construction, road maintenance, vehicle use, or other BLMauthorized surface-disturbing activities to existing ROW Corridor areas. 

Administrative Actions 

 Implement worker education programs and well-defined operational procedures to avoid the 

“take” of desert tortoises and their habitat. 

 Ensure that wild horse and burro abundance is in ecological balance with existing desert 

tortoise and other wildlife populations. 

D. RAZORBACK SUCKER (ENDANGERED) 

Adopt and implement the Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USDOI USFWS 2002b) of the 

Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan (USDOI USFWS 1998b). Actions identified to achieve the 

recovery objective (downlisting or delisting), include (1) reestablishing populations with 

hatchery-produced fish; (2) providing and legally protecting habitat (including flow regimes 

necessary to restore and maintain required environmental conditions) necessary to provide 

adequate habitat and sufficient range for all life stages to support recovered populations; (3) 

providing passage over barriers within occupied habitat to allow unimpeded movement and, 

potentially, range expansion; (4) minimizing entrainment of subadults and adults at 

diversion/out-take structures; (5) ensuring adequate protection from overutilization; (6) ensuring 

adequate protection from diseases and parasites; (7) regulating nonnative fish releases and 

escapement into the main river, floodplain, and tributaries; (8) controlling problematic nonnative fishes as needed; (9) minimizing the risk of hazardous-material spills in critical habitat; 

(10) remediating water-quality problems; and (11) providing for the long-term management and 

protection of populations and their habitat beyond delisting (i.e., conservation plans). 

The planning area is within the lower Colorado River Basin recovery unit. Recovery goals, 

including site-specific management actions and tasks by recovery factors, for the recovery unit 

are addressed in the Razorback Sucker Recovery Goals (USDOI USFWS 2002b). 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Minimize known threats to razorback sucker, which include habitat modification, 

competition with and predation by non-native fish species, and pesticides and pollutants. 

 Support efforts to control non-native fishes, where feasible, to minimize the threat of 

hybridization or negative interactions between non-native fishes and razorback sucker with 

proper coordination with and authorization from AGFD and CDFG. 

 Protect critical habitat from further degradation in habitat conditions and water quality, and 

restore habitats to meet established recovery goals for razorback sucker. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-61 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Management Actions 

 Develop, enhance, and maintain suitable habitats (riverine habitats including oxbows, 

depressions, and bottomlands) required for all life stages for self-sustaining populations in all 

recovery units. 

Administrative Actions 

 Evaluate razorback sucker habitat on BLM-administered lands and develop a strategy to 

eliminate or reduce adverse effects from BLM-authorized development to the habitat along 

shorelines. 

 Enhance public awareness through educational programs and posting of informational 

bulletins of the importance of razorback sucker and potential threat to the species and habitat 

from recreation use and developments in the floodplain along the Colorado River. 

 Post signs at fishing access points and at tackle shops clearly advising anglers of the potential 

to take razorback suckers and how to report and release captured fish. Signs should contain a 

clear photograph of a razorback sucker that can be used by anglers to identify the species. 

E. SONORAN PRONGHORN (ENDANGERED) 

Adopt and implement the recovery strategy addressed in the Final Revised Sonoran Pronghorn 

Recovery Plan (USDOI USFWS 1998c) and Recovery Criteria and Estimates of Time for 

Recovery Actions for the Sonoran Pronghorn (USDOI USFWS 2002c). The recovery criteria for 

the Sonoran pronghorn is to establish an estimated population of 300 adults in one self-sustaining 

population in the U.S. for a minimum of 5 years and establish at least one other self-sustaining 

population in the U.S. Criteria for downlisting the subspecies to threatened status include the 

maintenance of a stable population for a minimum of 5 years and protection and securing of the 

necessary habitat. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Provide unfragmented habitat capable of contributing to the potential reintroduction of 

Sonoran pronghorn in the planning area as a step toward recovery of the species within the 

historic range. 

 Manage for maximum plant species richness. Prescribed fire and livestock herd management 

could be utilized to improve plant species richness. 

 Manage pronghorn habitat to minimize shrub and tree encroachment following evaluation of 

potential reintroduction sites in accordance with the recovery plan. 

Management Actions 

 Use prescribed fire, chemical, and mechanical treatments to reduce shrub and tree 

components. Prescribed fire can be used to supplement natural grassland renewal, especially 

to increase forbs and reduce shrubs. 

 Design livestock fences or modify existing fences to facilitate pronghorn movement. 

Traditional livestock fencing can impede or prevent pronghorn movement and create habitat 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-62 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation can result in genetic isolation, herd extirpation, and 

periodic winter kills. 

Administrative Actions 

 Support the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team’s efforts to transplant or reintroduce species 

to BLM-administered lands. 

 Investigate, evaluate, and prioritize potential future reintroduction sites within the historic 

range. 

 Map native vegetation in potential reintroduction areas. 

F. SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER (ENDANGERED) 

The overall recovery objective for the southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL; Empidonax 

traillii extimus) identified in the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Final Recovery Plan (USDOI 

USFWS 2002d) is to attain a population level and an amount and distribution of habitat 

sufficient to provide for the long-term persistence of metapopulations, even in the face of local 

losses (e.g., extirpation). YFO would implement applicable recovery objectives consistent with 

the recovery plan and any future revisions. 

The planning area is within the Lower Colorado and Gila Recovery Units, as identified in the 

recovery plan. Specific river reaches within the planning area where recovery efforts should be 

focused are identified in the recovery plan. Substantial recovery value exists in areas of currently 

or potentially suitable habitat. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Provide suitable habitat capable of maintaining stable or increasing population trends of 

SWFL in the Lower Colorado Recovery Unit within the planning area. 

 Develop new riparian habitat and restore damaged or degraded areas along the lower 

Colorado River and Gila River for the survival and recovery of SWFL. 

 Minimize activities that would promote or encourage attractants of scavengers, predators, 

and brown-headed cowbirds to protect existing populations of SWFL (for example, livestock 

grazing, bird feeders, forest thinning). 

 Minimize recreation activities where potentially suitable SWFL habitat has been identified to 

allow the area to recover vegetative features needed by the species. 

 Protect existing SWFL habitats by reducing fire risk to habitat. 

Management Actions 

 Use fencing or physical barriers to protect riparian habitat from unauthorized OHV use. 

 Avoid hazardous fuel thinning projects that reduce the quality or quantity of SWFL habitat 

and instead install fire breaks to protect habitat from wildfires. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-63 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Through interagency coordination with AGFD, initiate cowbird control to protect a particular 

SWFL population only after sufficient baseline data show cowbird parasitism to be a 

significant threat to that population. 

Administrative Actions 

 Acquire suitable habitat and protect known occupied sites through land acquisition and 

easements from willing landowners to compensate for loss of historical SWFL habitat. 

 Reduce potential impacts from recreation activities by promoting public outreach and 

education. 

G. YUMA CLAPPER RAIL (ENDANGERED) 

The overall recovery objective for the Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) 

identified in the Yuma Clapper Rail Recovery Plan (USDOI USFWS 1983) is to protect 

sufficient habitat in the U.S. and Mexico with sufficient breeding and wintering habitat capable 

of supporting a population of 700-1,000 breeding birds in the U.S. YFO would implement 

applicable recovery objectives consistent with the recovery plan and any future revisions. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Ensure no net loss or fragmentation of marshlike habitat for major life history requirements 

(i.e., breeding, feeding or resting cover) of Yuma clapper rail and maintain natural bird 

behavior by minimizing indirect effects resulting from human-caused disturbances. 

 Maintain riparian areas that form an integrated mosaic with wet sloughs and marshes 

designed to support the Yuma clapper rail and other marsh and aquatic wildlife. 

Management Actions 

 Burn decadent marsh vegetation without risking the rarer and more valuable cottonwoodwillow habitat, if research concludes that burning decadent marsh vegetation benefits Yuma 

clapper rail population. 

 Restrict or prohibit human caused disturbances to habitat or individuals in occupied 

territories during the breeding and molting seasons (March 15–September 1). 

Administrative Actions 

 Support research to study the biological requirements of Yuma clapper rail. 

 Complete survey and monitoring of Yuma clapper rail populations and breeding areas on 

BLM-administered lands. 

 Initiate public outreach with education and interpretive programs to promote species–habitat 

recovery. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-64 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

2.8.2 FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES 

YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO 

The yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is a candidate for listing under the ESA. 

Candidate species are those species for which USFWS has sufficient information on biological 

vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened under the 

ESA. However, proposed rules have not yet been issued, because such actions are precluded at 

present by other listing activity. No recovery plans or objectives have been developed for this 

species. All projects and activities occurring on public lands within the planning area would be 

evaluated to ensure that they would not contribute to the need to list the yellow-billed cuckoo as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA. YFO would ensure the conservation of yellow-billed 

cuckoo habitats and the ecosystems of which they are components as a means to conserve or 

improve the status of the species in the wild and reduce the need to list the species as endangered 

or threatened. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain connective riparian corridors within and between known yellow-billed cuckoo 

breeding areas along the lower Colorado River and Gila River. 

 Reduce or eliminate recreational use-related impacts and other disturbance factors to nursery 

beds during and after seedling establishment. 

 Protect currently unprotected occupied or potential yellow-billed cuckoo habitat through 

acquisition, easements, partnerships, and other means. 

 Manage for no net loss or fragmentation of breeding and migratory habitats, and maintain 

natural bird behavior by minimizing indirect effects resulting from human-caused 

disturbances. 

Management Actions 

 Develop new riparian habitat and restore damaged or degraded areas along the lower 

Colorado River and Gila River for the protection of yellow-billed cuckoo and other riparian 

or floodplain associated species. Restore reaches of riparian habitat by encouraging 

private/public partnerships for fencing and habitat restoration through Federal, State, and 

non-government programs. 

 Promote regeneration of native vegetation in riparian areas by minimizing impacts from 

land/resource uses such as livestock grazing, water diversion, inundation, wood cutting, and 

OHV travel. 

 Manage for large, contiguous blocks of native riparian habitat (>30 acres) in conjunction 

with removal of competing exotic species (such as salt cedar). 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-65 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Administrative Actions 

 Collaborate with Federal and State agencies, and private organizations conducting research, 

survey, and monitoring of yellow-billed cuckoo to develop regionwide conservation 

strategies. 

 Monitor and evaluate livestock grazing impacts on cottonwood and willow seedlings in 

riparian areas and reduce or remove grazing pressure when vegetative regeneration is being 

negatively impacted. 

 Survey and monitor riparian vegetation areas that are currently regenerating to determine 

occupancy by yellow-billed cuckoo. 

2.8.3 STATE-LISTED SPECIES 

YFO shall carry out management for the conservation of plants and animals listed by California 

and Arizona. State laws protecting these species apply to all BLM programs and actions to the 

extent that they are consistent with FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and other Federal laws. 

YFO would develop policies that would assist California and Arizona in achieving their 

management objectives for State-listed species. It is BLM policy to manage for the conservation 

of State-listed species and their associated habitats and to ensure that actions authorized, funded, 

or carried out do not contribute to the need to list these species as threatened or endangered. 

The species listed in this section are those with specific management guidelines applicable to the 

planning area. 

A. BALD EAGLE 

Adopt and implement the recovery objectives addressed in the Bald Eagle (Southwestern 

Population) Recovery Plan (USDOI USFWS 1982). The recovery plan includes the following 

guidelines: (1) Maintain and protect the existing nest territories; (2) enhance nest territories to 

increase the production of young above the present average of 1.02 fledglings per active nest; 

(3) continue using a production index and annual monitoring program to determine whether the 

population is increasing, decreasing, or stable; (4) identify, maintain, and improve wintering 

habitat; and (5) promote research that would lead to increased eagle survival. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Protect riparian areas capable of providing special habitat components for nesting and 

wintering birds along the lower Colorado River and Gila River. 

 Protect, maintain, or enhance the existing known occupied sites for bald eagles. 

Management Actions 

 None 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-66 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Administrative Actions 

 Monitor land use/cover changes within currently occupied and potential bald eagle habitats 

and evaluate bald eagle responses to changed site conditions and disturbance factors. 

 Locate, map, and evaluate non-nesting habitats by the transient bald eagle population. 

 Enhance public outreach designed to gain support for the protection of bald eagles. 

B. BURROWING OWL 

Adopt and implement conservation strategies outlined by the AGFD and CDFG for this species. 

Overall, the conservation objective is to provide habitat capable of maintaining stable or 

increasing trends in abundance of burrowing owls. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain suitable habitats of sufficient quality and quantity with adequate patch sizes that 

could support burrowing owls. 

 Conserve burrowing animals, which are essential to creating nest sites for burrowing owls. 

 Maintain large, contiguous areas of treeless, native grasslands. 

Management Actions 

 Place artificial nest boxes no closer apart than 360 feet. Artificial burrows should not be 

placed 165 to 330 feet from the original burrow. 

 Reintroduce burrowing owls in areas that have approximately 55 percent (40–70 percent) 

bare ground and average shrub cover of <15 percent. 

 Restrict lethal burrowing mammal control when burrowing owls are not nesting or not 

choosing nest sites. 

 Prohibit the use of traps, poisoned meat, or poisoned grain for rodent control. Rather, 

burrows unoccupied by owls should be fumigated. 

 Pesticide should not be sprayed within 1,300–2,000 feet of burrowing owl nest sites during 

the breeding season. 

Administrative Actions 

 Educate private landowners and the general public about the status of burrowing owls, 

including how domestic cats have a negative impact on burrowing owl abundance. 

C. CACTUS FERRUGINOUS PYGMY-OWL 

Overall, the conservation objective is to provide habitat capable of maintaining stable or 

increasing trends in abundance of CFPOs in all management areas within the Sonoran Region. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-67 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Protect all currently known CFPOs and the integrity of their territories, including adequate 

dispersal habitat. Identify and maintain an interconnected system of habitat patches extending 

from the northern portion of their historical range south to areas in Mexico. Reduce or 

eliminate the threats or limiting factors to the persistence of CFPOs. 

 Provide well-distributed habitat capable of contributing to the survival and recovery of selfsustaining populations of CFPO. Habitat management for CFPO would consider the 

following features: (1) amount, quality, and distribution of habitat patches; (2) juxtaposition 

and connectivity to dispersal habitat; and (3) influence of disturbance-related habitat 

degradation. 

 Manage key elements of CFPO habitat that include the following features 

o Elevations below 4,000 feet within the biotic communities of Sonoran riparian deciduous 

woodlands; Sonoran riparian scrubland; mesquite bosques; xeroriparian communities; 

tree-lined drainages in semidesert, Sonoran savanna, and mesquite grasslands; and the 

Arizona Upland and lower Colorado River subdivisions of Sonoran desertscrub. 

o Nesting cavities located in trees including but not limited to cottonwood, willow, velvet 

ash (Fraxinus velutina), mesquite, paloverde, ironwood, and hackberry (Celtis spp.) with 

a trunk diameter of six inches or greater measured five feet from the ground, or large 

columnar cactus such as saguaro or organ pipe cacti (Stenocereus thurberi) greater than 

eight feet. 

o Multilayered vegetation (presence of canopy, midstory, and ground cover) provided by 

trees and cacti in association with shrubs such as acacia, prickly pear, desert hackberry 

(C. pallida), graythorn (Ziziphus obtusifolia) and ground cover such as triangle-leaf 

bursage (Ambrosia deltoidea), burroweed (Isocoma tenuisecta), grasses, or annual plants. 

o Vegetation providing mid-story and canopy-level cover (this is provided primarily by 

trees greater than seven feet in height) in a configuration and density compatible with 

CFPO flight and dispersal behaviors. Within 49.21-foot-radius plots centered on nests 

and perch sites, AGFD has documented the mean number of trees and average height of 

trees per plot in Sonoran desertscrub and semidesert grassland areas. The mean number 

of trees per plot in Sonoran desertscrub was 12.5 with a mean height of 12.96 feet. The 

mean number of trees in semidesert grassland was 28.5 with a mean height of 26.57 feet. 

o Habitat elements configured and human activity levels minimized so that unimpeded use, 

based on CFPO behavioral patterns (typical flight distances, activity level tolerance, etc.) 

can occur during dispersal and within home ranges (the total area used on an annual 

basis). 

Management Actions 

 During prescribed fires, protect mesquite and other trees and shrubs along riparian and 

xeroriparian areas and all saguaros to provide potentially suitable habitat for CFPOs. 

 Consider restrictions on special use permits and special closure stipulations for public access, 

where appropriate. Activities such as intensive or frequent discharge of firearms (e.g., target 

practicing) should be restricted within 0.25 mile of active CFPO territories during critical 

periods of the breeding season (February 1–July 31). 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-68 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Restrict permitted recreational activities which concentrate large numbers of people or 

vehicles (e.g., hike-a-thon, motor cross rally, four-wheel-drive or OHV rally, cross-country 

races, mountain bike races) within 0.25 mile of active CFPO territories during critical periods 

of the breeding season. 

 Restrict or redirect activities which concentrate cattle or create other disturbances near active 

CFPO territories (site occupancy determined on an annual basis through surveys and 

monitoring) during the breeding season, if such activities show evidence as being detrimental 

to CFPOs. 

Administrative Actions 

 Protect all currently known (since 1993) CFPOs and the integrity of the territories, including 

adequate dispersal habitat. Identify and maintain an interconnected system of habitat patches 

contributing to reproduction and dispersal of CFPOs. 

 Support research to study the life history and habitat requirements of CFPO. 

 Complete survey and monitoring of CFPOs to understand population demographics, 

dispersal movement and habitats, and genetic diversity and isolation. 

 Use existing vegetation and soils maps, coupled with verification on the ground, to identify 

habitat areas potentially suitable for the CFPO. Once potential suitability has been identified, 

these areas should be systematically surveyed (using a multi-year survey approach) to 

determine occupancy by CFPOs. 

 Initiate a process for augmenting existing imperiled CFPO population segments and 

establishing CFPOs in areas that appear suitable, but are presently unoccupied, or into areas 

that have been modified by enhancing some habitat characteristics for CFPOs. 

 Provide public education and outreach to increase public awareness on the importance of 

survival and recovery of CFPOs. 

D. FLAT-TAILED HORNED LIZARD 

Adopt and implement the conservation strategies described in the revised FTHL Rangewide 

Management Strategy (FTHL Interagency Coordinating Committee 2003), whose objectives 

included the following: (1) conserve sufficient habitat to maintain viable populations of FTHLs 

in five management areas; (2) maintain a long-term stable or increasing population trend in all 

management areas; (3) maintain a research area; (4) encourage the protection of FTHL through 

strong conservation management; (5) outside of FTHL management areas, limit the loss of 

habitat and effects on populations of FTHL through the application of effective mitigation and 

compensation; and (6) encourage adoption of a FTHL conservation program in Mexico. YFO 

would implement applicable objectives consistent with the management strategy and any future 

revisions. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-69 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain self-sustaining populations of FTHL in perpetuity. Minimize loss or degradation of 

FTHL habitat and maintain or establish effective habitat corridors between naturally adjacent 

populations. 

Management Actions 

 Using compensation or other funds, acquire currently unprotected or potential FTHL habitat 

within management areas in accordance with established priorities and/or criteria. Participate 

in land exchanges where opportunities arise to acquire key habitat within management areas. 

 Limit the loss of habitat and effects on FTHL populations through the application of effective 

mitigation and compensation. 

Administrative Actions 

 Promote the purposes of the FTHL conservation strategy through law enforcement and public 

education. 

 Encourage and support research that would promote the conservation of FTHLs or desert 

ecosystems. 

 Conduct inventory and monitoring of FTHL populations and habitats. 

 Seek funding to acquire key land parcels to protect FTHL and suitable habitat in the 

management areas. 

E. SONORAN DESERT TORTOISE 

Overall, the conservation objective for the Sonoran desert tortoise is to provide habitat capable of 

maintaining stable or increasing trends in abundance of desert tortoise in all management areas 

within the Sonoran Region. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Category I and II desert tortoise habitat would retain all natural shelter sites (boulders, 

caliche caves, or similar features used by tortoises for sheltering), and maintain the land in an 

unfragmented state. 

 Habitat would consist of at least five percent native perennial grasses, at least 10 percent 

native perennial forbs or subshrubs, at least 30 percent native shrubs, and at least 30 percent 

native trees and cacti, by dry weight, as limited by the capability of the ecological site. 

 No net loss in quantity or quality of Category I and II desert tortoise habitat would occur 

(Table 2-7). 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-70 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Table 2-7 

Goals and Criteria for Categories I, II, and III of Desert Tortoise Habitat Areas 

Item 

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 

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 

populations. 

Stable or decreasing 

populations. 

Stable or decreasing 

populations. 

Management Actions 

 Adopt and implement the conservation strategy addressed in the Management Plan for the 

Sonoran Population of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona (Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise 

Team 1996). 

 Limit the loss of suitable habitat and effects on desert tortoise populations through the 

application of effective mitigation and compensation. 

 Compensate for residual project impacts in accordance with the Compensation for the Desert 

Tortoise Report (Desert Tortoise Compensation Team 1991). Compensation for loss of desert 

tortoise habitat is required according to BLM policy. 

 Assess all mining plans of operations for potential impacts to desert tortoise habitat on a 

case-by-case basis. Adverse impacts to desert tortoise would be mitigated to the extent 

allowable in BLM 3809 regulations. 

 If adverse impacts to habitat cannot be mitigated on site, compensation in the form of land or 

moneys deposited to a fund for the purpose of acquiring desert tortoise habitat would be 

pursued. 

 Authorize no salable mineral material permits in Category I and II desert tortoise habitat. 

 Locate new livestock waters at least two miles from Category I and II desert tortoise habitat. 

 Exclude range improvement projects, including water developments, which would create 

conflicts with desert tortoise populations. 

 Manage rangelands to increase distribution and density of native perennial grasses. Stock 

cattle only under the following criteria: 280 pounds/acre (dry weight) of succulent ephemeral 

forage present, consumption of forage never to result in reduction of the biomass of spring 

annuals to levels below 54 pounds/acre, and cattle densities not to exceed those traditionally 

specified to protect winter forage species for domestic grazers. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-71 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Defer grazing (or rest pastures) from spring, which is concurrent with desert tortoise 

emergence, through October, to include peak desert tortoise activity (August–October) and 

emergence of young. Allow winter-spring ephemeral grazing only, if sufficient soil moisture 

is present, to produce and maintain a standing crop of forage plants adequate to support the 

number of livestock to be turned out as well as provide for other resource values (e.g., 

ground cover, wildlife forage, seed source) for the entire grazing period. After a fire exclude 

livestock grazing at least for one growing season. 

 Prohibit feeding of roughage, such as hay, hay cubes, or grain, to livestock as a means to 

supplement forage quantity. 

 Retain desert tortoise habitat in public ownership, unless land disposal through an exchange 

provides greater benefits to desert tortoises. 

Administrative Actions 

 Update Sonoran desert tortoise categorization maps (Category I, II, and III habitat areas) 

based on new inventory information that meets the criteria in Table 2-7. 

 Adopt and implement to the extent practicable actions from the pending State of Arizona 

conservation agreement for the Sonoran desert tortoise. 

 Monitor and evaluate vegetation use by large ungulates and trends in site conditions in 

designated desert tortoise habitats. 

 Enhance public awareness of desert tortoise habitat management and species conservation 

through educational and interpretive programs. 

 Support research and interagency collaboration that would promote the conservation of 

desert tortoise or desert ecosystems. 

2.9 LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT 

BLM’s objectives for rangeland management are to carry out the intent of the Taylor Grazing 

Act, as amended and supplemented, FLPMA of 1976, and the Public Rangelands Improvement 

Act of 1978. The objectives are (1) to maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public 

lands and their resources, and their present and future use projected through land use planning 

processes; (2) to manage public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield; (3) to 

manage public lands in a manner that would protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, 

ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; 

(4) where appropriate, to preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; 

(5) to provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; (6) to provide for 

outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use; and (7) to manage, maintain, and improve the 

condition of the public rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible for all rangeland 

values in accordance with management objectives and the land use planning process. 

The CFR allows for implementation of the various laws listed above as they relate to livestock 

grazing on public lands. The regulations in 43 CFR 4100 address grazing administration. These 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-72 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

regulations require, among other things, the implementation of Standards and Guidelines for 

grazing administration to achieve fundamentals of rangeland health. 

The Taylor Grazing Act provides for two types of authorized use: (1) a Grazing Permit, which is 

a document authorizing the use of the public lands within an established grazing district; and (2) 

a Grazing Lease, which is a document authorizing the use of the public lands outside an 

established grazing district. Grazing district means the specific area within which the public 

lands are administered in accordance with Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act; Public lands 

outside grazing district boundaries are administered in accordance with Section 15 of the Taylor 

Grazing Act. 

A permit or lease would include: 

1. The number and kind of livestock; 

2. The period(s) of use; 

3. The allotment(s) to be used; and 

4. The amount of use, in Animal Unit Months (AUMs). 

The Special Ephemeral Rule, published December 7, 1968 (Appendix 2-D) allows a variance to 

the mandatory stipulations above. The permit or lease does not specify number and kind of 

livestock, period of use, or the amount of use in AUMs. The rule establishes that on applicable 

grazing lands, livestock grazing is feasible when certain climatic conditions create favorable 

conditions for grazing, primarily on annual vegetation. When these conditions occur, and the 

permittee or lessee applies for grazing use, the YFO determines the amount and period of 

authorized use. Such use is authorized when forage is available and there is a high probability 

that the forage would continue to be available through the period applied for and authorized. 

The regulations at 43 CFR 4100 require that permits and leases include terms and conditions that 

ensure conformance with either the fall-back standards or those approved for the area within 

which the allotment is located. The Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Administration apply to all allotments within the planning area. No grazing is authorized 

within riparian and wetland areas. 

Other terms and conditions may be specified in grazing permits or leases, which would assist in 

achieving management objectives, provide for proper range management, or assist in the orderly 

administration of the public rangelands. These terms and conditions, which are not all inclusive, 

are contained at 43 CFR 4130.3. 

Terms and conditions for grazing permits and leases must be in conformance with resource and 

management objectives and program constraints, as identified in land use plans. 

BLM–administered lands available for livestock grazing are presented in Table 2-8 and Map 2-

5a (Alternative A), Map 2-5b (Alternative B), and Map 2-5c (Alternative C and the Proposed 

Plan). 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-73 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Table 2-8 

Livestock Grazing Availability by Alternative 

Available/Unavailable for Alternative (BLM acres) 

Livestock Grazing A B C D E 

Available YFO 1,005,600 680,900 428,300 0 428,300 

Available LHFO 215,200* 215,200* 215,200* 0 215,200* 

Unavailable 309,500 637,100 889,700 1,533,200 889,700 

Total Acres* Total YFO and managed portions of LHFO = 1,533,200 acres 

BLM = Bureau of Land Management; YFO = Yuma Field Office; LHFO = Lake Havasu Field Office 

*215,200 acres available in LHFO, managed by YFO. LHFO acres are only calculated for areas available. 

BLM allotments in Arizona are classified as Perennial, Ephemeral, or Perennial-Ephemeral. 

These classifications correspond to the following types of designated rangelands: 

 Perennial. Rangeland which consistently produces perennial forage to support a year-round 

livestock operation; 

 Ephemeral. Rangelands that do not consistently produce enough forage to sustain a yearround livestock operation, but may briefly produce unusual volumes of forage to 

accommodate livestock grazing. There is a Special Rule for Ephemeral Ranges; and 

 Perennial-Ephemeral. Rangeland which produces perennial forage each year and also 

periodically provides additional ephemeral vegetation. In a year of abundant moisture and 

favorable climatic conditions, annual forbs and grasses add materially to the total grazing 

capacity. 

The number of acres proposed available or unavailable for livestock grazing can be found within 

Alternative A through the Proposed Plan and primarily differ by the number of acres. The entire 

planning area is proposed unavailable under Alternative D. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Provide forage on a sustained yield basis for livestock consistent with meeting Land Health 

Standards and multiple use objectives. 

 Conduct livestock use and associated management practices 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, 

improve public rangeland ecosystems to meet objectives. 

 Maintain or improve healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems to meet Land Health 

Standards (USDOI BLM 1997a) and produce a wide range of public values such as wildlife 

habitat, livestock forage, recreation opportunities, clean water, and functional watersheds. 

Management Actions 

 Continue existing grazing allotments and acreage under Alternative A. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-74 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Remove four inactive livestock grazing allotments from availability encompassing 324,700 

acres under Alternative B. 

 Remove 12 inactive livestock grazing allotments from availability encompassing 577,300 

acres under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan. 

 Remove all livestock grazing allotments under Alternative D, making 1,533,200 acres 

unavailable for grazing. 

 Authorize and maintain range improvement projects in accordance with grazing regulations 

and policies. 

 Continue to use the allotment management categorization process to define the level of 

management needed to properly administer livestock grazing according to management 

needs, resource conflicts, potential for improvement, and BLM funding/staffing constraints. 

The allotment categories are: 

o Custodial (C), custodial management to protect resource conditions and values, 

o Maintain (M), management to maintain current satisfactory resource conditions and 

active management to ensure that the conditions of resource values do not decline, and 

o Improve (I), active management to improve unsatisfactory resource conditions. 

 Change the category of grazing allotments as objectives are accomplished and/or conditions 

change. Chapter 3, Livestock Grazing, lists current specific allotment category assignments, 

grazing systems, preference, and such. 

 Guidelines for grazing administration, as approved in the Arizona Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration, apply to all livestock grazing activities. 

2.9.1 ARIZONA GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING 

ADMINISTRATION 

The Arizona Guidelines for Grazing Administration are a series of management practices used to 

ensure that grazing activities meet the Land Health Standards. 

Guidelines for Standard 1 

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. 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. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-75 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Guidelines for Standard 2 

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. 

Guidelines for Standard 3 

3-1. The use and perpetuation of native 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. 

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, wild horse and burro); and 

 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. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-76 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

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. 

2.9.2 CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFYING ALLOTMENTS AS 

EPHEMERAL 

Allotments may be classified as ephemeral in accordance with the Special Ephemeral Rule 

published December 7, 1968 though Rangeland Health Assessments. BLM has established 

criteria based upon the Special Rule through which allotments can be classified as ephemeral. 

These criteria include: 

1. Rangelands are within the hot desert biome; 

2. Average annual precipitation is less than eight inches; 

3. Rangelands produce less than 25 pounds per acre of desirable forage grasses; 

4. The vegetative community is composed of less than five-percent desirable forage species; 

5. The rangelands are generally below 3,500 feet in elevation; 

6. Annual production is highly unpredictable and forage availability is of a short duration; 

7. Usable forage production depends on abundant moisture and other favorable climatic 

conditions; and 

8. Rangelands lack potential to improve existing ecological status and produce a dependable 

supply of forage through intensive rangeland management practices. 

Administrative Actions 

 Land health standard evaluations would continue on all grazing allotments in accordance 

with established schedules, grazing regulations and policies. The above criteria would be 

addressed as individual allotments are evaluated for compliance with the Arizona Standards 

for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. 

2.10 WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT 

Wild horses and burros are protected by the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, 

as amended by FLPMA of 1976, and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 

95-514). After the passage of the Act, BLM became the managing agency responsible for 

protecting these animals and their habitat on BLM-administered public lands. The management 

of wild horses and burros on public lands is accomplished at the minimum level necessary to 

assure the herd’s free-roaming character, health, and self-sustaining ability in accordance with 

the 1971 Act. 

BLM YFO manages one Herd Area (HA) and one Herd Management Area (HMA) that share 

identical boundaries. The Cibola-Trigo HMA was identified in 1973 and is comprised of slightly 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-77 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

more than one million acres located entirely within the planning area. In Arizona, the CibolaTrigo HMA supports both wild horses and burros. While in southwestern California, only the 

wild burro roams between the Colorado River and the Chocolate/Mules and Picacho HMAs. In 

California, wild horses and burros are managed in accordance with the Proposed Northern and 

Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan and Final EIS (USDOI BLM 2002a). 

The HA represents a historic range and therefore the acres remain the same for each alternative. 

The number of acres proposed for the Cibola-Trigo HMA under Alternative A is the same as the 

historic range. The HMA boundary would be adjusted to only include those portions of the HA 

west of Highway 95 and south of I-10 under Alternative B through the Proposed Plan. HMAs by 

alternative for Wild Horse and Burro Management are presented in Table 2-9 and Map 2-6a 

(Alternative A) and Map 2-6b (Alternative B through the Proposed Plan). 

Table 2-9 

Wild Horse and Burro Herd and Herd Management Areas by Alternatives 

Alternative (BLM acres) 

HMA A B C D E 

Herd Area (historic) 263,700 263,700 263,700 263,700 263,700 

Cibola-Trigo HMA 263,700 179,000 179,000 179,000 179,000 

HA = Herd Area; HMA = Herd Management Area 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain a viable and sustainable population of wild, free roaming horses and burros in the 

Cibola-Trigo HMA, while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance with other 

resources and consistent with other management agencies objectives. 

 Wild horses and burros would be managed in areas adjacent to the NWRs on the Colorado 

River in accordance with mutual agreements established for resource protection to meet the 

National Refuge management objectives. This includes agreed upon use levels for key forage 

species currently identified. 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

 The Appropriate Management Level (AML2) for the Cibola-Trigo HMA would be 165 

burros and 150 horses. Monitoring data, including climate, population, and vegetative data, 

would be collected and used to support removals and/or the revision of AML2 for either wild 

horses, burros, or both. 

 NWRs are not included within the boundaries of the Cibola-Trigo HMA. Imperial and Cibola 

NWRs would allow burro use if impacts to xero-riparian vegetation are kept to a minimum 

by maintaining the AML2. 

Management Actions 

 Reduce the Cibola-Trigo HMA to 179,000 acres under Alternatives B, C, D, and the 

Proposed Plan. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-78 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Table 2-10 

Wild Horse and Burro Management Actions by Alternative 

Alternative 

Management Action A B C D E 

YFO would mitigate loss of access to water along the Colorado River 

due to changing land use by either providing fenced access routes or 

developing new sources of water. 

X X X X X 

Identify objectives for herd composition, animal characteristics, and 

habitat development. The AML2 may be adjusted based on 

monitoring data and subsequent evaluations. 

 X X X X 

Wild horses and burros utilizing the HA east of Highway 95 would be 

removed due to animal safety and health issues. Wild horses may be 

relocated into the HMA to the extent that they would not exceed the 

AML2; all others would be offered for adoption through the Wild 

Horse and Burro Adoption Program. 

 X X X X 

YFO = Yuma Field Office; AML2 = Appropriate Management Level; HA = Herd Area; HMA = Herd Management Area 

Administrative Actions 

 Conduct population status and rangeland condition assessments periodically for population 

trend monitoring and habitat condition evaluation. Collect relevant and essential background 

information using established protocol. 

 Review current herd management directions and rangeland conditions of the Cibola-Trigo 

HMA. Identify relevant changes in management directions to ensure multiple-use and 

ecological sustainability in the Cibola-Trigo HMA supporting the wild horses and burros. 

 Conduct herd monitoring annually in accordance with established protocol. Monitoring data 

would be used for periodic review of the AML2 and guide animal removal decisions. 

2.11 RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

There are several regulations, laws, policies, and guidelines that authorize and direct BLM 

recreation management activities. FLPMA originally mandated that the BLM was to manage 

outdoor recreation resources on public lands. Section 202(c)(9) calls for land use planning 

consistent with Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans. FLPMA’s implementing 

regulations enable the BLM to collect SRP fees for organized group events, commercial 

activities, and use of specially designated public lands, such as the planning area’s two LTVAs. 

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) authorizes the BLM to collect 

amenity recreation fees for the public use of developed recreation facilities. YFO currently 

manages seven developed recreation sites that charge amenity recreation fees under the authority 

of FLREA. YFO is required to reinvest all SRP and amenity recreation fees back into each 

respective fee program for recreation maintenance, enhancement, and development. 

Recreation along the lower Colorado River is managed in coordination with Reclamation and 

conforms to the Lower Colorado River LUP of 1964 (USDOI 1964) and the Colorado River 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-79 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Floodway Protection Act of 1986, as amended. The planning area’s two recreation concession 

leases are managed according to the 1993 BLM Yuma District’s Concession Review Program

(USDOI BLM 1993a). YFO recreation management also adheres to the BLM Arizona Standards 

for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration, ESA of 1973, as amended, 

NHPA of 1966, as amended, and NEPA of 1969, as amended. 

BLM recognizes that natural resource-based recreation is a significant economic contributor in 

most communities adjacent to public lands. The BLM’s Priorities for Recreation and Visitor 

Services (USDOI BLM 2003a) states, “Our multiple-use mission is to serve the diverse outdoor 

recreation demands of visitors while helping maintain the sustainable conditions needed to 

conserve their lands and their recreation choices.” The document sets three primary goals for the 

BLM recreation program: 

1. Improve access to appropriate recreation opportunities on USDOI-managed or -partnered 

lands and waters; 

2. Ensure a quality experience and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on USDOImanaged or -partnered lands and waters; and 

3. Provide for and receive fair value in recreation. 

The public lands are primarily managed to maintain a freedom of recreational choice with a 

minimum of regulatory constraints. As such, a majority of public lands have recreation 

opportunities that can be appropriately provided for in conjunction with the other resource 

demands sanctioned by the BLM’s multiple-use mission. 

The YFO would manage recreational opportunities on the public lands to maintain six different 

prescribed recreation settings, ranging from Primitive to Urban (as defined in Chapter 3). 

Prescribed recreation settings were based on the results of a 2005 Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) Inventory of the public lands within the YFO (see Map 3-25). The results of 

the ROS Inventory were adjusted to accommodate the various other resource allocations 

proposed under each alternative. While YFO would strive to manage the public lands to support 

these prescribed recreation settings, they would not ultimately restrict or authorize future 

Management and Administrative Actions. Table 2-11 and Maps 2-7a through 2-7d convey the 

acreages and locations of the six different types of prescribed recreation settings the YFO would 

manage for under each alternative. 

Table 2-11 

Prescribed Recreation Settings by Alternative 

Prescribed Recreation Alternatives (BLM acres) 

Settings A* B C D E 

Primitive n/a 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 

Semi-primitive n/a 147,400 135,400 436,700 154,700 

Rural Natural n/a 786,700 689,100 282,200 723,900 

Rural Developed n/a 171800 144,900 65,600 131,700 

Suburban n/a 2,500 2,500 2,500 5,700 

Urban n/a 8,300 8,300 8,300 4,700 

*Recreation settings were not prescribed for the planning area in previous plans. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-80 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Desired Future Conditions 

 The prescribed recreation settings would (1) provide guidance on what types of actions and 

mitigation measures are appropriate on the public lands when comprehensively examined 

along with other BLM resource allocations, and (2) disclose to the public the potential 

impacts to recreational conditions during the NEPA analysis process for future proposed 

actions. 

Management Actions 

Management Actions by alternative for recreation are presented in Table 2-12 below. 

Table 2-12 

Recreation Management Actions by Alternative 

Alternative 

Management Actions A B C D E 

Collect amenity recreation fees at the Squaw Lake, Senator’s Wash, North Shore, South 

Shore, Betty’s Kitchen, Oxbow Recreation and Wildlife Area, and Ehrenberg Sandbowl 

recreation sites under the authority of FLREA. 

X X X X X 

Authorize SRP activities on a case-by-case basis in conformance with NEPA to provide 

for a wide range of recreation opportunities on BLM-administered lands. Collect SRP 

fees for authorized activities and use of the La Posa and Imperial Dam LTVAs. 

X X X X X 

Where warranted by increased recreation demands and user and resource conflicts, 

expand the recreation fee program to additional BLM-administered lands. The 

development of new and expanded recreation fee sites would be contingent upon the 

completion of publicly reviewed recreation activity plans. Activity-level management 

plans must document the long-term compatibility of such proposals with the BLM’s 

multiple-use mission. 

X X X X 

Where appropriate, construct and modify recreation facilities and outdoor developed 

areas so they are accessible to people with disabilities in accordance with the 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended, and in conformance with relevant building standards, accessible outdoor 

program guidance, and program regulations.

X X X X X 

Construct only flood-proofed facilities within the lower Colorado River 100-year 

floodplain. Examples include, but are not limited to, boat ramps, boat services, ramadas, 

kiosks, parking lots, picnic tables, grills, fire rings, trash cans, outdoor showers, 

restrooms, campsites, and electric hookups.

X X X X 

Allow the existing permanent structures to remain in the lower Colorado River 100-year 

floodplain until they are inundated or their useful life is gone. X X X 

Issue new recreation concession leases on a case-by-case basis in conformance with 

FLPMA. Land use alternatives that should be considered during NEPA analysis include 

accommodating the current lessee’s request, allowing other potential bidders an 

opportunity to enter the recreation concession lease program, converting the lease to a 

traditional BLM-managed recreation site, and restoring the land to wildlife habitat. 

X X X 

No new recreation concession leases would be issued within the planning area. X X 

Maintain, install, and improve informational and interpretive kiosks and signs at the 

main points of access and interest throughout the planning area. Kiosks and signs would 

focus on informing visitors of applicable regulations and sustainable outdoor recreation 

ethics. 

 X X X 

Identify a sufficient number of staging areas and base camps throughout the planning 

area for authorized SRP activities through collaboration with local agencies and 

organizations. 

 X X 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-81 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Table 2-12 

Recreation Management Actions by Alternative (cont.) 

Alternative 

Management Actions A B C D E 

Install and maintain vehicle and pedestrian traffic counters on BLM-administered lands 

with high public use to improve the accuracy of visitor use monitoring data. X X X 

Reduce and or remove hazardous fuels in recreation sites to improve public safety in 

coordination with the BLM Fire Management program. X X X X X 

Protect at-risk cultural resources and special status plant and animal species from 

recreational damage as needed throughout the planning area. Protection measures could 

include, but are not limited, to fencing, signs, and trail realignments, restorations, and use 

limitations. 

 X X X 

Continue implementing decisions from the La Posa Interdisciplinary Management Plan, 

the Ehrenberg-Cibola Recreation Area Management Plan, and the Oxbow Recreation and 

Wildlife Area Management Plan. 

X X X X 

Limit the length of stay for overnight camping on BLM-administered lands to 14 days 

within any 28-day period. After 14 days, visitors must move to another campsite at least 

25 miles away. This length of stay limit does not apply within recreation concession 

leases, public agency leases, LTVAs, and the Mittry Lake Wildlife Area. 

X X X X X 

Limit the length of stay for overnight camping at the Mittry Lake Wildlife Area to 10 

days per calendar year. X X X X X 

Allow continuous overnight camping from September 15 to April 15 within the La Posa 

and Imperial Dam LTVAs. X X X X X 

Authorize SRPs for competitive events on BLM-administered lands on a case-by-case 

basis. X X X 

Prohibit competitive events on BLM-administered lands within the planning area. X X 

Prohibit SRP vending operations within Undeveloped SRMAs. X 

Expand the administrative boundary of the Oxbow Recreation and Wildlife Area as 

needed to benefit the recreational and/or riparian values of the lower Colorado River. X X X 

Limit 2,900 acres of the Big Marias ACEC to day-use only (see Map 2-1e-1). X X 

Limit 400 acres of the Dripping Springs ACEC to day-use only (see Map 2-1e-2). X 

Limit 3,700 acres of the Sears Point ACEC to day-use only (see Map 2-1e-3). X 

BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FLREA = Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act; LTVA = Long Term Visitor Area; 

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; RMP = Resource Management Plan; SRMA = Special Recreation Management 

Areas; SRP = Special Recreation Permit 

Administrative Actions 

Administrative Actions by alternative for recreation are presented in Table 2-13. 

Table 2-13 

Planning Area-wide Recreation Administrative Actions by Alternative 

Alternative 

Administrative Actions A B C D E 

Update publicly reviewed Recreation and Visitor Services’ Business Plans as needed to 

propose changes in the recreation fee program. X X X X 

Determine the need for facilities within designated Open OHV Management Areas to 

address public safety and resource protection concerns. If facilities are needed, consider 

collecting recreation fees to cover facility installation and maintenance costs. 

 X X X 

Monitor and administer recreation concession leases according to the 1993 Yuma 

District Concession Review Program. X X X X X 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-82 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Table 2-13 

Planning Area-wide Recreation Administrative Actions by Alternative (cont.) 

Alternative 

Administrative Actions A B C D E 

Within the lower Colorado River floodplain, coordinate with Reclamation to (1) ensure 

that recreation projects do not affect water delivery and storage or the integrity of the 

floodway and (2) ensure that impacts to recreation are considered during river 

management activities. 

X X X X X 

Develop and enhance partnerships and the YFO volunteer program to improve 

recreational opportunities and promote community stewardship of the public lands. X X X 

Enhance and expand the YFO’s interpretive and outreach programs for the purposes of 

public education and resource protection. X X X 

Work with interested cooperators to develop a proposal for the U.S. Board on 

Geographic Names to change the names of Squaw Lake and the Squaw Lake 

Campground. 

 X X X X 

OHV = Off-highway vehicle; YFO = Yuma Field Office 

2.11.1 RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) are allocated where the resources of the public 

lands attract visitors from one of the three following recreation markets: 

 Public lands with a demonstrated community recreation market would be managed as a 

Community SRMA. A Community SRMA is managed in collaboration with local 

community partners to primarily benefit the local residents; 

 Public lands with a demonstrated destination recreation market would be managed as a 

Destination SRMA. A Destination SRMA is managed as a regional or national destination 

through local, regional, and national partnerships to provide facilities and services that meet 

the recreational demands of outside visitors; and 

 Public lands with a demonstrated undeveloped recreation market would be managed as an 

Undeveloped SRMA. An Undeveloped SRMA is proactively managed to intentionally 

sustain dispersed and undeveloped recreation opportunities and experiences. 

YFO lands outside of SRMAs are managed as Extensive Recreation Management Areas 

(ERMA). Recreation management within ERMAs would be limited to custodial actions only. 

Custodial actions are primarily reactive in order to manage dispersed activities, visitor health and 

safety, and user and resource conflicts. ERMAs are generally managed directly through LUP 

decisions and do not require additional activity-level planning. 

For proposals concerning OHV and other trail-based recreation activities, please see the Travel 

Management section in this chapter. 

Proposed SRMAs are presented in Table 2-14 and Maps 2-8a through 2-8e. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-83 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Table 2-14 

Special Recreation Management Areas by Alternative (BLM acres) 

Alternative 

Allocation A* B C D E 

Colorado River Corridor Destination SRMA n/a 130,100 94,000 11,000 147,300 

Greater Yuma Community SRMA n/a 0 64,900 35,600 123,200 

Greater Yuma Destination SRMA n/a 166,700 0 0 0 

Gila River Valley Undeveloped SRMA n/a 0 101,900 130,900 43,300 

Yuma East Undeveloped SRMA n/a 0 457,400 511,800 528,300 

Yuma East Community SRMA n/a 587,300 0 0 0 

La Posa Destination SRMA n/a 400,300 400,300 239,500 308,400 

ERMA n/a 33,600 199,500 389,200 167,500 

Total BLM 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 

SRMA = Special Recreation Management Area; ERMA = Extensive Recreation Management Area; BLM = Bureau of Land 

Management 

*The 1994 Final Ehrenberg-Cibola Recreation Area Management Plan allocated 112,700 acres as a Recreation Management Area 

but did not identify a Destination, Community, or Undeveloped marketing strategy. 

2.11.2 RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Within each SRMA, BLM also allocates Recreation Management Zones (RMZ). An RMZ 

represents public lands with a distinctive recreation niche (activities, experiences, and benefits) 

within each SRMA. YFO would focus management, funding, and planning within RMZs to 

implement and maintain proposed Desired Future Conditions, Recreation Management 

Objectives, and Management and Administrative Actions. 

The allocation of RMZs provides the planning area with an activity-level planning framework 

for future recreation management. Activity-level recreation management plans based on this 

framework would provide additional opportunities for public involvement and agency 

collaboration to further ensure that future proposed actions are compatible with the BLM’s 

multiple-use mission. 

The proposed RMZ boundaries are not intended to confer authority, responsibility, or jurisdiction 

over lands and waters that are not administered by the BLM. Proposed RMZ boundaries reflect 

the fact that these lands and waters are essential components of comprehensively managing the 

entire area. 

BLM IM Number 2006-060 instructs the BLM to incorporate benefits-based recreation 

management principles into all new LUPs. Benefits-based management varies from the 

traditional “activity-based” recreation management approach, which primarily focused on 

specific activities and the associated facilities needed to support such uses. Benefits-based 

recreation focuses management on a primary activity within each RMZ. These primary activities 

provide the public with certain types of experiences on the public lands. Providing these 

experiences then produces a variety of personal, community, economic, and environmental 

benefits. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-84 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

A. COLORADO RIVER CORRIDOR SRMA AND RMZS 

Desired Future Conditions for Colorado River Corridor Destination SRMA 

 The primary recreation management strategy for the Colorado River Corridor SRMA would 

be to target the demonstrated regional destination tourism market. Public use of the SRMA 

varies by season. Family and groups from metropolitan centers in Arizona and California 

visit the SRMA primarily for water-based activities during the summer. During the winter, 

the SRMA is a destination for OHV riding, hunting, camping, horseback riding, cultural 

resource viewing, and fishing throughout the region. These recreation opportunities would 

be sustained and enhanced through the implementation of identified Recreation Management 

Objectives and the maintenance of prescribed recreation settings. 

Management Actions 

 Allocate the Colorado River Corridor Destination SRMA under Alternatives B, C, D, and the 

Proposed Plan (acreages reflected in Table 2-15). 

Table 2-15 

Colorado River Corridor SRMA by Alternative 

Alternative 

Allocation A B C D E 

Primary Marketing Strategy n/a Destination Destination Destination Destination 

Acreage n/a 130,100 94,000 11,000 147,300 

Access RMZ n/a X 

Blythe Intaglios Heritage RMZ n/a X X X X 

Ehrenberg-Cibola RMZ n/a X X X X 

Trigo Mountains Wilderness 

RMZ 

n/a X X 

SRMA = Special Recreation Management Area; RMZ = Recreation Management Zone 

Administrative Actions 

 Promote the following environmental education programs and topics to ensure that 

recreational activities remain sustainable within the Colorado River Corridor SRMA: Tread 

Lightly!, Leave No Trace, wildland fire prevention and mitigation, Stop Aquatic 

Hitchhikers!, invasive species prevention, archaeological ethics, natural and cultural history 

of the lower Colorado River, desert survival skills, and OHV safety. 

 Coordinate and form partnerships with the following agencies and groups for comprehensive 

and collaborative management of the Colorado River Corridor SRMA: AGFD, Arizona State 

Lands Department, BLM El Centro Field Office, BLM Palm Springs/South Coast Field 

Office, CDFG, Arizona and California SHPO, Cibola NWR, City of Blythe, Imperial 

County, Imperial NWR, La Paz County, Reclamation, Riverside County, Native American 

tribes and groups, Sonoran Desert Invasive Species Council, Southern Low Desert Resource 

Conservation and Development Council, Town of Cibola, Town of Ehrenberg, Town of Palo 

Verde, United Desert Gateway, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS, and YPG. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-85 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

B. GREATER YUMA SRMA AND RMZS 

Desired Future Conditions for Greater Yuma Community SRMA 

 Under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan, the primary recreation management strategy 

for the Greater Yuma SRMA would be to target the demonstrated community tourism market. 

Residents of local communities are the primary visitors of the SRMA, who come to hike, 

camp, boat, fish, hunt, mountain bike, and ride horses and OHVs. These recreation opportunities would be sustained and enhanced through the implementation of identified Recreation 

Management Objectives and the maintenance of prescribed recreation settings. 

Desired Future Conditions for the Greater Yuma Destination SRMA 

 Under Alternative B, the primary recreation management strategy for the Greater Yuma 

SRMA would be to target a destination tourism market. YFO would proactively seek to form 

local, regional, and national partnerships to promote the hiking, camping, boating, fishing, 

hunting, mountain biking, and horseback riding opportunities within the SRMA as a national 

destination. These recreation opportunities would be sustained and enhanced through the 

implementation of identified Recreation Management Objectives and the maintenance of 

prescribed recreation settings. 

Management Actions 

 Allocate the Greater Yuma SRMA as a Destination SRMA under Alternative B, and a 

Commu-nity SRMA under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan (acreages reflected in 

Table 2-16). 

Table 2-16 

Greater Yuma SRMA by Alternative 

Alternative 

Allocation A B C D E 

Primary Marketing Strategy n/a Destination Community Community Community 

Acreage n/a 166,700 64,900 35,600 123,200 

Access RMZ n/a X 

Anza NHT RMZ n/a X X X X 

Gila Mountains RMZ n/a X X X 

Imperial Dam RMZ n/a X X X X 

Laguna Mountains RMZ n/a X X X 

Limitrophe RMZ n/a X X X X 

Mittry Lake RMZ n/a X X X X 

Sears Point Heritage RMZ n/a X 

Southern Desert Communities RMZ n/a X X 

Urban Recreation Lands RMZ n/a X X X X 

NHT = National Historic Trail; RMZ = Recreation Management Zone; SRMA = Special Recreation Management 

Area 

Administrative Actions 

 Promote the following environmental education programs and topics to ensure that 

recreational activities remain sustainable within the Greater Yuma SRMA: Tread Lightly!, 

Leave No Trace, archaeological ethics, Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!, invasive species 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-86 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

prevention, wildfire prevention and mitigation, natural history and cultural history of Yuma, 

International Boundary safety, desert survival skills, health benefits of regular exercise, and 

OHV safety. 

 Coordinate and form partnerships with the following agencies and groups for comprehensive 

and collaborative management of the Greater Yuma SRMA: Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona, 

AGFD, Arizona State Parks, Arizona State Lands Department, Arizona and California 

SHPOs, BMGR, BLM El Centro Field Office, CDFG, City of Yuma, Fisher’s Landing, 

Hidden Shores recreation concession lease, Imperial County, Imperial NWR, Native 

American tribes and groups, LCR MSCP, The Marine Corps Air Station–Yuma (MCASYuma), Martinez Lake, Mexico, NPS, Reclamation, Sonoran Desert Invasive Species 

Council, United Desert Gateway, U.S. Border Patrol, USIBWC, WMIDD, Yuma County, 

Yuma Historical Society, YPG, Yuma Trails, Inc., private landowners, and local public 

health agencies. 

C. GILA RIVER VALLEY SRMA AND RMZs 

Desired Future Conditions for the Gila River Valley Undeveloped SRMA 

 The primary recreation management strategy for the proposed Gila River Valley SRMA 

would be to target the demonstrated undeveloped tourism market. Visitors come to this 

SRMA to enjoy dispersed hiking, hunting, fishing, and cultural resource viewing 

opportunities. These recreation opportunities would be sustained and enhanced through the 

implementation of identified Recreation Management Objectives and the maintenance of 

prescribed recreation settings. 

Management Actions 

 Allocate the Gila River Valley SRMA as Undeveloped under Alternatives C, D, and the 

Proposed Plan, with the acreages as reflected in Table 2-17. 

Administrative Actions 

 Promote the following environmental education programs and topics to ensure that 

recreational activities remain sustainable within the Gila River Valley SRMA: Tread 

Lightly!, Leave No Trace, archaeological ethics, invasive species prevention, wildland fire 

prevention and mitigation, Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!, desert survival skills, natural and 

cultural history of the area, and OHV safety. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-87 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Table 2-17 

Gila River Valley SRMA by Alternative 

Alternative 

Allocation A B C D E 

Primary Marketing Strategy n/a None Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped 

Acreage n/a 0 101,900 130,900 43,300 

Access RMZ n/a X X 

Anza NHT RMZ n/a X X 

Gila Mountains RMZ n/a X X 

Laguna Mountains RMZ n/a X 

Sears Point Heritage RMZ n/a X X X 

Southern Desert Communities RMZ n/a X X 

SRMA = Special Recreation Management Area; RMZ = Recreation Management Zone 

 Coordinate and form partnerships with the following agencies and groups for comprehensive 

and collaborative management of the Gila River Valley SRMA: Anza Trail Coalition of 

Arizona, AGFD, Arizona State Parks, Arizona SHPO, BLM Lower Sonoran Field Office, 

Native American tribes and groups, NPS, Reclamation, Sonoran Desert Invasive Species 

Council, Town of Dateland, Town of Wellton, United Desert Gateway, WMIDD, Yuma 

County, Yuma Historical Society, Yuma Trails, Inc., and private landowners. 

D. YUMA EAST SRMA AND RMZs 

Desired Future Conditions for the Yuma East Undeveloped SRMA 

 Under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan, the primary recreation management strategy 

for the identified Yuma East SRMA would be to target the demonstrated undeveloped

tourism market. The area is a regional hunting destination, and this activity can only continue 

through the preservation of the SRMA’s exemplary wildlife habitat. Recreation opportunities 

within the SRMA would be sustained and enhanced through the implementation of identified 

Recreation Management Objectives and the maintenance of prescribed recreation settings. 

Desired Future Conditions for the Yuma East Community SRMA 

 Under Alternative B, the primary recreation management strategy for the identified Yuma 

East SRMA would be to target a community tourism market. YFO would proactively seek to 

form partnerships with the surrounding rural communities to expand hiking, wildlife 

viewing, and OHV riding opportunities for local residents. Recreation opportunities within 

the SRMA would be sustained and enhanced through the implementation of identified 

Recreation Management Objectives and the maintenance of prescribed recreation settings. 

Management Actions 

 Allocate the Yuma East SRMA as a Community SRMA under Alternative B, and an 

Undeveloped SRMA under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan with acreages as 

reflected in Table 2-18.
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-88 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Table 2-18 

Yuma East SRMA by Alternative 

Alternative 

Allocation A B C D E 

Primary Marketing Strategy n/a Community Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped 

Acreage n/a 587,300 457,400 511,800 528,300 

Access RMZ n/a X 

Dispersed Use RMZ n/a X X X X 

Eagletail Mountain 

Wilderness RMZ n/a X X X X 

SRMA = Special Recreation Management Area; RMZ = Recreation Management Zone 

Administrative Actions 

 Promote the following environmental education programs and topics to ensure that 

recreational activities remain sustainable within the Yuma East SRMA: Tread Lightly!, 

Leave No Trace, archaeological ethics, invasive species prevention, wildland fire prevention 

and mitigation, natural and cultural history of the area, and OHV safety. 

 Coordinate and form partnerships with the following agencies and groups for comprehensive 

and collaborative management of the Yuma East SRMA: AGFD, Arizona State Parks, 

Arizona SHPO, Arizona Wilderness Coalition, BLM Lower Sonoran Field Office, Kofa 

NWR, Maricopa County, Native American tribes and groups, Sierra Club, Sonoran Desert 

Invasive Species Council, United Desert Gateway, Yuma County, YPG, and Yuma Valley 

Rod and Gun Club. 

E. LA POSA SRMA AND RMZs 

Desired Future Conditions for the La Posa Destination SRMA 

 The primary recreation management strategy for the proposed La Posa SRMA would be to 

target the demonstrated destination tourism market. The SRMA is a national and 

international camping destination, with thousands of retirees migrating to the area every 

winter in RVs. While camping, these visitors also participate in a variety of other activities 

on the public lands, such as hiking, OHV riding, geocaching, and cultural resource viewing. 

These recreation opportunities would be sustained and enhanced through the implementation 

of identified Recreation Management Objectives and the maintenance of prescribed 

recreation settings. 

Management Actions 

 Allocate the La Posa Destination SRMA under Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan, 

with acreages as reflected in Table 2-19.
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-89 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Table 2-19 

La Posa SRMA by Alternative 

Alternative 

Allocation A B C D E 

Primary Marketing Strategy n/a Destination Destination Destination Destination 

Acreage n/a 400,300 400,300 239,500 308,400 

Access RMZ n/a X X X 

Dripping Springs Heritage RMZ n/a X X X X 

Highway 95 RMZ n/a X X X X 

Intensive Camping RMZ n/a X X X X 

Intensive Day-use RMZ n/a X X X X 

New Water Mountain Wilderness RMZ n/a X X X 

SRMA = Special Recreation Management Area; RMZ = Recreation Management Zone 

Administrative Actions 

 Promote the following environmental education programs and topics to ensure that 

recreational activities remain sustainable within the La Posa SRMA: Tread Lightly!, Leave 

No Trace, archaeological ethics, invasive species prevention, wildland fire prevention and 

mitigation, natural and cultural history of the area, and OHV safety. 

 Coordinate and form partnerships with the following agencies and groups for comprehensive 

and collaborative management of the La Posa SRMA: ADOT, AGFD, Arizona State Parks, 

Arizona SHPO, City of Yuma, Kofa NWR, La Paz County, Maricopa County, Native 

American tribes and groups, Sonoran Desert Invasive Species Council, Town of Bouse, 

Town of Quartzsite, United Desert Gateway, Yuma County, and YPG. 

2.11.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALL RMZs 

A. ACCESS RMZs 

 Recreation Niche: These RMZs represent some of the most widely used and scenic 

motorized routes within the planning area. The Red Cloud Road, Gold Nugget Road, Clanton 

Hills Route, Red Raven Route, and Brenda Route have been identified as Access RMZs in 

the various RMP alternatives, and provide challenging OHV driving opportunities 

throughout a variety of stunning desert landscapes. The Agua Caliente Road and Plomosa 

Road have also been identified as Access RMZs in the various RMP alternatives, and provide 

exemplary landscape viewing opportunities with two-wheel drive vehicles. 

 Primary Activities: OHV-based landscape viewing, auto-based landscape viewing, 

photography, and wildlife viewing. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, collaborate with 

interested partners to effectively interpret the resource values, identify vehicle safety 

requirements, and promote sustainable OHV ethics along the identified Access RMZs. 

Collaborate with adjacent BLM field offices accordingly to effectively manage Access 

RMZs that cross field office boundaries. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-90 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

B. ANZA NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: This proposed RMZ represents the congressionally designated Anza Trail 

corridor within the planning area. The trail corridor for this RMZ is also the location of the 

historic Gila Trail, Mormon Battalion Trail, and Butterfield Overland Stage Route, and also 

served as a prehistoric trade route between indigenous peoples of the Yuma and Phoenix 

areas. BLM supports the development of the Anza Trail for public recreational use; however, 

the YFO manages a very limited amount of land within this RMZ. 

 Primary Activities: Hiking, jogging, horseback riding, OHV riding, picnicking, swimming, 

mountain bike riding, camping, wildlife viewing, fishing, and learning about the area’s 

natural and cultural history. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, promote the 

installation and maintenance of a recreational Anza Trail through collaborative partnerships 

which would provide local residents with convenient opportunities to exercise, effectively 

interpret Yuma’s natural and cultural history, and connect local communities to the public 

lands. 

C. BLYTHE INTAGLIOS HERITAGE RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: The Blythe Intaglios Complex within the Big Marias ACEC provides 

cultural resource viewing opportunities that have the potential to educate visitors about the 

rich prehistoric cultures that once thrived along the lower Colorado River. The Big Maria 

Mountains and Riverside Mountains Wildernesses provide primitive non-motorized 

recreation opportunities. 

 Primary Activities: Cultural resource viewing, natural landscape viewing, hiking, and 

hunting. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that 

recreational activities are compatible with the ACEC and Wilderness resource values within 

the RMZ. 

D. DISPERSED USE RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: Outstanding hunting and dispersed camping opportunities exist 

throughout the RMZ which is part of AGFD Game Management Unit 41. The RMZ also 

provides exemplary OHV riding, hiking, and wildlife and wildflower viewing opportunities. 

 Primary Activities: Hunting, camping, OHV riding, hiking, wildlife and wildflower 

viewing. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that the RMZ 

continues to provide undeveloped and wildlife-based recreation opportunities through 

motorized and non-motorized means. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-91 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

E. DRIPPING SPRINGS HERITAGE RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: This RMZ would encompass the 11,700-acre Dripping Springs ACEC 

that is included in the Proposed Plan. Cultural resource viewing opportunities are available 

within this proposed RMZ, along with exemplary opportunities to view native vegetation and 

wildlife. Outstanding visual resources provide an exquisite backdrop for all of these 

activities. 

 Primary Activities: Cultural resource viewing, wildlife and wildflower viewing, hiking, and 

hunting. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that heritagebased recreation does not negatively impact the natural and cultural resource values of the 

RMZ. 

F. EAGLETAIL MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: Challenging outdoor adventures to hike, camp, and hunt exist throughout 

the mountain range’s rugged and undeveloped terrain. 

 Primary Activities: Hiking, hunting, landscape viewing, wildlife viewing, horseback riding, 

wildflower viewing, and photography. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that 

recreational activities remain compatible with the wilderness resource values of the RMZ. 

G. EHRENBERG-CIBOLA RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: This RMZ provides a wide range of water-based recreation opportunities 

on the lower Colorado River and trail-based recreation opportunities within the adjacent 

desert landscapes. A majority of the RMZ is undeveloped, providing some of the last 

remaining opportunities for isolated and unconfined recreation along the lower Colorado 

River. 

 Primary Activities: Camping, fishing, boating, swimming, OHV riding, hunting, horseback 

riding, and wildlife viewing. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, maintain and 

upgrade the facilities at the Ehrenberg Sandbowl and Oxbow Recreation and Wildlife Area 

as needed to meet recreational demands and public health and safety requirements. 

H. GILA MOUNTAINS RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: The jagged peaks, rolling foothills, and stunning washes of the Gila 

Mountains provide the greater Yuma area with convenient hiking, OHV riding, and 

horseback riding opportunities. 

 Primary Activities: Hiking, OHV riding, horseback riding, picnicking, wildlife viewing, 

rock hounding, and geocaching. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-92 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that legal 

public access, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources of the RMZ are not compromised from 

encroaching urban development and increasing recreational demands. 

I. HIGHWAY 95 RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: Between Yuma and Quartzsite, Highway 95 provides passing motorists 

with exceptional landscape viewing opportunities of the Chocolate, Gila, and Castle Dome 

Mountains. Historic sites associated with General Patton’s pre-World War II military 

training operations and wild horse and burro viewing opportunities along the highway 

provided additional interpretive opportunities. The public lands east of Highway 95 provide 

OHV riding opportunities and access to the Kofa NWR. 

 Primary Activities: Auto-based landscape touring, wildlife and wildflower viewing. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, collaborate with 

interested partners to effectively educate the public about the resource values and different 

agency missions along Highway 95. 

J. IMPERIAL DAM RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: The boating, floating, fishing, and swimming opportunities on the lower 

Colorado River and its associated backwaters cool down local and regional visitors 

throughout the long southwestern summers. The BLM-administered lands adjacent to both of 

the rivers’ shorelines provide weekend residents, campers, and day-use visitors with 

exemplary OHV-riding opportunities. The Imperial Dam LTVA provides extended camping 

opportunities for winter visitors from September to April. Outstanding primitive recreation 

opportunities, such as hiking and wildlife viewing, are available in the Little Picacho 

Wilderness. 

 Primary Activities: Long-term camping, short-term camping, boating, swimming, river 

floating, fishing, OHV riding, geocaching, hiking, and wildlife viewing. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, maintain and 

enhance the facilities at the Imperial Dam LTVA, South Shore, North Shore, Senator Wash 

Boat Launch, and Squaw Lake recreation sites as needed to meet recreational demands and 

comply with public health and safety requirements. 

K. INTENSIVE CAMPING RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: This proposed RMZ represents the 15,500 acres of public land 

surrounding the Town of Quartzsite, Arizona, that were designated as the La Posa LTVA and 

five free 14-day camping areas. This RMZ primarily provides winter visitors with long- and 

short-term RV camping opportunities, which are major contributors to the Town of 

Quartzsite's tourism industry. 

 Primary Activities: Long-term and short-term camping. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-93 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, maintain and 

enhance the facilities within the La Posa LTVA and the Dome Rock, Plomosa Road, Hi 

Jolly, Scaddan Wash, and Road Runner 14-day camping areas as needed to meet recreational 

demands and public health and safety requirements. 

L. INTENSIVE DAY-USE RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: This proposed RMZ is composed of public land surrounding the Town of 

Quartzsite, Arizona, that has been closed to overnight camping. Both winter visitors and local 

residents participate in a variety of recreational activities throughout the undeveloped terrain 

of the RMZ. 

 Primary Activities: OHV riding, landscape viewing, photography, cultural resource 

viewing, wildlife and wildflower viewing, hiking, rock hounding, geocaching, and model 

airplane flying. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, reduce the 

recreational impacts to the RMZ’s natural and cultural resources through effective 

interpretation, adaptive management, and environmental education. 

M. LAGUNA MOUNTAINS RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: The rolling hills of the Laguna Mountains provide the greater Yuma area 

with convenient mountain biking opportunities. Numerous hiking, OHV, and equestrian trail 

opportunities are also available within the RMZ. 

 Primary Activities: Mountain bike riding, hiking, OHV riding, and wildlife and landscape 

viewing, 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, reduce user group 

conflicts and impacts to wildlife and cultural resources while ensuring that a wide variety of 

trail-based activities remain available. 

N. LIMITROPHE RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: The riparian resources of this RMZ provide local Native Americans with 

some of the last remaining cultural and traditional use opportunities along the lower 

Colorado River in the greater Yuma area. There is also the potential to cultivate the fishing, 

dove hunting, and wildlife viewing opportunities within the RMZ once the criminal activities 

associated with the International Boundary are addressed. 

 Primary Activities: Native American cultural/traditional uses, wildlife viewing, hunting, 

and fishing. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that 

traditional use opportunities remain available to local Native Americans so they are able to 

maintain their cultural identities. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-94 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

O. MITTRY LAKE WILDLIFE AREA RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: Sport fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing opportunities within this 

proposed RMZ significantly contribute to Yuma’s eco-tourism industry. The RMZ also 

provides exemplary camping opportunities along Mittry Lake and environmental education 

opportunities at Betty’s Kitchen Watchable Wildlife Area and National Recreation Trail. 

 Primary Activities: Fishing, hunting, camping, boating, picnicking, hiking, environmental 

education, and wildlife viewing. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, effectively 

collaborate with AGFD and Reclamation, co-managers of the Mittry Lake Wildlife Area, to 

maintain and enhance wildlife-based recreation opportunities compatible with the purpose of 

the wildlife areas. 

P. NEW WATER MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: Challenging outdoor adventures to hike, camp, and hunt exist throughout 

the RMZ’s rugged mountain terrain. 

 Primary Activities: Hiking, camping, hunting, and rock hounding. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that 

recreational activities remain compatible with the wilderness resource values of the RMZ. 

Q. SEARS POINT HERITAGE RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: The prolific petroglyphs within the Sears Point ACEC were created by 

an unusually diverse group of different indigenous cultures and provide cultural resource 

viewing opportunities. The unique geologic and riparian landscapes within the ACEC also 

provide exemplary landscape and wildlife viewing opportunities. 

 Primary Activities: Cultural resource viewing, hiking, wildlife and wildflower viewing. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that heritagebased recreation activities remain compatible with the ACEC’s resource values. 

R. SOUTHERN DESERT COMMUNITIES RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: This RMZ encompasses the public lands in the rapidly developing Dome 

Valley. Hunting, OHV riding, and hiking opportunities all exist within this RMZ. The 

Muggins Mountains Wilderness provides challenging, primitive recreation opportunities such 

as hiking. The RMZ also provides OHV riding opportunities to residents and winter visitors 

of the nearby local communities. 

 Primary Activities: OHV riding, hunting, hiking, picnicking, wildlife and wildflower 

viewing. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-95 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that 

recreational activities remain compatible with the wilderness, natural, and cultural resource 

values within the RMZ. 

S. TRIGO MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: This RMZ’s numerous desert woodland washes provide some of the best 

horseback riding opportunities within the YFO. Historic mining operations south of the Trigo 

Mountains provide outstanding heritage tourism and rock hounding opportunities. 

Challenging outdoor adventures to hike, camp, and hunt also exist throughout the RMZ’s 

rugged terrain. 

 Primary Activities: Horseback riding, hiking, camping, hunting, wildlife viewing, and rock 

hounding. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that 

recreational activities remain compatible with the wilderness, natural, and cultural resource 

values within the RMZ. 

T. URBAN RECREATION LANDS RMZ 

 Recreation Niche: This RMZ represents isolated parcels of public lands within the urban 

Yuma environment not encompassed by other RMZs of the SRMA. While many of these 

parcels are small and isolated, they provide tremendous benefits to the community through 

the preservation of urban open spaces for activities such as dog walking, hiking, and 

wildflower viewing. 

 Primary Activities: Dog walking, wildflower viewing, wildlife viewing, and hiking. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that YFO 

considers the intrinsic values of urban open space prior to authorizing the development of 

these lands. 

2.12 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Public lands managed by the BLM YFO are intermingled with other Federal, State, county, and 

private lands. Managing access to and across the public lands is a vital task for the YFO. 

Authorities, policies, and regulations guiding BLM travel management include, but are not 

limited to FLPMA of 1976 (43 USC 1701 et seq.), EO 11644, EO 11989, Title 5 ROWs, Revised 

Statute (RS) 2477 Roads, National Management Strategy Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on 

Public Lands (USDOI BLM 2001), National Mountain Bicycle Strategic Action Plan (USDOI 

BLM 2002c), State Director Guidance for Arizona Land Use Planning Efforts (IM No. AZ2005-007), and the BLM Roads and Trails Terminology Report (USDOI BLM 2006b). 

The following material proposes to designate OHV Management Areas, provides guidance for 

establishing the YFO Travel Management Network (TMN), and delineates Travel Management 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-96 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Areas (TMAs) to provide more locale-specific planning guidance. For RMP provisions related to 

NHTs, NRTs, and National Byways refer to Section 2.3, Special Designations. 

2.12.1 OHV MANAGEMENT AREAS 

All BLM-administered lands must be designated as an Open, Closed, or Limited OHV 

Management Areas (43 CFR 8342.1). Criteria for the designation of Limited, Open, and Closed 

OHV Management Areas are established in 43 CFR 8340.0-5 (f), (g), and (h), respectively. The 

BLM may institute additional closures or restrictions at any time to protect persons, property, 

and public lands and resources (43 CFR 8364). Acreages for OHV Management Area 

designations proposed for each alternative are listed in Table 2-20 and identified on Maps 2-9a 

through 2-9e. However; OHV Management Area designations set forth in this PRMP/FEIS may 

only be changed through an RMP amendment. 

Table 2-20 

OHV Management Area Designations by Alternative 

Alternative (BLM acres) 

Designation A B C D E 

Open Areas 

Blaisdell 0 1,900 1,300 0 0 

Ehrenberg Sandbowl 400 800 800 400 400 

Martinez Lake 0 1,100 300 0 0 

Total Open 400 3,800 2,400 400 400 

Closed Areas 

Designated Wilderness 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 

Dripping Springs 0 0 600 600 400 

Fortuna Wash (Section 33) 100 0 0 0 100 

Laguna Mountains 0 0 0 4,400 0 

La Paz Valley 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

Muggins Mountains 0 2,200 1,900 1,900 2,200 

North Bank Milpitas Wash 100 0 0 100 0 

Sears Point 0 0 0 1,400 1,400 

Wilderness Characteristics 0 0 0 56,600 0 

Total Closed 169,000 171,000 171,300 233,800 172,900 

Limited Areas

Total Limited 1,148,600 1,143,200 1,144,300 1,083,800 1,144,700 

Total Acres 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 

A. OPEN OHV MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Open OHV Management Areas are defined as areas where all types of vehicle use would be 

permitted at all times, anywhere in the area; visitors would not be restricted to existing and 

designated roads and trails. These areas would be adequately signed to provide the public with 

clear boundaries of open areas. Fencing or other structures may be used to further delineate the 

boundaries of open areas. The YFO would consider installing OHV trailhead facilities at Open 

OHV Management Areas to protect public health and safety, and adjacent resource values. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-97 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

All new or expanded Open OHV Management Areas must have a site-specific environmental 

analysis completed prior to implementation, including NEPA, NHPA Section 106, and ESA 

Section 7 documentation. If the site-specific analysis reveals that the Open OHV Management 

Area would have an adverse or significant impact on resources, the footprint of the proposal may 

be moved or reduced to avoid or minimize impacts. If impacts to resources cannot be sufficiently 

avoided or mitigated during site-specific analysis, the proposed Open OHV Management Area 

would not be implemented. 

Dune areas which support sensitive, special status, and/or priority species would not be available 

for future Open OHV Management Area designations. 

Management Actions 

 Under Alternatives A, D, and the Proposed Plan maintain the 400-acre Ehrenberg Sandbowl 

Open OHV Management Area. 

 Under Alternative B, designate 1,900 acres to the proposed Blaisdell Open OHV 

Management Area, designate 1,100 acres to the proposed Martinez Lake Open OHV 

Management Area, and expand the Ehrenberg Sandbowl Open OHV Management Area to a 

total of 800 acres. 

 Under Alternative C, designate 1,300 acres to the proposed Blaisdell Open OHV 

Management Area, designate 300 acres to the proposed Martinez Lake Open OHV 

Management Area, and expand the Ehrenberg Sandbowl Open OHV Management Area to a 

total of 800 acres. 

B. CLOSED OHV MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Closed OHV Management Areas are defined as areas where off-road vehicle use would be 

prohibited. Closed OHV Management Areas may be designated to protect persons, property, and 

public lands and resources where OHV use has been determined to be causing irreparable harm 

to the existing resources. Congressionally designated Wildernesses Areas are statutorily closed to 

motorized and mechanized use, except for purposes specifically provided for by law. These areas 

are shown in the LUP along with the acreage affected. The YFO currently maintains 167,800 

acres of statutorily closed Wilderness. Non-Wilderness Closed OHV Management Areas are 

shown on Map 2-9e-1. 

Management Actions 

 Under all alternatives, maintain 167,800 acres of Closed OHV Management Areas within 

designated Wilderness and maintain the 1,000-acre Closed OHV Management Area in the La 

Paz Valley. 

 Under Alternative A, maintain the 100-acre Closed OHV Management Area in Fortuna 

Wash and 100-acre Closed OHV Management Area in the North Bank Milpitas Wash. 

 Under Alternative B, designate 2,200-acres in the Muggins Mountains as a Closed OHV 

Management Area. 

 Under Alternative C, designate 1,900-acres in the Muggins Mountains and 600-acres at 

Dripping Springs as Closed OHV Management Areas. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-98 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Under Alternative D, designate 600-acres at Dripping Springs, 4,400-acres in the Laguna 

Mountains, 1,900-acres in the Muggins Mountains, 100-acres in the North Bank Milpitas 

Wash, 1,400-acres at Sears Point, and two areas across 56,600 acres of lands with wilderness 

characteristics as Closed OHV Management Areas. 

 Under the Proposed Plan, maintain the 100-acre Closed OHV Management Area in Fortuna 

Wash and 1,000-acre closure in La Paz Valley; and designate 400-acres at Dripping Springs, 

2,200-acres in the Muggins Mountains, and 1,400-acres at Sears Point as Closed OHV 

Management Areas. 

 Under all alternatives, delineate the boundaries of Closed OHV Management Areas and 

install wildlife-compatible vehicle barriers on an as-needed basis. 

C. LIMITED OHV MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Limited OHV Management Areas are where OHV travel is limited at certain times, in certain 

areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. These limitations may be of any type, but can generally be 

accommodated within the following type of categories: numbers of vehicles; types of vehicles 

(OHVs, motorcycles, high clearance, etc.); time or season of vehicle use; permitted or licensed 

use only; use on existing roads and trails; use on designated roads and trails; limited to 

administrative use only; and other restrictions. Cross-country vehicle travel may be permitted 

within Limited OHV Management Areas when a specific authorized task requires such use, and 

only where cross-country travel would not cause undue resource damage. Unauthorized crosscountry travel which results in the creation of new routes or the widening or extension of existing 

routes would not be permitted within Limited OHV Management Areas. 

Management Actions 

 Under Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan, limit motorized use within Limited OHV 

Management Areas to existing inventoried routes appearing on the YFO route inventory 

maps (Maps TMA-1 to TMA-5) until the YFO Transportation System is finalized. Motorized 

travel would not be allowed on roads, trails, and drivable washes that are not included on the 

YFO route inventory maps. 

 During the development of the YFO Transportation System, provide additional opportunities 

for interested stakeholders to identify existing roads, trails, and drivable washes that do not 

appear on Maps TMA-1 to TMA-5. After the YFO Transportation System is finalized, limit 

motorized use within Limited OHV Management Areas to designated routes only. 

 Under Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan, allow motorized vehicles to pull off up to 

100 feet from a designated route on either side of the centerline. This use would not be 

allowed along the Anza Trail or within ACECs and SCRMAs. Within these stated areas, 

motorized use shall remain within the route with reasonable use of the shoulder and 

immediate roadside for vehicle passage, parking/overnight camping, and emergency 

stopping. Where pulling off a vehicle 100 feet from a route’s centerline is allowed, impacts 

to natural and cultural resources shall be monitored on a continuing basis. If monitoring 

results show effects that exceed limits of acceptable change, motorized vehicles would not be 

allowed to pull off 100 feet from any designated route on either side of centerline within the 

impacted area (IM No. AZ-2005-007). 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-99 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Under all alternatives, cross-country motorized travel would not be permitted for the retrieval 

of downed game within Limited OHV Management Areas. 

 Allow the use of non-motorized wheeled game carriers to retrieve game kills on all BLMadministered lands, except within Congressionally Designated Wilderness. 

 Limit equestrian use authorized by SRPs to pre-selected trails on a case-by-case basis. 

Within ACECs, limit all equestrian use to existing inventoried routes until the route 

designation process is complete. 

 Cross-country, motorized travel would not be permitted for the retrieval of downed game. 

 During the construction of rangeland developments, vehicles would use designated routes 

wherever possible for access to sites. Where no routes exist, vehicles would be authorized on 

a case-by-case basis to travel cross-country to avoid the need for road building. Where new 

roads must be built, roadbeds would be no wider than needed for reliable access. As a general 

practice, new roads would not be bladed for use in fence construction. Vehicles would travel 

cross-country or fences would be built without motorized access. 

 Establish Supplementary Rules to enforce these travel limitations according to the guidelines 

set forth in 43 CFR 8365.1-6. 

 Under Alternative A, designate 1,148,600 acres of Limited OHV Management Areas. 

 Under Alternative B, designate 1,143,200 acres of Limited OHV Management Areas. 

 Under Alternative C, designate 1,144,300 acres of Limited OHV Management Areas. 

 Under Alternative D, designate 1,083,800 acres of Limited OHV Management Areas. 

 Under the Proposed Plan, designate 1,144,700 acres of Limited OHV Management Areas. 

2.12.2 YFO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

The YFO Transportation System refers to the sum of the YFO’s recognized inventory of linear 

features (roads, primitive roads, and trails) formally recognized and approved as part of the 

YFO’s Transportation System. The YFO Transportation System would be established through 

subsequent Travel Management Plans tiered to this RMP. The primary steps in developing BLM 

Travel Management Plans include the: (1) route inventory process, (2) route evaluation process, 

(3) route designation process, and (4) implementation of route designations. The first three steps 

in developing the YFO Transportation System must be completed within five years of the 

signing of the ROD for this PRMP/FEIS. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 The unauthorized proliferation of motorized and non-motorized recreation trails is reduced or 

halted. 

 The YFO Transportation System continues to provide essential motorized access to nonFederal lands, access across BLM-administered lands, access to private in-holdings 

surrounded by BLM-administered lands, and recognizes prior existing access rights. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-100 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 The YFO Transportation System continues to provide adequate motorized access for the 

maintenance of wildlife water catchments and for dispersed recreation activities such as 

hunting. 

 The YFO Transportation System provides for a wide variety of trail-based recreational 

opportunities (i.e., hiking, mountain biking, OHV riding, horseback riding) in a manner that 

reduces existing user conflicts. 

 The YFO Transportation System minimizes impacts to identified sensitive resource values 

from routes that provide non-essential access. 

 The YFO Transportation System is signed and mapped for public use in a manner consistent 

with other Federal land management agencies. 

A. ROUTE INVENTORY PROCESS 

Maps TMA-1 through TMA-5 identify approximately 4,600 miles of routes and other linear 

features located on BLM-administered lands within the planning area. Of these 4,600 miles, 

3,200 miles have been inventoried on the ground and verified as routes by the BLM. The TMA 

maps also include 1,400 miles of linear features that have not yet been verified on the ground by 

the BLM. These linear features include those identified by the public as routes during the 

DRMP/DEIS public review and comment period and those identified by the BLM from 2005 

aerial photos. 

Management Action 

 Under all alternatives, provide additional opportunities during future travel management 

planning processes for interested stakeholders to identify existing roads, trails, and drivable 

washes that do not appear on the YFO route inventory maps. 

B. ROUTE EVALUATION PROCESS 

The YFO route inventory would be brought forward into subsequent Travel Management Plans 

for each of the five delineated TMAs. All inventoried routes within each TMA would be 

systematically evaluated, and the positive and negative impacts of each route to the various 

resource values of the public lands would be documented. Previously designated routes may be 

reevaluated, if it can be shown that the previous designation is causing resource damage or user 

conflicts. Routes within the planning area would be evaluated using the Route Evaluation Tree© 

process, which is described in detail in Appendix 2-E. 

Management Actions 

Under all alternatives, evaluate and document each inventoried route’s impacts to the following 

resources and uses of the public lands: 

 Sensitive resources, such as: 

o Historic and cultural sites; 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-101 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

o Special status wildlife and plant species, including Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed, and Candidate species, Arizona and California State listed species, and 

BLM Sensitive Species; 

o Suitability for special status species reintroduction; 

o Wildlife movement corridors; 

o Wildlife habitat fragmentation; 

o Hydrology (e.g. springs, riparian and wetland conditions, washes, drainages, and 

water quality); 

o Geology; 

o Sensitive soils (e.g. cryptobiotic soils, desert pavement, erosion points); and 

o Air quality (e.g. PM10 non-attainment areas). 

 Public access needs, such as: 

o Rights-of-way; 

o Easements; 

o Private property; 

o Highways, State and county roads providing access to the public lands; and 

o Route densities. 

 Commercial activities, such as: 

o Mining (e.g. claims, quarries, claim markers, evidence of excavation, mines, open 

mine shafts); 

o Mineral/material operations; 

o Ranching (e.g., fences, corrals, tanks, troughs); 

o Public utilities (e.g., transmission lines, pipelines, towers, pump houses, 

telecommunication towers, etc.); 

o Railroads; 

o Apiaries; and 

o Economic impacts. 

 Administrative sites, such as: 

o Wildlife monitoring sites; 

o Habitat restoration sites; 

o Weather stations; 

o Hazardous fuels treatment areas; 

o Wildlife water catchments; 

o Local community access; 

o Invasive vegetation treatment sites; 

o Wildland fire management; and 

o Other administrative access needs identified by cooperating agencies. 

 Recreation activities, such as: 

o Trailheads and staging areas; 

o Designated recreation sites; 

o Designated interpretive sites; 

o Dispersed recreational activities, such as hunting and camping; 

o Prescribed recreation settings; 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-102 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

o Scenic overlooks, points of known photographic interest; 

o Areas providing educational or scientific research opportunities; 

o Hunting; 

o Rockhounding destinations; 

o Historic type of use on individual routes (e.g. motorized, hiking, equestrian, mountain 

biking); and 

o Other destinations or points of interest. 

 Human interaction issues, such as: 

o User conflicts; 

o Documented trespasses; 

o Illegal dumping; and 

o Route proliferation. 

 Hazards, such as: 

o Unexploded ordinances; 

o Abandoned mines; 

o International Boundary issues; and 

o Other identified safety concerns. 

Under all alternatives, provide opportunities during future travel management planning processes 

for interested stakeholders to identify beneficial and negative impacts from individual routes that 

should be considered during the route evaluation process. 

C. ROUTE DESIGNATION PROCESS 

The results of the route evaluation process would provide the baseline data to be considered for 

the route designation process, where each inventoried route would be designated as open, closed, 

or limited to public use. In general, BLM may close or limit routes on the public lands at any 

time as public health and safety and resource protection needs arise (43 CFR 8342). Routes may 

be limited seasonally or to specific types of uses to prevent and reduce impacts to resource 

values and user conflicts. While lands within Open OHV Management Areas would be exempt 

from the route evaluation/designation process, specific routes crossing these lands may be 

identified. No routes would be designated as open to motorized use within Closed OHV 

Management Areas. Routes within Closed OHV Management Areas may be designated to nonmotorized modes of travel, such as hiking or horseback riding. 

Management Actions 

 Designate all inventoried routes within the YFO as open, closed, or limited to public use. 

 Within ACECs and SCRMAs, designate resource-compatible roadside pulloffs for overnight 

camping purposes. 

 Provide interested stakeholders with opportunities to provide input and written comments 

throughout the designation process. 

 Identify individual route management needs, including, but not limited to, use specifications, 

signs, and vegetation management. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-103 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Identify individual route maintenance needs to improve public health and safety and reduce 

the need to create redundant routes that avoid existing hazards. 

 Identify individual route monitoring needs to detect and evaluate travel-related impacts to 

adjacent resources so that management changes can occur accordingly. 

 Identify easements and ROWs (to be issued by BLM or others) needed to maintain or 

provide legal and safe access to the public lands. 

Administrative Actions 

 Coordinate with Reclamation to designate levee roads which provide essential access to local 

communities as open to public use. 

D. IMPLEMENTATION OF ROUTE DESIGNATIONS 

Following the approval of each individual Travel Management Plan, individual route designation 

decisions would be implemented and maintained on the ground according to the following 

guidance. 

Management Actions 

 YFO’s strategy for restoring closed or unauthorized routes would be accomplished as rapidly 

as funding permits. Sensitive resources in immediate danger, or those that have been 

damaged by unauthorized use, would be a high priority for restoration. Typically, the 

restoration would be limited to that portion of the route of unauthorized use that is in line of 

sight from an open route. Each route would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the 

most appropriate method of restoration would be used based on geography, topography, 

soils, hydrology, and vegetation. The methods of route restoration would include: 

o Not repairing washed-out routes, 

o Using natural barriers, such as large boulders, 

o Using rocks and dead and downed wood to obscure the route entryway, 

o Employing mulching, chipping, and raking to disguise evidence of routes, 

o Ripping up the route bed and reseeding with vegetation native to that area, 

o Utilizing fences or barriers, 

o Providing signs, including information to OHV users, on the need and value of resource 

protection, 

o Converting motorized two-track routes into non-motorized single track routes, and 

o Leaving the first 100 feet from the centerline of an open route un-restored to provide 

pullout areas or camping opportunities intended to discourage or prevent new ground 

disturbance elsewhere. 

 Public lands would generally be available for transportation ROWs subject to NEPA 

evaluation, except where specifically prohibited by law or regulation. To the extent possible, 

new ROWs would avoid areas such as WHAs, VHAs, SCRMAs, ACECs, wilderness, and 

the Anza Trail. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-104 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Administrative Actions 

 Establish a volunteer workforce to provide essential on the ground implementation of the 

signing, monitoring, and maintenance of the YFO Transportation System. 

 Expand and pursue partnerships and sources of funding for travel management, public 

education, and law enforcement. 

 Require all activities permitted by the YFO to stay on designated routes (IM No. AZ-2005-

007). 

 In the event that Title V ROWs are issued or in the event of a legal decision on RS 2477 

assertions, manage routes under the terms of these authorities. 

2.12.3 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

The purpose of delineating TMAs is to provide more locale-specific transportation management 

guidance to be considered during the route evaluation, designation, and implementation 

processes. This guidance is meant to improve the YFO’s ability to protect various resource 

values and provide a more balanced range of motorized and non-motorized opportunities 

throughout the planning area. This LUP would establish five TMAs within the planning area: the 

Greater Yuma, Gila River Valley, Ehrenberg-Cibola, La Posa, and Yuma East TMAs (Maps 

TMA-1 to TMA-5). These TMAs would account for all acres of BLM-administered land within 

the planning area. Each of the five TMAs has specific Desired Future Conditions, Management 

Actions, and Administrative Actions which are listed in Tables 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, and 2-25. 

TMA guidelines will be used to develop the future Travel Management Plans for each TMA. 

Table 2-21 

Ehrenberg-Cibola TMA (152,300 acres, 650 miles of inventoried routes) 

Desired Future Conditions 

Travel management is comprehensively managed in coordination with the adjacent BLM Palm Springs-South 

Coast and El Centro Field Offices, Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) Reservation, Reclamation, Cibola and 

Imperial NWRs, and other interested Tribes and agencies.

The future route designation process ensures that there is a wide variety of equestrian trail opportunities within 

the TMA.

Alternative 

Management Actions A B C D E 

Within the Big Marias Heritage RMZ (Big Marias ACEC and Big Maria Terraces 

SCRMA), limit equestrian use to existing inventoried routes until the route designation 

process is complete. Designate equestrian trails and install equestrian trailhead facilities to 

reduce user and resource conflicts. Limit equestrian use to these trails once they have been 

designated. 

 X X
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-105 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Table 2-21 

Ehrenberg-Cibola TMA (152,300 acres, 650 miles of inventoried routes) (cont.) 

Alternative 

Management Actions (cont.) A B C D E 

Install and maintain the appropriate recreational trailhead facilities once the TMN has been 

established. X X X

Sign designated routes and trails consistent with Federal land management agency 

standards. X X X X

Establish a volunteer host site at the Ehrenberg Sandbowl Open OHV Management Area. 

Install and maintain additional OHV trailhead facilities if needed to accommodate 

increased visitor use. Delineate the boundary of the designated open area on the ground. 

 X X X

Prohibit OHV use within the North Bank Milpitas Wash Restriction until June 1, 2008, in 

accordance with the notice published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2006. X 

Lift the North Bank Milpitas Wash OHV Restriction and limit OHV use to existing 

inventoried routes until designated. X X X

Alternative 

Administrative Actions A B C D E 

Coordinate with the BLM Palm Springs-South Coast and El Centro Field Offices, CRIT 

Reservation, Reclamation, and Cibola and Imperial NWRs and other interested Tribes and 

agencies to ensure the future route designation process takes into account the other 

agencies’ missions. 

 X X X X

Develop partnerships and a volunteer workforce to enhance and expand equestrian trail 

opportunities. X X X

Nominate designated hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian trails to the Arizona State 

Parks Trail System. X X X

Table 2-22 

Gila River Valley TMA (60,500 acres, 180 miles of inventoried routes) 

Desired Future Conditions 

A multiple-use Anza NHT provides recreational trail connectivity between the Greater Yuma TMA and the BLM 

Lower Sonoran Field Office. 

Travel management is comprehensively managed in coordination with the adjacent BMGR, the BLM Lower 

Sonoran Field Office and other interested Tribes and agencies. 

Alternative 

Management Actions A B C D E 

Install and maintain the appropriate recreational trailhead facilities once the TMN has been 

established. X X X

Sign designated routes and trails consistent with Federal land management agency 

standards. X X X X

Establish recreational trail connectivity from the Anza NHT to local communities and the 

Sears Point ACEC. X X X

Establish and/or improve hiking trails within the Sears Point ACEC in accordance with 

guidance outlined in the Special Designations Management section of this chapter and the 

Sears Point ACEC plan (to be developed). 

 XXX

Limit equestrian use within the Sears Point ACEC to inventoried routes until the route 

designation process is complete. Designate equestrian trails and install equestrian trailhead 

facilities to reduce user and resource conflicts. Limit equestrian use to these trails once 

they have been designated. 

 XXX
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-106 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Table 2-22 

Gila River Valley TMA (60,500 acres, 180 miles of inventoried routes) (cont.) 

Alternative

Administrative Actions A B C D E

Coordinate with the BMGR, BLM Lower Sonoran Field Office and other interested Tribes 

and agencies to ensure the future route designation process takes into account the other 

agencies’ missions. 

 X X X X

Nominate designated hiking and equestrian trails to the Arizona State Trails System. X X X

Work with interested cooperators to establish legal and safe public access to Anza NHT 

trailheads and the Sears Point ACEC from Interstate 8. X X X

Table 2-23 

Greater Yuma TMA (133,600 acres, 650 miles of inventoried routes) 

Desired Future Conditions 

The future route designation process focuses on creating an interconnected system of motorized and nonmotorized recreational trails for the use of local community residents. 

A multiple-use Anza NHT provides local community residents with access to the various other recreational trails 

throughout the TMA. 

Travel management is comprehensively managed in coordination with the adjacent BLM El Centro Field Office, 

BMGR, WMIDD, Reclamation, Imperial NWR, YPG, Cocopah and Fort Yuma Quechan reservations, and other 

interested Tribes and agencies. 

The future route designation process provides route-specific use limitations to reduce user conflicts where 

multiple forms of travel are occurring. 

Alternative 

Management Actions A B C D E 

Install and maintain OHV trailhead facilities at the Blaisdell and Martinez Lake Open 

OHV Management Areas. Delineate the boundaries of the open areas on the ground and 

ensure that they comply with the NHPA and ESA. 

 X X 

Identify an interconnected system of mountain biking and hiking trails within the Laguna 

Mountains. Establish recreational trail connectivity from the Laguna Mountains to the 

Mittry Lake Wildlife Area and the Anza NHT. 

 X X X

Identify an interconnected system of equestrian and hiking trails in the Gila Mountains. 

Establish recreational trail connectivity from the Gila Mountains to the Anza NHT. X X X

Establish designated motorized trail connectivity through the East Imperial Hills between 

Martinez Lake Road and the Hidden Shores RV Village BLM recreation concession lease. X X

Install and maintain the appropriate recreational trailhead facilities once the TMN has been 

established. X X X

Sign designated routes consistent with Federal land management agency standards. X X X X

Work with cooperators to identify a water-based route suitable for canoeing, kayaking, and 

river floats along the lower Colorado River from Martinez Lake to downtown Yuma. 

Install and maintain launching and portage sites along the route as appropriate. 

 X X

Within the Southern Desert Communities and Gila Mountains RMZs, limit equestrian use 

to existing inventoried routes until designation and install equestrian trailhead facilities to 

reduce user and resource conflicts. 

 XX 

Alternative 

Administrative Actions A B C D E 

Coordinate with the BLM El Centro Field Office, BMGR, WMIDD, Reclamation, Imperial 

NWR, YPG, Cocopah and Fort Yuma Quechan reservations, and other interested Tribes 

and agencies to ensure the future route designation process takes into account the other 

agencies’ missions. 

 X X X X
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-107 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Table 2-23 

Greater Yuma TMA (133,600 acres, 650 miles of inventoried routes) 

(cont.) 

Alternative 

Administrative Actions A B C D E 

Nominate designated hiking, biking, and equestrian trails to the Arizona State Trails 

System. X X X

Work with interested cooperators to establish legal and safe public access to and across 

designated recreational routes. X X X

Develop a local volunteer workforce to monitor, maintain, and improve designated 

recreational routes. X X X

Table 2-24 

La Posa TMA (384,600 acres, 1,710 miles of inventoried routes) 

Desired Future Conditions 

The future route designation process ensures that motorized recreational trails within the La Posa TMA provide 

opportunities for challenging experiences for OHV riders. 

The future route designation process determines the sustainability of existing rock crawling trails within the TMA. 

Travel management is comprehensively managed in coordination with the adjacent BLM Lake Havasu Field Office, 

CRIT Reservation, Kofa NWR and other interested Tribes and agencies. 

Alternative 

Management Actions A B C D E 

Install and maintain the appropriate recreational trailhead facilities once the TMN has been 

established. X X X 

Sign designated routes consistent with Federal land management agency standards. X X X X 

Establish and/or improve hiking trails within the Dripping Springs ACEC in accordance 

with guidance outlined in the Special Designations Management section (Section 2.3) of 

this chapter and the Dripping Springs interpretive plan (to be developed). 

 X X X 

Limit equestrian use within the Dripping Springs ACEC to inventoried routes until the 

route designation process is complete. Designate equestrian trails and install equestrian 

trailhead facilities to reduce user and resource conflicts. Limit equestrian use to these trails 

once they have been designated. 

 X X X 

Alternative 

Administrative Actions A B C D E 

Coordinate with the BLM Lake Havasu Field Office, CRIT Reservation, Kofa NWR, and 

other interested Tribes and agencies to ensure the future route designation process takes 

into account the other agencies’ missions. 

 X X X X 

Nominate designated hiking and equestrian trails to the Arizona State Trails System. X X X 

Table 2-25 

Yuma East TMA (587,000 acres, 1,410 miles of inventoried routes) 

Desired Future Conditions 

Travel management is comprehensively managed in coordination with the adjacent BLM Lower Sonoran and 

Hassayampa Field Offices, Kofa NWR and other interested Tribes and agencies. 

Travel management strives to retain the undeveloped nature of the TMA by limiting the number of paved roads 

authorized across BLM lands. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-108 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Table 2-25 

Yuma East TMA (587,000 acres, 1,410 miles of inventoried routes) 

(cont.) 

Alternatives 

Management Actions A B C D E 

Install and maintain the appropriate recreational trailhead facilities once the TMN has been 

established. 

 X X X

Sign designated routes consistent with Federal land management agency standards. X X X X

Within the Eagletail Mountains Wilderness prohibit recreational equestrian use within one 

quarter mile of Indian Springs to prevent impacts to wildlife habitat and cultural resource 

values. At equestrian trailheads, promote low impact hitching methods that the public can 

use prior to entering the Indian Springs area. 

 X X X

Alternatives 

Administrative Actions A B C D E 

Do not authorize the paving of any roads within the TMA which would negatively impact 

the area’s visual resources and wildlife habitat. 

 XXX

Coordinate with the BLM Lower Sonoran and Hassayampa Field Offices, Kofa NWR and 

other interested Tribes and agencies to ensure the future route designation process takes 

into account the other agencies’ missions. 

 X X X X

Develop a volunteer workforce to monitor and maintain designated routes. X X X

2.13 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

BLM’s responsibility to manage the scenic resources of the public lands is established by law, 

specifically by FLPMA, as mandated by the following sections. 

1. Section 102 (a)(8). States that “...public lands will be managed in a manner which will 

protect the quality of the scenic (visual) values of these lands.” 

2. Section 103(c). Identifies “scenic values” as one of the resources for which public land 

should be managed. 

3. Section 201(a). States that “The Secretary shall prepare and maintain on a continuing basis 

an inventory of all public lands and their resources and other values (including...scenic 

values)....” 

4. Section 505(a). Requires that “Each right-of-way shall contain terms and conditions which 

will...minimize damage to the scenic and esthetic values....” 

BLM is directed by BLM Manual 8400 to prepare and maintain on a continuing basis, an 

inventory of visual values on all public lands for each RMP effort. The VRM system provides a 

way to identify, evaluate, and determine the appropriate levels of management of scenic values. 

The inventory of visual values has been documented for the RMP according to BLM Handbook

8410-1 and can be found on Map 3-17 in this PRMP/FEIS. The inventory serves as the basis for 

the VRM Management Class I-IV, which take into account other resource uses on public lands 

within the planning area. The VRM classes are best defined by their Desired Future Conditions, 

which are described below. The overall goal of VRM analysis is to minimize visual impacts 

through development of mitigation measures. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-109 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

VRM Land Use Designations 

The following criteria was used to determine the proposed VRM Class designations for each 

RMP alternative: the overall management emphasis intended for each alternative; recognition of 

all applicable special designations and all land use allocations; assertion that other management 

activities and land uses may be achieved within the applicable VRM Class; and use of the least 

restrictive class that still achieves stated Desired Future Conditions. Proposed VRM class 

designations described in Alternatives A through the Proposed Plan primarily differ by the 

number of acres between each alternative. VRM land use designations are described in Table 2-

26 and shown on Maps 2-10a through 2-10e. 

Desired Future Conditions 

The RMP alternatives would set landscape classes ranging from Class I to IV, and Desired 

Future Conditions for future projects would adhere to the following VRM class objectives as 

appropriate: 

 Class I. To preserve the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention; 

Table 2-26 

VRM Land Use Designations by Alternative (BLM acres) 

Alternative 

VRM Class A B C D E 

I (acres) 167,800 167,800 167,800 192,400 167,800 

II (acres) 15,200 541,800 561,100 624,800 618,600 

III (acres) 1,135,000 552,300 567,500 496,400 512,400 

IV (acres) 0 56,100 21,600 4,400 19,200 

Total Acres 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 

 Class II. To retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be low; 

 Class III. To partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to 

the characteristic landscape should be moderate; and 

 Class IV. 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. 

Management Actions 

 Under Alternative A, continue existing VRM designations, with 167,800 acres of Class I, 

15,200 acres of Class II, 1,135,000 acres of Class III, and 0 acres of Class IV. 

 Under Alternative B, designate 167,800 acres of Class I, 541,800 acres of Class II, 552,300 

acres of Class III, and 56,100 acres of Class IV 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-110 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Under Alternative C, designate 167,800 acres of Class I, 561,100 acres of Class II, 567,500 

acres of Class III, and 21,600 acres of Class IV 

 Under Alternative D, designate 192,400 acres of Class I, 624,800 acres of Class II, 496,400 

acres of Class III, and 4,400 acres of Class IV. 

 Under the Proposed Plan, designate 167,800 acres of Class I, 618,600 acres of Class II, 

512,400 acres of Class III, 19,200 acres of Class IV. 

Management Actions Common to all Alternatives 

 All ROW Corridors and communications sites would be within VRM Class III. 

 Incorporate design considerations to minimize potential impacts to public lands’ visual 

values into all BLM-authorized surface disturbing activities, regardless of size. Emphasis 

would be on BLM providing input during the initial planning and design phase to minimize 

costly redesign and mitigation at a later time. 

 Analyze all surface-disturbing projects that require BLM authorization according to the 

Visual Resource Contrast Rating guidelines and procedures as required by BLM Manual

8431-1. Assess the degree of visual contrast to the landscape’s form, line, color, and texture 

from implementing these projects. 

 Evaluate proposed surface-disturbing projects from key observation points for the following 

factors: distance (between project and key observation points), angle of observation, length 

of time the proposed project would be in view, relative size or scale, season of use, light 

conditions, recovery time, spatial relationships, atmospheric conditions, and motion. 

 Use visual resource design techniques and BMPs (summarized in the BMP section later in 

this chapter) to mitigate the potential for short- and long-term visual impacts from other uses 

and activities. 

Administrative Actions Common to all Alternatives 

 Encourage visual resource simulations to be incorporated into the Contrast Rating Analysis 

for major BLM-authorized ground-disturbing activities, as recommended by BLM Manual

8431-1. Simulations would accurately convey to the public the anticipated impacts to visual 

scenery of the project area from the identified key observation points. Simulations would also 

serve as a point of reference to ensure that the project proponents reclaim and restore 

disturbed public lands as agreed to in the authorizing document. 

2.14 WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

MANAGEMENT 

Section 201 of FLPMA provides the BLM with the authority to inventory features of the land, 

including those associated with the concept of wilderness, or wilderness characteristics. 

Wilderness characteristics may be considered in land use planning decisions when BLM 

determines that those characteristics are reasonably present, of sufficient value and need, and are 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-111 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

practical to manage. BLM IM No. 2003-275-Change 1 provides guidance on considering lands 

to be managed to maintain existing wilderness characteristics, including prescribing Desired 

Future Conditions and Management and Administrative Actions. 

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 restriction (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 would not be designated a 

WSA). BLM would not designate new WSAs through the LUP process; nor would the lands be 

managed under FLPMA Section 603 “non-impairment standard” and BLM Interim Management 

Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review. Additionally, lands with wilderness characteristics 

will not be managed as designated wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964 or WSAs. 

YFO has evaluated lands within the planning area which may have wilderness characteristics. As 

stated in IM 2003-275-Change 1, BLM may use a variety of land use plan decisions, including, 

but not limited to, VRM, SCRMAs, ACECs, and WHAs to protect wilderness characteristics. 

The lands that would be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics by alternative are listed 

by BLM acres in Table 2-27 and shown on Maps 2-11a to 2-11c. 

Table 2-27 

Lands Managed to Maintain Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative (BLM acres) 

Alternative 

Acres A B C D E 

Wilderness Characteristics 0 48,400 91,400 301,200 48,400 

Desired Future Conditions 

For those areas where BLM has identified wilderness characteristics, these characteristics would 

be managed to be ecologically sustainable and resilient to human-caused disturbances. The 

following components of wilderness characteristics would be maintained: 

 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, 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 naturalness and would 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; and 

 Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined types of recreation where the use of the area is through non-
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-112 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

motorized, non-mechanical means of conveyance off designated routes or as specifically 

excepted, and where no or minimal developed recreation facilities are encountered. 

Management Actions 

The Management Actions listed in Table 2-28 outline how lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed under each alternative. In those lands identified to maintain wilderness 

characteristics, these management actions are meant to reduce impacts to some or all of the 

wilderness characteristics. 

Table 2-28 

Wilderness Characteristics Management Actions by Alternative 

Alternative 

Management Actions A B C D E 

Allow BLM-authorized surface disturbing activities or the permanent placement of 

structures and facilities, including but not limited to range improvements, water 

catchments, roads, trails, and fencing, or as required by law, only when the level of 

change to the characteristic landscape would be low, subject to criteria. (See 

Management Action 1 Project Criteria for BLM-authorized surface disturbing 

activities listed below.) 

n/a X X X 

Allow maintenance of existing facilities. n/a X X X X 

Allow the construction of temporary roads, structures, and installations for emergency 

purposes. 

n/a X X X X 

Develop and/or construct new hiking and equestrian trails, as appropriate. n/a X X 

Use of motor vehicles and mechanical transport, and the construction of temporary 

roads, structures, and installations would be allowed for emergency purposes. Any 

emergency actions would be conducted in a manner that creates the least disturbance 

and would be reclaimed as soon as possible after the situation has ended. 

n/a X X X 

Allow the administrative use of motorized equipment on routes for natural and cultural 

resource management including but not limited to water supplementation, collar 

retrieval, and capture/release of wildlife, maintenance, repair, and reconstruction or 

construction of wildlife waters. Any administrative actions would be conducted in a 

manner that creates the least disturbance and reclaimed as soon as possible after the 

administrative need has ended. 

n/a X X X 

Cross country travel for administrative purposes would be permitted only with prior 

approval by the authorized officer and following appropriate NEPA analysis. Any 

administrative action would be conducted in a manner that creates the least 

disturbance and reclaimed as soon as possible after the administrative need has ended. 

n/a X X 

Allow the use of non-motorized, mechanical transport such as wheeled game carriers. n/a X X X 

Convert, where appropriate, routes closed to motor vehicles through the route 

designation process for use as bicycle, equestrian, or hiking trails. n/a X X X 

Restore closed routes to natural conditions, where appropriate. n/a X X 

Decrease the visual effect of facilities on naturalness or scenic resources, when the 

opportunity arises, during reconstruction, replacement, or major maintenance. n/a X X 

Remove facilities that are no longer used, as funding and labor becomes available. n/a X X 

Evaluate and rehabilitate existing, unused, disturbed areas to a natural condition 

consistent with natural resource restoration objectives. n/a X X 

Rehabilitation, stabilization, reconstruction, and restoration work on prehistoric and 

historic sites and structures, as well as excavations and surface collection would be 

permitted, if wilderness characteristics are maintained. 

n/a X 

Reclaim sites and areas affected by human activities when such places are no longer 

needed for authorized land uses. n/a X X X X 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-113 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Table 2-28 

Wilderness Characteristics Management Actions by Alternative (cont.) 

Alternative

Management Actions (cont.) A B C D E

Allow minimum impact activities to occur such as filming, commercial recreation, 

guided hunts and other associated activities, when such activities conform to LUP 

objectives, desired recreation settings, social and managerial settings, and VRM 

classes. 

n/a X X X 

Allow vending operations and concession leases. n/a X 

Allow recreational or hobby collecting of mineral specimens when conducted without 

location of a mining claim and limited to hand collection and detection equipment. n/a X 

Allow fishing, hunting, and trapping activities. AGFD retains jurisdiction and 

responsibilities with respect to fish and wildlife management and establishes 

regulations and enforcement for these uses. 

n/a X X X X 

Retain lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics in public ownership. n/a X X X X 

At time of renewal of any existing ROWs, YFO would discuss with the grant holder 

the possibility of relocating the ROW outside of identified lands with high value 

wilderness characteristics. 

n/a X X X X 

Regulate existing mineral leases to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. 

Existing mineral materials permits represent a valid existing right, dependent upon the 

specific terms and conditions of the lease. 

n/a X X X X 

Issue any new mineral leases with a no-surface-occupancy stipulation. n/a X 

Authorize and issue new mineral leases. n/a X X X 

Authorization of sale and free use permits (sand and gravel) would be allowed. n/a X X X 

Allow existing livestock grazing operations and support facilities to continue. n/a X X X X 

Use minimum impact suppression tactics during fire suppression operations based on 

the appropriate management response. n/a X X X X 

Allow prescribed fires in conformity with a fire management plan so long as it is 

consistent in improving or maintaining the area’s wilderness characteristics. n/a X X X X 

Allow vegetative manipulation to control noxious, exotic, or invasive plant species, 

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 would not cause adverse impacts to the 

wilderness characteristics. 

n/a X X X X 

Alternative

Administrative Actions A B C D E

Develop and adopt monitoring and standards for acceptable change for trail 

conditions, visitor encounters, vegetation changes, applying Arizona Land Health 

Standards, and approved motorized activities. 

 X X X 

Management Action 1 Project Criteria: In general, projects with a small footprint that would 

benefit from maintenance of wilderness characteristics and are compatible with other resource 

objectives could be approved. The criteria that would be considered for proposed projects within 

lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics are listed below. 

 Need for project to protect, manage, and/or conserve 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. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-114 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Long-term effect on naturalness and resources. 

 Ability to restore to its previous natural state after the project is completed. 

 Size and scale of the project. 

 Compatibility with the specified VRM zone and recreation settings. 

 Loss of opportunity for solitude and primitive recreation. 

 Potential for use to be accommodated outside of the area. 

When approved, projects would be completed using the least impacting methods that can be 

reasonably used to accomplish the project, considering resource effects as well as labor effort 

and cost, including design for the facility to blend into the landscape; consideration of site 

selection and use of a low profile; design facilities that would require minimal maintenance; and 

use of BMPs to minimize surface and vegetation disturbance during construction. When 

completed, a restoration plan would be implemented to actively restore disturbed areas. 

2.15 CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

The management of cultural resources on BLM land must be in compliance with several Federal 

laws, including the Antiquities Act of 1906; NHPA, as amended; NEPA of 1969; EO 11593, 

“Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment”; FLPMA of 1976; the American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978; the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979; the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990; EO 13007, “Indian Sacred 

Sites”; EO 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; and EO 

13287, “Preserve America”. In addition, the YFO manages its cultural resources according to the 

BLM Manual 8100 series and Arizona BLM Handbooks H-8110, Guidelines for Identifying 

Cultural Resources and H-8120, Guidelines for Protecting Cultural Resources. 

2.15.1 ALTERNATIVE A, NO ACTION 

YFO would continue to manage cultural resources for their cultural values. Sixteen cultural 

resource sites and areas identified in the 1987 Yuma District RMP would continue to be 

managed under the “Conservation for Future Use” category, i.e., preserved in place. The 

locations of these sites and areas are sensitive and were identified in a confidential document 

separate from the 1987 Yuma District RMP. Some of these sites and areas were withdrawn by 

Reclamation and therefore are segregated from mineral entry and development. 

Management Action 

 Certain significant sites and areas would be protected and preserved for future use as funds 

become available. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-115 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

2.15.2 MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES B, C, 

D, AND THE PROPOSED PLAN 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available 

for appropriate uses by present and future generations. 

 Maintain viewsheds of important cultural resources whose settings contribute significantly to 

their scientific, public, traditional, or conservation values. 

 Provide research opportunities on cultural resources that would contribute to our 

understanding of the ways humans have used and influenced the landscape. 

 Manage historic trails, including the Anza Trail, Butterfield Overland Mail Route, Gila Trail, 

and Mormon Battalion Trail, to realize their educational, recreational, and scientific values. 

 Enhance public understanding of, and appreciation for, cultural resources through 

educational outreach and heritage tourism opportunities. 

Management Actions 

 Implement protection measures to stop, limit, or repair damage to sites. A variety of 

protection measures described in BLM Manual 8140 may be used to protect the integrity of 

sites at risk such as signs, fencing or barriers, trash removal, target shooting closures, erosion 

control, backfilling, repairing, shoring up, or stabilizing structures, restricting uses and 

access, and closures. 

 Design and maintain facilities to preserve the visual integrity of cultural resources, settings, 

and cultural landscapes consistent with VRM objectives established in the RMP. 

 Where feasible, acquire properties adjacent to public lands through donation, exchange, or 

purchase that contain significant cultural resources including, but not limited to, those 

properties eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. 

 Within all proposed SCRMAs, prohibit motorized vehicles from pulling off 100 feet on 

either side of the centerline from designated routes. Motorized use shall remain within the 

route with reasonable use of the shoulder and immediate roadside for vehicle passage, 

parking/overnight camping, and emergency stopping. 

 Recommend SCRMAs be withdrawn from mineral entry should Reclamation relinquish their 

existing withdrawal. 

Administrative Actions 

 Restrict public information about the locations of cultural resource sites that are not allocated 

to Public Use, as required by law and regulation. 

 Establish collaborative research partnerships with academic institutions, professional and 

non-profit organizations, and vocational organizations. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-116 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Complete Class II (sample) and Class III (intensive) field inventories to identify and record 

cultural resource sites, in accordance with Section 110 of the NHPA. Inventory would focus 

on the following areas: 

o SCRMAs and other areas with predicted cultural resource sensitivity, and 

o Areas where cultural resource sensitivity is unknown because of a lack of previous field 

inventory. 

 Maintain an annual monitoring program that focuses on the condition of cultural resources in 

the Public Use, Traditional Use, and Conservation for Future Use categories. Develop 

partnerships with organizations like the Arizona Site Steward Program to achieve monitoring 

goals. 

 Ensure that all proposed undertakings and authorizations are reviewed and conducted in 

compliance with applicable Federal laws including Section 106 of the NHPA. 

 Continue to coordinate and consult with Native American tribes to identify places of 

traditional importance in accordance with BLM Manual 8120. 

 Verify that project designs and proposed activities seek to avoid disturbing or removing 

Native American human remains and associated items. 

 Accommodate requests by Native American tribes for use of, and access to, sacred sites and 

other places of traditional cultural importance that are identified through government-togovernment consultation. 

 Monitor cultural resource sites for adverse impacts resulting from increased visitation, and 

implement protection measures as appropriate, including restricting visitor access or group 

tour size, establishing a permitting system for large groups, or implementing physical 

protection measures as needed to protect the resource. 

 Follow guidance developed by the BLM – SHPO Cultural Resources Data Sharing 

Partnership (CRDSP). Ensure that YFO’s cultural resources information is entered into 

AZSITE database and the California Historical Resources Information System, as 

appropriate. 

2.15.3 ALLOCATION TO USE CATEGORIES 

BLM evaluates cultural resources according to their current and potential uses. Cultural 

properties and classes of cultural properties that are known and projected to occur in the planning 

area are allocated to one or more of the following use categories: Scientific Use, Public Use, 

Traditional Use, Conservation for Future Use, Experimental Use, and Discharged from 

Management. Suitable uses for cultural properties are determined based on the properties’ 

characteristics, condition, setting, location, accessibility, perceived values and potential uses. 

Category allocations are used to determine appropriate mitigation and treatment options for 

cultural properties that are presently known and for those discovered in the future. A site may be 

allocated to more than one use category, and category allocations are reevaluated and revised, as 

appropriate, when circumstances change or new data become available. 

Areas on the landscape containing cultural resources that are particularly important for Public 

Use, Scientific Use, Traditional Use, or other uses as defined in BLM Manual 8110.4 would be 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-117 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

allocated as SCRMAs. The primary purpose of these categories is to differentiate some portions 

of a planning area from others in terms of cultural resource values. SCRMAs would be 

considered priority areas for future cultural resource inventory (NHPA Section 110 surveys) and 

site documentation. Additional areas would be added to the list of SCRMAs as they are 

identified. SCRMAs may increase or decrease in acreage based upon new information. 

Management of SCRMAs reflects and supports the primary values for which the areas are 

allocated. While the primary focus of a SCRMA is for a particular use, individual sites within the 

SCRMA may be managed for any of the six use categories, as appropriate. The principal use 

categories for a SCRMA may be reevaluated and revised when circumstances change or new 

data becomes available. 

A. SCIENTIFIC USE 

Cultural sites and SCRMAs are allocated to Scientific Use based on the following criteria: 

significance and uniqueness of sites; potential to contribute toward scientific understanding; 

capability of current available scientific methods to achieve research goals; appropriate research 

proposal that would further scientific understanding or resource management; and existing 

threats to sites, including vandalism, erosion processes, or other types of disturbance. 

Desired Future Condition 

 Cultural properties in this category would be protected until land use conflicts or research in 

the public interest makes it necessary or advisable to subject them to scientific study. 

Management Actions 

 Consider and authorize studies using currently available research methods, including 

methods that would result in the properties’ alteration or destruction, on a case-by-case basis. 

 Permit scientific and historical studies by qualified researchers at selected sites allocated to 

Scientific Use. 

Administrative Actions 

 Use historic contexts and research designs to provide guidance for scientific studies. 

 Assign highest priority for study to sites that are threatened with damage from human 

activities or natural processes, areas of scientific interest, sites eligible for the NRHP, and 

areas where research may inform management actions. 

 Establish collaborative research partnerships with academic institutions, professional and 

nonprofit organizations, and vocational organizations. 

 Provide opportunities for and encourage Tribal participation in research. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-118 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

B. PUBLIC USE 

Cultural sites and SCRMAs are allocated to Public Use based on the following criteria: presence 

of aboveground features, such as structures or rock art, landscape characteristics, or other 

features that are of interest to the public and are amenable to interpretive development; the 

condition of the site and the feasibility of treating or stabilizing areas to withstand visitation; 

accessibility to travel routes; visitor safety; compatibility of other land uses and site values, such 

as traditional use by Native Americans; feasibility of regular inspections by BLM staff and 

volunteers; and partnership opportunities for interpretive and educational projects. 

Cultural properties currently managed for public use in the YFO are the Blythe Intaglios 

Complex in the Big Marias ACEC, the Fisherman Intaglio, the Sears Point ACEC interpretive 

area, and historic trails such as the Anza Trail, the Butterfield Overland Mail Route, the Gila 

Trail, and the Mormon Battalion Trail. Other properties considered appropriate for Public Use 

include the Dripping Springs site and the Tyson Wash petroglyphs. 

Desired Future Condition 

 Cultural properties managed for Public Use would be protected and developed as interpretive 

exhibits in place, or for related educational and recreational uses by members of the general 

public. 

Management Actions 

 Map and document cultural properties before interpretive development for Public Use, to the 

extent necessary to preserve archaeological data, plan for interpretive facilities, provide a 

baseline condition assessment for monitoring changes resulting from visitor use, and 

complete interpretive plans. 

 Surface occupancy for discretionary actions, including but not limited to oil and gas leases, 

mineral material disposals, and ROWs, would generally not be authorized. Installation of 

facilities to protect, interpret, or manage resource values would be allowed. 

 Implement appropriate developments necessary for site protection and interpretation, 

including but not limited to installing registration boxes and interpretive signs; establishing 

non-motorized trails, including hardened walking trails within 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile distance from 

sites; closing and converting to hiking trails or rehabilitating existing vehicle routes in close 

proximity to the site; and producing fact sheets or brochures. 

 Implement actions designed to stabilize, repair, and maintain cultural properties in good 

condition. 

 Authorize commercial tour operators on a case-by-case basis. Include stipulations in SRPs to 

ensure that commercial tour operations would not damage cultural resources. 

Administrative Actions 

 Provide opportunities for Tribal participation in interpretation. 

 Promote heritage tourism at selected sites, and cooperate with Native American tribes, other 

agencies, and organizations on heritage tourism projects that benefit local economies. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-119 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Require commercial tour operators to provide appropriate educational information on 

archaeological site etiquette and resource conservation to their customers if cultural 

properties are included on the tour. Require tour operators to report any vandalism or damage 

to sites. 

C. TRADITIONAL USE 

Cultural sites and SCRMAs managed for Traditional Use are limited to those identified by 

Native American tribes and other social or cultural groups as important for maintaining their 

cultural identity, heritage, or well-being. 

Desired Future Condition 

 Cultural properties allocated to this category would be managed for long-term preservation to 

accommodate the needs of Native American tribes and other groups for which these places 

are important. 

 Prevent physical damage or intrusions at sites that might impede their use by religious 

practitioners. 

 Develop specific management for sites managed for traditional uses in consultation with the 

Native American tribes to which they are culturally important. 

Management Actions 

 Stabilize, fence, or otherwise manage significant sites or features to protect the values 

ascribed to these sites by Native American tribes. 

 Surface occupancy for discretionary actions, including but not limited to oil and gas leases, 

mineral material disposals, and ROWs, would generally not be authorized. Installation of 

facilities to protect, interpret, or manage resource values would be allowed. 

 Minimize direct and indirect impacts to cultural values pursuant to applicable cultural 

resource laws and regulations if land use actions cannot be redesigned to avoid culturally 

sensitive locations. 

Administrative Actions 

 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 Native American tribes identify such 

areas in the future. 

 Work and coordinate with Native American tribes to select harvesting areas and allow 

noncommercial (personal use) collection of medicinal herbs, ceremonial herbs, other 

vegetation, and/or minerals for traditional or ceremonial use. 

 Identify sacred sites in consultation with Native American tribes. 

 Keep the locations of sacred sites and other places of traditional or religious importance to 

Native American tribes confidential to the extent allowed by law. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-120 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

D. CONSERVATION FOR FUTURE USE 

Cultural sites and SCRMAs allocated to the Conservation for Future Use category are of singular 

historic importance, architectural interest, or cultural importance. Their unusual significance 

makes them unsuitable for scientific or historical study that would result in their physical 

alteration. 

Desired Future Condition 

 Cultural properties in this category would be managed to maintain their present condition or 

setting until conditions are met in the future that would make them available for other uses. 

Management Actions 

 Segregate cultural properties in this category from all other land or resource uses, including 

cultural resource uses that would threaten their present condition or setting. 

 Implement actions designed to preserve cultural properties and maintain them in good 

condition. 

 Surface occupancy for discretionary actions, including but not limited to oil and gas leases, 

mineral material disposals, and ROWs, would generally not be authorized. Installation of 

facilities to protect, interpret, or manage resource values would be allowed. 

 Minimize direct and indirect impacts to cultural values pursuant to applicable cultural 

resource laws and regulations if land use actions cannot be redesigned to avoid culturally 

sensitive locations. 

Administrative Actions 

 Conserve sites for the future until specified provisions were met such as the discovery of new 

information about the site, the development of new scientific techniques capable of fully 

realizing the research potential of the site, or damage to the site’s integrity from vandalism or 

natural processes. 

E. EXPERIMENTAL USE 

Cultural sites and SCRMAs allocated to the Experimental Use category are those suited for 

controlled experimental studies that would result in better management of other cultural 

properties. 

Desired Future Condition 

 Cultural properties in this category would be available for studies that would aid in the 

management of other cultural properties, including studies that would result in the properties’ 

alteration or destruction. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-121 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Administrative Actions 

 Consider studies such as testing and measuring the rate of natural or human-caused 

deterioration, testing the effectiveness of certain protection measures, and testing the effects 

of fire. 

 Implement studies that would develop new research or interpretation methods or would 

generate similar kinds of practical management information, weighing the benefits of specific 

information to be gained versus the loss of cultural attributes or data that may occur during 

the experiment or study. 

 Do not apply experimental study to cultural properties with strong research potential, 

traditional cultural importance, or good public use potential if it would significantly diminish 

those values. 

F. DISCHARGED FROM MANAGEMENT 

Cultural properties Discharged from Management are limited to those having no remaining 

information potential, no traditional values, and no identifiable use. Cultural properties would be 

allocated to this category only on a case-by-case basis after inspection and recordation in the 

field, and only after complying with Section 106 of the NHPA. If a site is identified through 

government-to-government consultation as having traditional use values, then the site would not 

be appropriate for this use category. 

Desired Future Condition 

 Other land uses would take precedence when managing these properties, including land uses 

that would further diminish the properties’ integrity. 

Administrative Actions 

 Record cultural properties in this category in the field and retain them in the inventory. 

2.15.4 SPECIAL CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Proposed SCRMAs by alternative are shown below in Table 2-29 and Maps 2-12a (Alternative 

B), 2-12b (Alternative C), 2-12c (Alternative D), and 2-12d (the Proposed Plan). Appendix 2-F 

provides a more detailed definition of the new SCRMA allocation. 

Table 2-29 

SCRMAs by Alternative 

Proposed Special Cultural Resource Alternatives (BLM acres) 

Management Areas A1 B C D E 

Scientific Use 

Cibola Valley 0 0 4,700 4,700 4,700 

Laguna Mountains 0 0 2,700 2,700 2,700 

Ligurta Area 0 0 4,800 4,800 4,800 

Traditional Use 

Limitrophe 0 CMA3 1,400 ACEC2 CMA3
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-122 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Table 2-29 

SCRMAs by Alternative (cont.) 

Proposed Special Cultural Resource Alternatives (BLM acres) 

Management Areas A1 B C D E 

Traditional Use and Conservation for Future Use 

Muggins Mountains Terraces 0 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300 

Sears Point Mesas 0 10,900 ACEC2 ACEC2 ACEC2

Walters Camp 0 0 1,600 ACEC2 1,600 

Conservation for Future Use 

Big Maria Terraces 0 4,700 4,700 ACEC2 4,700 

Mittry Lake 0 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 

North Gila Mountains 0 0 1,100 1,100 1,100 

Palo Verde Point Area 0 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 

Senator Wash North 0 0 2,300 2,300 2,300 

Total SCRMA Acreage 0 21,200 29,900 22,200 28,500 1

Sixteen cultural resource sites and areas were identified in the 1987 Yuma RMP. 2

See the Special Designations section for descriptions of, and management prescriptions for, ACECs. 

3

See Coordinated Management Area section for descriptions of, and management prescriptions for, 

CMAs. 

A. BIG MARIA TERRACES SCRMA 

The Big Maria Terraces SCRMA is 4,700 acres and is included in Alternatives B, C, and the 

Proposed Plan. This proposed SCRMA is bounded by the existing 4,485-acre Big Marias ACEC 

to the south, the CRIT reservation to the east, the Palm Springs Field Office to the west, and the 

Lake Havasu Field Office to the north. This portion of the YFO on the west side of the Colorado 

River has a rare density of intaglios and other desert pavement features that extends across the 

terraces above the river floodplain. Together with the intaglio features present inside the existing 

Big Marias ACEC boundaries, this landscape is currently recognized as the single greatest 

concentration of intaglio and geoglyph sites in North America. This area needs proactive 

management to prevent additional impacts to the desert pavement landscape from recreational 

use, particularly damage from unauthorized OHV tracks. 

B. CIBOLA VALLEY SCRMA 

The Cibola Valley SCRMA is 4,700 acres and is included in Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed 

Plan. This proposed SCRMA is located on the east side of the Colorado River, in the vicinity of 

the Town of Cibola, Arizona. The proposed SCRMA contains a high concentration of indigenous 

cultural features, including cleared areas in the desert pavement, rock alignments, circular 

mounds, trail networks, lithic scatters, plus some intaglio and petroglyph sites. The cultural sites 

in this proposed SCRMA require proactive management due to increased development and 

recreational use in this area. 

C. LAGUNA MOUNTAINS SCRMA 

The Laguna Mountains SCRMA is 2,700 acres and is included in Alternatives C, D, and the 

Proposed Plan. It is located within the west and south foothills of the Laguna Mountains, near the 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-123 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

confluence of the Colorado and Gila rivers. The landscape of this area was highly used by 

indigenous peoples, and is covered primarily by traces of habitation such as extensive low 

density lithic scatters, cleared areas in the desert pavement, rock features, ceramic scatters, and a 

trail network. There are also some known petroglyph sites of importance in the region. The 

cultural sites in this proposed SCRMA require proactive management due to increased 

development and recreational use in this area. 

D. LIGURTA AREA SCRMA 

The Ligurta Area SCRMA is 4,800 acres and is included in Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed 

Plan. This proposed SCRMA is located between the Gila River to the east and the Gila 

Mountains to the west, in the vicinity of Ligurta, Arizona. Known indigenous cultural features in 

this area include rock features, dance patterns, many cleared areas in the desert pavement and a 

trail network. The cultural sites in this proposed SCRMA require proactive management due to 

the increasing amount of development and recreational use in this area. 

E. LIMITROPHE SCRMA 

The Limitrophe SCRMA is 1,400 acres and is included in Alternative C. This proposed SCRMA 

extends along the lower Colorado River from the Northerly International Boundary (1.1 miles 

north of Morelos Dam) downriver to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico at San 

Luis, Arizona. This International Boundary area has been identified by certain Native American 

tribes as containing important natural and cultural resources with traditional use values. Native 

American tribes use this area for Tribal education, gathering, hunting and fishing; collection of 

mesquite wood for funerary and construction purposes; collection of willow for basket materials; 

and possibly collection of clay used for pottery making. This proposed SCRMA is internationally 

significant because it is a landscape of importance to Native Americans living on both sides of 

the border, in the U.S. and Mexico. It is a cultural landscape necessary for the continuation of 

traditional practices based on the Colorado River. 

F. MITTRY LAKE SCRMA 

The Mittry Lake SCRMA is 1,000 acres and is included in Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed 

Plan. This proposed SCRMA is located along the south and east sides of Mittry Lake, within the 

existing Mittry Lake CMA. This proposed SCRMA has some important indigenous artifact 

scatters, with a diversity of lithic materials and ceramic types and a potential for subsurface 

deposition that is not common for the YFO area, plus some known petroglyphs. The cultural 

sites in this proposed SCRMA require proactive management, due to their close proximity to 

intensive recreational use in the vicinity of Mittry Lake. 

G. MUGGINS MOUNTAINS TERRACES SCRMA 

The Muggins Mountains Terraces SCRMA is 4,300 acres and is included in Alternatives B, C, 

D, and the Proposed Plan. This proposed SCRMA is located along the south side of the Muggins 

Mountains, in the foothills above the Gila River floodplain in the vicinity of Wellton, Arizona. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-124 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

This area was extensively used by indigenous peoples, with petroglyph boulders, cleared areas in 

the desert pavement, trail networks, lithic scatters, and rock alignments and other rock features in 

evidence along the desert pavement terraces. This area needs proactive management to prevent 

additional impacts to the desert pavement landscape from increased recreational use, particularly 

damage caused by unauthorized OHV tracks. See Travel Management and Recreation 

Management sections for additional management prescriptions specific to this proposed 

SCRMA. 

H. NORTH GILA MOUNTAINS SCRMA 

The North Gila Mountains SCRMA is 1,100 acres and is included in Alternatives C, D, and the 

Proposed Plan. This proposed SCRMA is located along the northern edge of the Gila Mountains, 

in the foothills above the south side of the Gila River. This area is known for its density of desert 

pavement features, including intaglios, pebble mounds, cleared areas, rock rings, rock 

alignments, and an extensive trail network. The indigenous cultural sites in this proposed 

SCRMA require proactive management due to increased development and recreational use in 

this area. 

I. PALO VERDE POINT AREA SCRMA 

The Palo Verde Point Area SCRMA is 1,300 acres and is included in Alternatives B, C, D, and 

the Proposed Plan. This proposed SCRMA is located on the east side of the Palo Verde 

Mountains, in the vicinity of Palo Verde, California. This proposed SCRMA is situated on the 

west side of the Colorado River above the floodplain and is unique for its relatively pristine 

condition, with the desert pavement virtually undisturbed compared with other areas in the 

planning area. Consequently, the cultural resources in this proposed SCRMA are in superior 

condition with less human-caused damage. Traces of indigenous use in this area include 

important intaglio sites, an extensive petroglyph site, plus trail networks, rock alignments, 

cleared areas in the desert pavement, and widespread lithic scatters. The cultural landscape in 

this area requires proactive management to retain the undisturbed character of the resources. 

J. SEARS POINT MESAS SCRMA 

The Sears Point Mesas SCRMA is 10,900 acres and is included in Alternative B. This proposed 

SCRMA surrounds the existing Sears Point ACEC, with its boundary generally following the 

Gila River floodplain and the volcanic landscape that is typical of the Sears Point area. This 

proposed SCRMA area contains extensive cultural sites that are similar to the features found 

within the existing 3,700-acre Sears Point ACEC boundaries, including petroglyph panels, traces 

of indigenous habitation such as extensive artifact scatters, and an established trail network. 

K. SENATOR WASH NORTH SCRMA 

The Senator Wash North SCRMA is 2,300 acres and is included in Alternatives C, D, and the 

Proposed Plan. This proposed SCRMA is located in California adjacent to the Senator Wash 

Reservoir, bounded by the Colorado River to the east and the El Centro Field Office to the west. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-125 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Indigenous cultural resource sites known in this area consist of rock alignments and other rock 

features, trails, and an intaglio site. The cultural sites in this proposed SCRMA area require 

proactive management, due to their close proximity to intensive recreational use in the vicinity of 

the Senator Wash Reservoir. 

L. WALTERS CAMP SCRMA 

The Walters Camp SCRMA is 1,600 acres and is included in Alternative C and the Proposed 

Plan. This proposed SCRMA is located on the west side of the Colorado River, between the 

Imperial and Cibola NWRs in California. There is extensive evidence of year-round use by 

indigenous peoples throughout the area, with important intaglio sites, desert pavement features 

such as cleared areas and rock alignments, and artifact scatters situated across the landscape. In 

addition, the sacred Xam Kwitcam migratory trail (a path that begins at AviKwame, the mythical 

site of Yuman creation north of Needles, California and ends at Yuma, Arizona) is believed to 

cross through this important area (von Werlhof 2004). Proactive management is needed to 

protect the cultural resources in this proposed SCRMA from increased recreational use and OHV 

traffic. 

2.16 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT 

Paleontological resources found on public lands are recognized by BLM as constituting a fragile 

and nonrenewable scientific record of the history of life on earth. They therefore represent an 

important component of America’s natural heritage. 

BLM manages paleontological resources principally under the following authorities: BLM 

Manual 8270—Paleontological Resources Management; BLM Handbook H-8270-1—General 

Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resources Management, FLPMA of 1976; NEPA of 

1969; Secretarial Order 3104; the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988; and other 

various laws and regulations. 

All lands within the planning area would be classified as high, moderate, or low sensitivity for 

paleontological resources, based on their potential to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. These classifications would follow the guidance 

outlined in BLM Manual 8270 and BLM Handbook H-8270-1. Classifications would be based 

on future inventory of geological units and would be accomplished through adaptive 

management and plan maintenance. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Protect and conserve significant paleontological resources as they are discovered on public 

lands. 

 Manage paleontological resources in ways that prioritize research needs, facilitate 

educational and recreational needs, and protect important sites. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-126 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Develop specific objectives and management actions for fossil localities, when 

paleontological resources are discovered in the planning area. 

Management Actions 

 Evaluate paleontological resources as they are discovered, considering their scientific, 

educational, and recreational values. Identify appropriate objectives, management actions, 

allowable uses, and allocations for fossil localities as they are found. 

 Restrict the collection of all vertebrate fossils, and noteworthy invertebrate and plant fossils 

to legitimate scientific or educational uses in accordance with permitting procedures. 

 Ensure that common invertebrate and plant fossils are available for recreational collecting. 

Administrative Actions 

 Develop a paleontology sensitivity map according to the procedures outlined in BLM 

Manual 8270 and BLM Handbook H-8270-1. All land use actions with a potential to impact 

vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils would be 

screened against this map. 

o Low Sensitivity Areas: Assessment or mitigation for proposed land use authorizations 

would not be required except in very rare circumstances. 

o Moderate Sensitivity Areas: BLM-authorized surface-disturbing activities may require 

assessment to determine further courses of action. A field survey by a qualified 

paleontologist may be required. Management prescriptions for resource preservation and 

conservation through controlled access or special management designation would be 

considered. 

o High Sensitivity Areas: An assessment by a qualified paleontologist prior to authorizing 

land uses that could impact vertebrate fossils and/or uncommon invertebrate fossils 

would be required. A records search, inventory, monitoring, and/or mitigation would be 

required as appropriate before and/or during these actions. 

 Establish agreements and partnerships with interested organizations, such as museums, 

scientific organizations, agencies, or universities to support inventory, evaluation, 

recordation, mitigation, protection, and management of paleontological resources. 

 Priority areas for inventory would be areas that are most likely to include significant 

paleontological resources, that are relatively accessible to the public, and/or that are 

vulnerable to damage or loss from land use activities. 

2.17 AIR, WATER, AND SOIL MANAGEMENT 

2.17.1 AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

FLPMA and the CAA of 1970 and Amendments of 1977 and 1990 prohibit BLM or any Federal 

land management agency from conducting, supporting, approving, licensing, or permitting any 

activity on Federal land that does not comply with all applicable local, State, and Federal air 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-127 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

quality laws, statutes, regulations, and implementation plans. In support of these regulations, a 

program has been developed that provides benefits to air quality and other resources by 

decreasing air pollutant concentrations, increasing visibility, and decreasing atmospheric 

deposition. Adherence to air quality regulatory programs through coordination with other Federal 

and State agencies is a key to air quality management success. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain or improve air quality as established by the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and Arizona and California air quality standards. 

 Identify desired outcomes and area-wide criteria or restrictions, in cooperation with the 

appropriate air quality regulatory agency, that apply to emission-generating activities, 

including the CAA’s requirements for compliance with: 

o Applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Section 109), 

o State Implementation Plans (Section 110), 

o Control of Pollution from Federal Facilities (Section 118), 

o Prevention of Significant Deterioration, including visibility impacts to mandatory Federal 

Class I Areas (Section 160 et seq.), and 

o Conformity Analyses and Determinations (Section 176(c)) 

 Meet particulate matter up to 10 micrometers in size (PM10) standards in the Yuma Nonattainment area. 

 Maintain air quality within required standards through cooperative management of emissions 

with industry, the States of Arizona and California, and Federal agencies. YFO would strive 

to minimize, within the scope of its authority, any emissions that may cause violations of air 

quality standards, add to acid rain, or degrade visibility. 

Management Actions 

 Comply with the State of Arizona laws and regulations for all proposed actions that would 

contribute to particulate matter emissions in the air as a result of actions taken in this 

RMP/EIS. Likewise, comply with the State of California laws and regulations regarding 

particulate emissions. The planning area includes the Yuma PM10 Non-attainment Area. 

 Continue to take actions to control fugitive dust from Open OHV Management Areas, dry 

washes, river beds, and construction sites and to prevent non-point source air pollution. 

Administrative Actions 

 Work closely with counties or States on the development or amendment of State 

implementation plans. 

 Actively support ADEQ and the California Air Resources Board Imperial County Air 

Pollution Control District regulatory oversight of air resources in the planning area. 

 Consult, coordinate, and comply with applicable Tribal, Federal, State, and local air quality 

regulations, as required by the CAA, EO 12088, and Tribal, Federal, or State implementation 

plans. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-128 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

2.17.2 WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

Water resources in the planning area include both surface water and groundwater. Guidance for 

water resources management is given by BLM Manual 7240 and in the Land Health Standards 

and Guidelines (43 CFR 4180). YFO works cooperatively with Reclamation, the USDOI agency 

responsible for managing, developing, and protecting water and related resources in an 

environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. 

Surface waters in the planning area can be divided into watersheds, or portions of the landscape 

that collect runoff from the surface, concentrate it into channels, and conduct the resulting flow 

to a definable outlet. The planning area occurs within the Lower Colorado River Basin, which is 

further divided into smaller watersheds. Watersheds that make up the majority of the planning 

area include the lower Colorado River–Imperial Reservoir, lower Colorado River below Imperial 

Reservoir, lower Gila River below Painted Rock Dam (Local Drainage), Tyson Wash, Bouse 

Wash, and Yuma Desert Area watersheds. Water management applies to these watersheds, as 

well as the floodplains and riparian areas of the Colorado and Gila Rivers. 

Groundwater within the planning area occurs primarily within alluvial basins between fault block 

mountain ranges. BLM has no direct authority over the groundwater (in basins not adjacent to 

the Colorado River). Rather, the groundwater resource is managed by the Arizona Department of 

Water Resources (ADWR). BLM works in cooperation with ADWR to develop the groundwater 

resource to provide water to BLM grazing lease holders, mineral operators, and to some 

recreational sites. 

Portions of the Parker, Ranegras Plain, Lower Gila, Western Mexican Drainage basins, and the 

Harquahala Irrigation Non-expansion Area are within the boundary of the planning area. 

Desired Future Conditions 

General 

 Ensure the physical presence and legal availability of surface water and groundwater on 

public lands. 

 Ensure that those waters meet or exceed Federal, Arizona, and California water quality 

standards for specific uses. 

 Ensure that water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves, or is 

making significant progress toward achieving, established YFO management objectives such 

as meeting wildlife and recreational needs. 

A. SURFACE WATER 

 Identify and protect surface waters from the standpoint of human health concerns, aquatic 

ecosystem health, or other public uses 

 Preserve and enhance stream bank and channel condition. 

 Identify area wide use restrictions or other protective measures to meet Federal, Tribal, State, 

and local water quality requirements. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-129 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Management Actions 

 Maintain existing proper functioning conditions of watersheds by applying BMPs. 

 Prevent or reduce water quality degradation through the application of specific mitigation 

measures. 

 Acquire legally perfected rights to use water from the lower Colorado River in support of 

YFO programs, including the water needs of the BLM recreation sites, commercial and 

concession facilities, and wildlife and habitat. 

 Continue to maintain or improve water quality in accordance with State and Federal 

standards. Consult with the appropriate State agencies (ADEQ and others) on proposed 

projects that may significantly affect water quality. Designate management actions on public 

land within municipal watersheds to protect water quality and quantity. 

 Analyze surface and ground water quality and quantity on a case-by-case basis. 

Administrative Actions 

 Provide water use reports periodically to Reclamation per agreement. 

B. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 

BLM is mandated by EO 11988-Floodplain Management to avoid development or occupancy on 

the 100-year floodplain wherever possible. The order also requires that BLM’s standards and 

requirements for development in floodplains be consistent with the National Floodplain 

Insurance Program requirements administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Accepted flood proofing measures and other flood protection measures must be applied to all 

new construction or rehabilitation of structures and facilities in the floodplain. 

EO 11988 applies equally to all Federal land-managing agencies. BLM–Reclamation 

coordination on floodplain management is described in: a) DM 613 with respect to the lands 

bordering on the lower Colorado River, and b) in the Reclamation/BLM Interagency Agreement

of 25 March 1983. BLM would also coordinate floodplain management to not conflict with the 

projects, obligations, and mission of the USIBWC. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Restore and maintain desired plant communities and suitable wildlife habitat for migratory 

birds, waterfowl, reptiles, big-game mammals, and other desired species within riparian areas 

and floodplains.

 Maintain hydrologic function between watersheds and main channels of the Colorado and 

Gila rivers through proper floodplain management. 

 Provide ample recreation opportunities on BLM-administered lands within the 100-year 

floodplain. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-130 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Management Actions 

 Floodplains and riparian areas administered by BLM along the Colorado and Gila rivers 

would continue to be managed with priority consideration given to maintenance as wildlife 

habitat. 

 No new agricultural leases would be authorized within the 100-year floodplain of the 

Colorado and Gila rivers. 

 Manage BLM-administered lands within or adjacent to the Colorado River Floodplain for 

natural resource-based recreational uses compatible with the Desired Future Conditions of 

wildlife habitat and vegetation communities. 

 Allow only those permanent new facilities that can be flood proofed within the 100-year 

floodplain. 

 Existing permanent structures would be allowed to remain in the 100-year floodplain until 

they are inundated, their useful life is gone, or the present leases expire. 

 BLM-administered lands within or adjacent to the Colorado River 100-year floodplain would 

remain in Federal management and not be made available for disposal. 

 No grazing leases would be authorized within the 100-year floodplain of the Colorado or 

Gila rivers.

Administrative Actions 

 Coordinate with Reclamation pursuant to DM 613 on management of BLM-administered 

lands within the Colorado River Floodplain. 

 Coordinate floodplain management with the USIBWC’s projects, objectives, and mission. 

2.17.3 SOIL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

Soils in the planning area are associated with a variety of climates, vegetative cover, topography, 

and geology. Five soil suborders (specific soil types) are found in the planning area (The Nature 

Conservancy 2004). Almost 90 percent of the planning area consists of aridisols, a soil order 

(general soil type) of the USDOA NRCS Soil Classification System. 

Aridisols are commonly found in dry environments that are low in organic matter and rich in 

deposited salts. Of the remaining 10 percent of the planning area, the largest area consists of 

Entisols or soils of recent development with no or poorly developed soil horizons. Less than one 

percent of the planning area consists of badlands, rock outcrops, and water. 

The planning area also contains sensitive resources including biological soil crusts, desert 

pavement, and stabilized sand dunes. 

 Biological soil crusts: A complex mosaic of cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses, 

microfungi, and other bacteria. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-131 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Desert pavement: A ground surface consisting of coarse, densely packed, patinated cobbles 

and gravels that are covered with layers of ferro-manganese deposits and microscopic 

organisms. 

 Stabilized sand dunes: A sand-covered landscape that is veiled and stabilized by plant 

cover, so that the sand is no longer borne away by winds. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Maintain or improve soil resource conditions throughout the planning area. 

 Manage soils to maintain biological productivity and to minimize erosion. 

 Meet Land Health Standard #1, as related to soils, and multiple use objectives per Land 

Health Standards (USDOI BLM 1997a). 

Management Actions 

 After completion of BLM-authorized surface disturbing activities, disturbed surfaces would 

be restored to a natural condition as far as possible. 

 Restrict vehicular and construction activities when soils are susceptible to a heightened risk 

of erosion or compaction. Restore areas of excessive surface damage from past activities. 

 Incorporate erosion and salinity control measures into projects where appropriate. 

Administrative Actions 

 Conduct a range-wide soil survey using USDOA NRCS standards to provide information on 

soil types, erosion risks, and soil vulnerability to disturbances. 

 Coordinate with USDOA NRCS. 

 Map all sensitive soil resources to facilitate protection of biological soil crusts, desert 

pavement, and stabilized sand dunes. 

 Monitor effects to sensitive soils resulting from OHV use. 

 Damage to sensitive soils from land use actions and multiple-use would be minimized and/or 

avoided to the extent practicable. 

2.18 LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT 

The Lands and Realty program consists of two distinct parts: land use authorizations and land 

tenure. The land use authorization segment focuses on public demand requests for ROWs, 

permits, leases, and easements. Land tenure focuses on disposing of and acquiring lands or 

interests in lands. 

The Lands and Realty program administers public lands within a framework of numerous laws. 

The most comprehensive of these is FLPMA. FLPMA enables BLM to accomplish a variety of 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-132 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

lands actions, including but not limited to sales, withdrawals, acquisitions, exchanges, leases, 

permits, easements, and ROWs. 

Other applicable laws and regulations are as follows: 

 In 1988, FLPMA was amended by the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act (102 Stat. 

1087). Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act established uniform rules and regulations for 

appraisals, procedures, and guidelines for the resolution of appraisal disputes in the exchange 

process. 

 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 185) as amended: BLM issues ROWs for pipeline 

purposes for the transportation of oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any 

refined product produced therefrom pursuant to Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act. 

 R&PP Act of June 14, 1926 (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.), as amended: This act is used as a 

significant tool primarily for providing land to fulfill the need for public services (including, 

but not limited to, parks, monuments, schools, community buildings, hospitals, sanitary 

landfills) due to community expansion. 

 Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 2215): This act provides for the 

conveyance of BLM-administered lands to public agencies for use as airports and airways. 

 Federal Highway Acts: Various Federal Highway Acts codified in 23 U.S.C., Sections 17 

and 317 were established to build, improve, and maintain the Federal interstate highway 

system. The current Interagency Agreement also applies to lands and realty management. 

 Federal Land Transaction and Facilitation Act (114 Stat. 613; 43 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) of July 

25, 2000: This act amended FLPMA to allow retention by the BLM of receipts received from 

the sale of land or interests in land under Section 203 of FLPMA or conveyance of mineral 

interest under Section 209(b) of FLPMA provided a LUP was completed prior to July 25, 

2000. 

 Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801): Encourages energy efficiency and 

conservation, promotes alternative and renewable energy sources, reduces the U.S. 

dependence on foreign sources of energy, increases domestic production, modernizes the 

electricity grid, and encourages the expansion of nuclear energy. 

A summary of proposed lands and realty Management Actions by alternative is presented in 

Table 2-30 below and Maps 2-13a through 2-13e. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-133 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Table 2-30 

Lands and Realty Proposed Actions by Alternative 

Alternative 

Lands Actions A B C D E 

Disposal (acres) 

Total Acres 19,100 46,900 10,500 8,200 11,900 

Acquisitions 

Lands would be acquired on a case-by-case basis. 

Withdrawal 

Wilderness (AZ/CA) (existing, by law) 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 

Big Marias ACEC 2,900* 0 0 2,900* 2,900* 

Dripping Springs ACEC n/a 0 600 600 600 

Sears Point ACEC 3,600** 3,600** 4,800 4,800 8,500 

Total Acres 174,300 171,400 173,200 176,100 179,800 

ROW Corridors 

El Paso Natural Gas X X X X 

Gila Mountains East (ROW 6) X X 

Interstate 8 X X X X 

Interstate 10 X X X X X 

Palo Verde–Devers X X X X X 

Palo Verde Mountains Reroute X X X 

Parker Blaisdell X X X X 

San Diego Gas & Electric Interconnection X X X X 

San Diego Gas & Electric to I-8 X 

South Muggins (ROW 3) X X 

Highway 95 California X X X 

Total Corridors 4 10 10 5 8 

Total Miles 300 500 500 400 465 

Communications Sites

Airway Beacon X X 

Big Maria X X X X X 

Black Rock Hill X X X X 

Cunningham X X X X X 

Guadalupe X X X X 

Kofa X 

Laguna Mountain (High Power) X X X 

Mohawk X X X X X 

Palo Verde Gap X X X 

Qwest X X 

Salome X X X X 

Stone Cabin X X X X X 

Telegraph X X X X X 

Total Sites 6 13 11 8 10 

Renewable Energy

Proposed on a case-by-case basis to meet public demand. 

*BLM would propose to withdraw 2,900 acres in the Big Marias ACEC should Reclamation revoke their existing withdrawal for 

the area. 

**In 1996, Public Land Order 7212 identified 3,600 acres for withdrawal as the Gila River Cultural ACEC. The Public Land 

Order immediately withdrew approximately 1,700 acres of Federal lands. An additional 1,900 acres of non-Federal lands, within 

the designated boundary of the ACEC, if acquired by the U.S., would also be by Public Land Order 7212. Through the 

acquisition of non-Federal lands since 1996, there are currently 2,400 acres of withdrawn BLM lands within the existing Gila 

River Cultural ACEC. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-134 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

2.18.1 LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS 

YFO would strive to increase and diversify our nation’s sources of both traditional and 

alternative energy resources, improve our energy transportation network, and ensure sound 

environmental management in accordance with the President’s National Energy Policy. All land 

use authorizations would adhere to Desired Future Conditions and Management Actions made 

under other resource management programs in this chapter. 

A. WITHDRAWAL 

Withdrawal means 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 (40 U.S.C. 472), from one 

department, bureau, or agency to another department, bureau, or agency (43 CFR 2300). Section 

204 of FLPMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (delegated to the Director of BLM) to 

make, modify, extend, or revoke withdrawals but only in accordance with the provisions and 

limitations of Section 204. 

Within the planning area there are existing withdrawn lands for the following Federal agencies: 

Reclamation, USFWS, Department of the Navy, Department of the Army, Department of the Air 

Force, and U.S. Border Patrol (see Appendix 2-G). When withdrawn lands are returned to the 

public domain, YFO would manage them in accordance with the approved LUP decisions for 

surrounding or adjacent BLM-administered lands. 

Lands within Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas are also withdrawn from all forms 

of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under mineral leasing laws. Prior 

existing claims or leases with valid existing rights may be developed, though mineral 

development within wilderness is rare. Within the planning area, 167,800 acres have been 

withdrawn according to the Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended. 

Reclamation Withdrawn Lands 

YFO has limited administrative responsibility on approximately 282,000 acres of land along the 

lower Colorado River that are currently withdrawn from public domain or have been acquired for 

project purposes by Reclamation. Reclamation withdrew these lands under authority of the 

Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388). This authority was repealed by Section 704(a) 

of FLPMA. “First form” withdrawals embrace lands which may be needed in the construction 

and maintenance of irrigation projects. The lands withdrawn under first form are removed from 

the operation of the mining laws and the general land laws. “Second form” withdrawals include 

lands which are believed to be susceptible to irrigation from a reclamation project. The lands 

withdrawn under second form are removed from the general land laws, but not the mining laws. 

Second form withdrawals sometimes allowed for specific land laws, i.e., homestead entry. 

BLM’s management of Reclamation withdrawn and acquired lands is the subject of an 

interagency agreement (Reclamation/BLM Interagency Agreement of 23 March 1983, or 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-135 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

subsequent revisions) and department-wide guidelines (DM 613 and the Lower Colorado River 

LUP). YFO would manage surface uses of Reclamation lands in accordance with the agreement 

and guidelines. In addition, Reclamation is obligated to comply with requirements of NEPA, 

NHPA, ESA, and other applicable EOs, laws, and regulations in planning and implementing sitespecific actions on Reclamation project withdrawn lands. 

Current and Proposed Withdrawn Lands 

BLM-administered lands currently withdrawn and proposed for withdrawal are shown on Table 

2-31 and Maps 2-13a through 2-13e. This includes existing Wilderness of 167,800 acres. Other 

Federal agency withdrawals are listed in Appendix 2-G. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Minimize the amount of land withdrawn and, where applicable, revoke existing withdrawals, 

if the land is no longer needed for the original purpose of the withdrawal. 

Management Actions 

 Under Alternative A, continue existing withdrawals including the existing 167,800 acres of 

Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas, Big Marias ACEC (2,900 acres), and Sears 

Point ACEC (3,600 acres), totaling 174,300 acres. 

 Under Alternative B, withdrawals include the existing 167,800 acres of Congressionally 

Designated Wilderness Areas and Sears Point ACEC (3,600 acres), totaling 171,400 acres. 

 Under Alternative C, withdrawals include the existing 167,800 acres of Congressionally 

Designated Wilderness Areas, Dripping Springs ACEC (600 acres), and Sears Point ACEC 

(4,800 acres), totaling 173,200 acres. 

 Under Alternative D, withdrawals include the existing 167,800 acres of Congressionally 

Designated Wilderness Areas, Big Marias ACEC (2,900 acres), Dripping Springs ACEC 

(600 acres), and Sears Point ACEC (4,800 acres), totaling 176,100 acres. 

 Under the Proposed Plan, withdrawals include the existing 167,800 acres of Congressionally 

Designated Wilderness Areas, Big Marias ACEC (2,900 acres), Dripping Springs ACEC 

(600 acres), and Sears Point ACEC (8,500 acres), totaling 179,800 acres. 

 In the event that Reclamation relinquishes their second form withdrawal in the Big Marias 

ACEC, YFO would propose to withdraw 2,900 acres of the ACEC from mineral entry under 

Alternatives A, D, and the Proposed Plan. The withdrawal would be delineated in a way that 

does not affect access and use of existing facilities, including mineral material quarries. 

 Under all alternatives, continue implementing Public Land Order 7212 by withdrawing 

additional lands that return to public ownership within the original 1988 Sears Point ACEC 

boundary. 

 Under Alternatives C and D, propose withdrawing an additional 1,200 acres of Federal land 

within the Sears Point ACEC. 

 Under the Proposed Plan, propose withdrawing an additional 4,900 acres of Federal land 

within the Sears Point ACEC. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-136 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan, propose withdrawing 600 acres of Federal 

land within the Dripping Springs ACEC. 

 Recommend SCRMAs to be withdrawn from mineral entry, should Reclamation relinquish 

their existing withdrawal. 

 Continue to review existing withdrawals, including other agency withdrawals, periodically to 

ensure that the reasons for the withdrawal are still valid, and that only the acreage needed is 

retained in withdrawn status. 

Administrative Actions 

 Use the appropriate tool for protection of designated ACECs, which could include 

withdrawal. 

 On Federal lands where appropriate, follow the floodplain management practices consistent 

with EO 11988, Floodplain Management. 

B. LEASES/PERMITS/EASEMENTS 

Section 302 of FLPMA states “...regulate through easements permits, leases, licenses, published 

rules, or other instruments as the Secretary deems appropriate, the use, occupancy, and 

development of the public lands....” 

Leases, permits, or easements would be considered and issued under applicable laws and 

regulations pursuant to regulations found at 43 CFR 2900. Issuance of leases, permits, or 

easements is a discretionary action. These authorizations may include but are not limited to the 

following: 

 Airport leases 

 Recreation and public purposes leases 

 2920 leases, permits, or easements (agricultural leases/permits, film permits, apiary permits, 

concession leases, etc.) 

Public land is subject to application for community expansion needs under a wide variety of 

public land laws. Community expansion needs would continue to be handled on a case-by-case 

basis in accordance with the appropriate authority. YFO would authorize the use of Federal lands 

for community expansion needs including, but not limited to, airports, parks, hospitals, and 

community centers pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. Appendix 2-H is a guide to 

stipulations for typical land use authorizations. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Meet public demand for leases, permits, and easements. 

 Meet community expansion needs. 

 Existing residential leasing would be phased out. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-137 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Management Actions 

 Use R&PP Act leases to meet the needs for community expansion. 

 Restrict occupancy within concession sites to 150 days in a calendar year. 

 Any authorization determined to be in noncompliance with the terms and conditions would 

be subject to termination. 

 Phase out existing cabin site and residential permits, and remove improvements associated 

with such permits. 

 Prohibit assignment or transfer of cabin site permits. 

 Phase out exclusive use of individual sites within concession leases. 

 Do not authorize concession leases that allow exclusive use. 

Administrative Actions 

 Monitor existing and future authorizations for compliance with the terms and conditions of 

the authorization. 

1. Agricultural Leases 

YFO would continue to authorize agricultural leases on a case-by-case basis on public lands 

where appropriate. The transfer or reassignment of agricultural leases would be subject to prior 

review and approval by BLM. YFO would develop agricultural lease stipulations restricting crop 

types for purposes of law enforcement and public safety. 

Currently, as of June 2007, YFO authorizes 1,528 acres of agriculture leases. This includes 1,300 

acres in Arizona and 228 acres in California. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Convert lands currently authorized for agricultural purposes that are not renewed to uses that 

benefit other programs carried out by the YFO, such as development for recreational use or 

restoration of wildlife habitat. 

Management Actions 

 Continue to authorize agricultural leases on a case-by-case basis. 

 No new agricultural leases would be authorized within the 100-year floodplain of the 

Colorado and Gila rivers. 

Administrative Actions 

 The transfer or reassignment of agricultural leases would be subject to review and approval 

by YFO. 

 The issuance of agricultural leases would be contingent on the lessee providing proof of a 

legal source of water and legal water rights under State water law. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-138 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

2. Concession Leases 

BLM issues concession leases pursuant to FLPMA and in accordance with 43 CFR 2920. 

Concession leases are authorized for recreation areas for concessionaire, State park, and county 

park operations to ensure that recreation opportunities are provided for the public. Private 

enterprises provide services and facilities that are responsive to public needs and are in 

appropriate intensively developed recreation areas. 

Concession leases are considered when necessary to provide developed commercial recreation 

opportunities in appropriate settings when and where it would not be feasible for BLM or other 

government agencies to do so. These leases authorize the construction and/or implementation of 

long-term facilities and services that would require a substantial financial investment by private 

business or other non-governmental entities. 

Desired Future Condition 

 Ensure that public lands are available to develop concessions for recreation opportunities to 

meet the growth of public recreation use on a case-by-case basis. 

Management Actions 

 Concessions would be managed in accordance with its authorized concession lease including 

quarterly inspections for compliance with the terms and conditions of the leases. 

 Hidden Shores RV Village and Walters Camp would continue to be managed as concessions 

in accordance with their leases under Alternatives A through the Proposed Plan. 

 Restrict occupancy within concessions to no more than 150 days in a calendar year. 

 Concession leases found in non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the 

authorization would be subject to termination. 

Administrative Actions 

 Monitor concession leases to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the 

authorization. 

C. RIGHTS-OF-WAY 

The BLM issues authorizations on public lands to qualified individuals, businesses, and 

government entities pursuant to FLPMA or the Mineral Leasing Act. Title V of FLPMA, as 

amended, states that BLM is authorized to grant, issue, or renew ROWs over, upon, under or 

through lands for various uses. The types of uses that would be authorized by ROWs issued 

pursuant to FLPMA would include, but are not limited to, access roads, power lines, telephone 

lines, fiber-optic systems, communications facilities, and water and sewer pipelines. The types of 

uses that would be authorized by ROWs or temporary use permits pursuant to the Mineral 

Leasing Act are pipelines for the transportation of oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous 

fuels, or any refined product produced therefrom. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-139 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

User-initiated proposals or applications generate most of the present ROW activity. Inquiries and 

proposals are received from Federal, State, and local governments and from private individuals 

and companies interested in acquiring access across or locating facilities on public land. Where 

applicable, YFO would evaluate these applications for location within approved corridors. YFO 

would continue to handle proposals on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with decisions 

established in the RMP. 

In order to minimize adverse environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate ROWs, the 

utilization of ROW Corridors would be required to the extent practical, and each ROW or permit 

shall reserve to BLM the right to grant additional ROWs or permits for compatible uses on or 

adjacent to existing ROWs. 

Desired Future Condition 

 Meet public demand for ROWs on a case-by-case basis. 

Management Actions 

 Locate new major ROWs in designated corridors, unless an evaluation of the project 

demonstrates location outside of a designated corridor is the only practicable alternative. 

 Avoid special designation areas and environmentally sensitive areas such as SCRMAs and 

WHAs to the maximum extent possible. Appropriate mitigation would be required when 

avoidance is not possible. 

 Any authorization determined to be in noncompliance with the terms and conditions would 

be subject to termination. 

 All ROWs would meet VRM objectives. 

Administrative Actions 

 Process applications for ROWs in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies. Applications must be in conformance with the approved LUP. 

 Monitor ROWs for compliance with existing laws and regulations in conformance with their 

authorization. 

 Monitor existing and future authorizations for compliance with the terms and conditions of 

the authorization. 

 Ensure that all new power lines are safe for raptors. Inventory power lines to ensure that they 

meet established standards as described in BLM Manual 2800 and in the Suggested Practices 

for Avian Protection on Power Lines (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 2006). 

Inventories of power lines within areas of known high raptor use should be completed first. 

1. Right-of-Way Corridors 

The range of alternatives in the PRMP/FEIS is required to meet the needs identified in the Draft 

West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS, to be consistent with the information in the 1992 

Western Utility Group’s Western Regional Corridor Study, and to attempt to meet the local 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-140 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

needs for ROW developments in the planning area. See Table 2-30 and Maps 2-13a through 2-

13e for ROW Corridors by alternative. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Consolidate major ROWs within approved corridors to minimize resource impacts. 

 Designated corridors would be the preferred location for major ROWs. 

 Align established corridors with adjacent BLM field office corridors in California and 

Arizona. 

Management Actions 

 Under Alternative A, continue ROW Corridor designations including Interstate 10, Palo 

Verde-Devers, El Paso Natural Gas, and San Diego Gas & Electric Interconnection, totaling 

four corridors over 300 miles. 

 Under Alternative B and C, designate the El Paso Natural Gas, Gila Mountains East (ROW 

6), Interstate 8, Interstate 10, Palo Verde-Devers, Palo Verde Mountains Reroute, Parker 

Blaisdell, San Diego Gas and Electric Interconnection, South Muggins (ROW 3), and 

Highway 95 California ROW Corridors, totaling 10 corridors over 500 miles. 

 Under Alternative D, designate the Interstate 8, Interstate 10, Palo Verde-Devers, Parker 

Blaisdell, and San Diego Gas & Electric to I-8 ROW Corridors, totaling five corridors 

totaling 400 miles. 

 Under the Proposed Plan, designate the El Paso Natural Gas, Interstate 8, Interstate 10, Palo 

Verde-Devers, Palo Verde Mountains Reroute, Parker Blaisdell, San Diego Gas and Electric 

Interconnection, and Highway 95 California ROW Corridors, totaling eight corridors over 

465 miles. 

 All designated major ROW Corridors would be one mile in width. 

 To the extent possible, locate new ROWs within or parallel to existing ROWs or ROW 

Corridors to minimize resource impacts. 

 Locate new major utility facilities in designated ROW Corridors, unless an evaluation for the 

proposed project shows that the location outside of the designated corridor is the only 

practicable route. 

 New utility facilities within ROW Corridors would avoid impacts to natural and cultural 

resources within ACECs and SCRMAs to the greatest extent possible. If impacts could not 

be avoided, mitigation would be required. 

Administrative Actions 

 Corridor designations would be consistent with the Western-wide Energy Corridor 

Programmatic EIS. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-141 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

2. Communications Sites 

Communications sites are generally limited by YFO to designated areas with existing facilities 

on mountain peaks. BLM communications sites accommodate the wireless systems referred to in 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as well as many other uses, including, but not limited to, 

AM/FM broadcast facilities, commercial mobile radios, private mobile radios, and microwaves 

on designated communications sites. 

There are 11 existing communications sites in the planning area, six of which are currently 

designated as shown in Alternative A. The number of communications sites varies by alternative 

as follows: Alternative B proposes 13 sites; Alternative C proposes 11 sites; Alternative D 

proposes eight sites; and the Proposed Plan proposes 10 sites. A high-power communications site 

is proposed in Alternatives B, C, and the Proposed Plan. There are three communications sites 

proposed in Alternatives B, C, and the Proposed Plan that are existing but not designated in 

Alternative A (Black Rock Hill, Guadalupe Mountain, and Salome). A fourth site (Kofa) is 

considered in Alternative B and proposed for termination in all other alternatives. A summary of 

communications sites by alternative is presented in Table 2-30 and Maps 2-13a through 2-13e. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Consolidate single facility sites into more efficient communications facilities through site 

management plans. 

 Meet public demand for high-power facilities by establishing a high-power communications 

site. 

Management Actions 

 Terminate the Kofa and Airway Beacon communications sites in Alternatives C, D, and the 

Proposed Plan. 

 Propose to designate the Qwest site under Alternatives B and C. 

 Propose to designate the Laguna Mountains site (high-power site) under Alternatives B, C, 

and the Proposed Plan. 

 Establish a communications site along the California State Highway 78 route which would be 

the Palo Verde Gap Low Power Communications Site in Alternatives B, C, and the Proposed 

Plan. 

 Applications for new communication use facilities outside designated communications sites 

would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Co-location and subleasing would be 

emphasized under all alternatives. 

 New designated communications sites would have site management plans completed prior to 

authorizing new facilities and/or uses at the site. 

 Non-designated communications sites may require communications site plans prior to 

authorization as determined by the BLM authorized officer. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-142 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

3. Renewable Energy 

The potential for renewable energy in the planning area is based on environmental, physical, and 

economic criteria, in conjunction with policy directives. BLM’s general policy is to facilitate 

environmentally responsible commercial development of solar energy projects on public lands 

and use solar energy systems on BLM facilities where feasible. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was established to encourage energy efficiency and conservation, 

promote alternative and renewable energy sources, reduce the U.S. dependence on foreign 

sources of energy, increase domestic production, modernize the electricity grid, and encourage 

the expansion of nuclear energy. BLM, as the manager of more public land than any other 

Federal agency, plays a key role in implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Some of the 

BLM actions that are affected by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are wind energy, geothermal, 

hydropower, oil and gas leasing, and split-estate Federal oil and gas leasing. 

Regulations applicable to solar arrays on public lands in the planning area include FLPMA and 

43 CFR 2800. Solar technologies use the sun’s energy to provide heat, light, hot water, 

electricity, and even cooling for homes, businesses, and industry. Types of solar technology 

include photovoltaic (solar cell) systems, concentrating solar systems, passive solar heating and 

daylighting, solar hot water, and solar process heat and space cooling. 

Regulations applicable to wind energy development on public lands in the planning area include 

FLPMA, 43 CFR 2800, and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies. As stated in EO 

13212, the Energy Project Streamlining process requires expediting production, transportation, 

and conservation of energy. The Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on 

BLM-administered Lands in the Western United States (USDOI BLM 2005b) was completed by 

BLM in June 2005. The Programmatic EIS identified four small areas of high potential within 

the planning area. Current requirements for processing applications for wind energy site testing 

and monitoring, and commercial wind energy development projects are set forth in current BLM 

policy guidance. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Provide for the production and distribution of renewable energy. 

 Encourage the use of public lands for production of renewable energy. 

 Authorize the growth, production, or conversion of biomass materials to energy products on 

a case-by-case basis, pursuant to applicable laws, regulations, and policies and in accordance 

with the approved LUP. 

Management Actions 

 Surface occupancy of renewable energy facilities would not be placed in special designation 

areas or SCRMAs. 

 Solar or wind generating facilities would not be allowed in VRM Classes I and II. 

 Wind generating facilities would not be allowed under military training routes. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-143 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Administrative Actions 

 Process applications for commercial renewable energy facilities as ROWs or lease 

authorizations on a case-by-case basis. 

 Monitor all renewable energy facility authorizations for compliance with the terms and 

conditions of their authorization. 

D. TRESPASS 

Trespass means using, occupying, or developing public lands or their resources without a 

required authorization or in a way that is beyond the scope and terms and conditions of the 

authorization. Trespass is a prohibited act which includes acts or omissions causing unnecessary 

or undue degradation to the public lands or their resources. There are two kinds of trespass, 

willful and non-willful. Willful trespass is voluntary or conscious trespass and includes trespass 

committed with criminal or malicious intent. Non-willful trespass is trespass committed by 

mistake or inadvertence (43 CFR 2800, 2900, 9200). Samples of trespass include but are not 

limited to illegal dump sites, unauthorized construction of facilities, structures, roads, and 

residential and agricultural use. The YFO was historically established to resolve numerous 

trespasses along the lower Colorado River. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Eliminate the unauthorized use of public lands. 

Management Actions 

 Resolve existing unauthorized uses of public land through methods including, but not limited 

to, termination, approval by the appropriate type of authorization, or litigation. 

Administrative Actions 

 Monitor public lands for the occurrence of trespass. 

 Evaluate all trespass for damage to natural and cultural resources particularly pursuant to the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and the ESA, and mitigate appropriately. 

 Educate the public as to appropriate authorized uses of public land. 

2.18.2 LAND TENURE 

A. CLASSIFICATION 

Classification is the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to determine the physical suitability 

of public land for disposition (i.e., retention or disposal.) On March 3, 1879, Congress 

established the United States Geological Service under the Department of the Interior, who was 

responsible for classifying public lands and examining the geologic structure and mineral 

resources and products of those lands. In 1934, under Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act, the 

Secretary of the Interior was given authority to withdraw all vacant, unreserved, and 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-144 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

unappropriated public land from settlement, location, sale, or entry pending classification as to 

the most useful purpose. Therefore, all public lands are subject to classification prior to final 

disposition. Section 202 of FLPMA allows the BLM to utilize the land use planning process to 

reclassify lands as appropriate. 

The following actions require classification: R&PP leases and patents, agricultural entries (i.e., 

applications under the Desert Land Act, as amended, and the Carey Act), and State grants for 

educational, institutional, and park purposes. The following decisions would be applied 

throughout the planning area. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Ensure proper classification of public lands. 

Management Actions 

 Reclassify public lands appropriately for all proposed dispositions. 

Administrative Actions 

 When lands are proposed for disposition, ensure that the lands are classified appropriately. 

B. DISPOSAL 

All land disposal actions are discretionary with emphasis on the evaluation of whether such lands 

are (1) manageable, (2) needed for any particular Federal purpose, or (3) better suited to serving 

the public. Sales and exchanges are used for disposal in order to assure an optimum final land 

ownership pattern and provide better overall land management. The types of sales include direct, 

competitive, and modified-competitive. Disposal of lands would be made on a case-by-case basis 

and would be accomplished by the most appropriate disposal authority. Lands not designated for 

disposal in this LUP would require an amendment and would have to meet the disposal criteria 

of the applicable laws and regulations. BLM could dispose of withdrawn lands with the 

concurrence of the withdrawing agency. 

Public lands have potential for disposal when they are isolated and/or difficult to manage. 

Disposal actions usually take place in response to a request from the public, or from an 

application that could result in a title transfer wherein the lands leave the public domain. All 

public lands would be retained, unless specifically identified for disposal. 

There are two distinct disposal methods outlined in FLPMA, these are sale and exchange. 

 Land disposal by public sale is addressed in Section 203 of FLPMA. This section contains 

three criteria to apply in identifying public lands suitable for disposal by public sale. The 

criteria 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 would serve 

important public objectives. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-145 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 The criteria for determining which public lands or interests therein are available for disposal 

by exchange are covered in Section 206 of FLPMA. These criteria require 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. For an exchange to 

take place, FLPMA requires that the values and public objectives of the non-Federal lands or 

interests to be acquired are greater than or equal to the values and public objectives of the 

lands or interests to leave Federal ownership. 

The BLM may also dispose of lands under the following four authorities: 

 Desert Land Entry Act of 1877. No lands have been identified as meeting the criteria for 

entry under this authority; therefore, none are available for disposal. 

 Indian Allotment Act of 1887. No lands have been identified as meeting the criteria for 

entry under this authority; therefore, none are available for disposal. 

 The Act of June 14, 1926 (R&PP)

o The 1954 Revision of the R&PP Act. This 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. 

o The 1988 Amendment to the R&PP Act. Section 3 of the R&PP, as amended, authorizes 

conveyance of public lands for the purpose of solid waste disposal or for any other 

purpose which may result in or include the disposal, placement, or release of any 

hazardous substance, with special provisions relating to reversion of such lands to the 

U.S. 

 The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. This act provides for the conveyance 

of BLM-administered lands to public agencies for use as airports and airways. 

In general, under all land ownership adjustments, BLM would honor valid existing rights, and 

other encumbrances connected with the parcel. Proposed disposal acreages are generally isolated 

parcels and vary by alternative as follows: 19,100 acres under Alternative A; 46,900 acres under 

Alternative B; 10,500 acres under Alternative C; 8,200 acres under Alternative D; and 11,900 

acres under the Proposed Plan (Appendix 2-I). 

Desired Future Conditions 

 When disposing by sale, the preferred method would be competitive or modifiedcompetitive. 

 Eliminate split-estate by disposing of either the surface or subsurface rights, if disposal of the 

rights would be in the public interest. 

 Ensure no net loss of Federal ownership along the lower Colorado River. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-146 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Management Actions 

 Lands could be disposed of if they meet FLPMA criteria and are designated by a LUP or 

LUP amendment. 

 BLM follows three criteria for land disposals regarding threatened and endangered species: 

o BLM would not transfer out of Federal ownership designated or proposed critical habitat 

for a listed or proposed threatened or endangered species. 

o BLM would 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. 

o BLM would 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 above could occur if the recipient of the lands would protect the species or 

critical habitat equally well under the ESA, such as disposal to a non-Federal governmental 

agency or private organization if conservation purposes for the species would still be achieved 

and ensured. 

Administrative Actions 

 Disposal requests from the public would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

 Lands identified for disposal must meet the criteria for public land sale or exchange under 

existing laws, regulations, and policies at time of disposal. 

C. ACQUISITION 

FLPMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (delegated to BLM) to acquire non-Federal lands 

or interests in lands pursuant to FLPMA Section 205(a). 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Achieve split-estate consolidation pursuant to Sections 205 and 206 of FLPMA. 

 Any lands acquired by the BLM would include both the surface and mineral estate when 

possible and would be managed in accordance with the approved LUP decisions for the 

surrounding area. 

Management Actions 

 Manage all acquired lands in accordance with the approved LUP decisions for surrounding or 

adjacent BLM-administered lands. 

 Lands to be acquired must either: 

o Facilitate access to public lands and resources, 

o Maintain or enhance public uses and values, 

o Facilitate implementation of this RMP/EIS, 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-147 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

o Provide for a more manageable land ownership pattern, 

o Include significant natural or cultural resource values, or 

o Eliminate split-estate by acquiring either the surface or subsurface rights, if acquisition of 

rights would be in the public interest. 

Administrative Actions 

 Seek appropriate sources of funding to acquire desired lands from willing owners. 

2.19 MINERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

BLM supports mineral exploration and development on public lands in keeping with BLM’s 

multiple-use mandate. Unless otherwise restricted, all Federal mineral estates administered by 

YFO within the planning area would be available for orderly and efficient development of 

mineral resources. Leases and sales of mineral materials are discretionary actions. 

Identified mineral resources are classified according to the BLM’s system as described in 

Manual 3031 and Manual 3060. Minerals management regulations are located in 43 CFR 3000. 

A mineral resource potential report was prepared for the planning area (USDOI BLM 2005c). 

YFO would allow exploration and development of all mineral resources including those on split 

estate. Exploration and development would be conducted in accordance with applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies, and in conformance with the approved LUP. Restrictions and 

stipulations would be applied on a case-by-case basis. 

Mineral resources are categorized as follows: 

Leasable Minerals. These minerals include fluid minerals such as oil, gas, coalbed methane, 

carbon dioxide (CO2), and geothermal resources; and solid minerals such as coal, sodium, and 

potash. Although not a leasable mineral, helium is included in this category, because it is 

typically associated with CO2 exploration and development (43 CFR 3100 and 43 CFR 3200). 

Locatable Minerals. These include metallic minerals such as gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, and 

uranium; and non-metallic minerals such as allunite, asbestos, barite, gypsum, and mica; and 

uncommon varieties of stone (43 CFR 3800). 

Salable Minerals. These minerals include construction materials such as sand, gravel, cinders, 

decorative rock, and building stone (43 CFR 3600). 

2.19.1 LEASABLE MINERALS 

Laws and regulations applicable to Federal leasing in the planning area include: 

 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as amended and supplemented 

 Acquired Lands Mineral Leasing Act of 1947 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-148 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 

 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 

 Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 

 43 CFR 3100 (Oil and Gas Leasing) and 43 CFR 3200 (Geothermal Resource Leasing) 

Policy/guidance specific to BLM include: 

 BLM Manual Series 3100—Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing, including all associated 

Handbooks, Instruction Memoranda, and Orders 

A determination that lands are available for leasing represents a commitment to allow surface use 

under standard terms and conditions unless stipulations constraining development are attached to 

leases. When applying leasing restrictions, the least restrictive constraint to meet the resource 

protection objective would be used. 

For split estate minerals (where the U.S. owns the minerals), leasing of Federal mineral estate on 

lands where the surface is not held by the Federal government would be done in accordance with 

Federal law, regulations and policy guidance. The surface owner would be notified prior to lease 

and given the opportunity to comment. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Ensure that public lands are available for mineral leasing in accordance with existing leasing 

laws unless precluded from leasing by other laws or regulations. 

 Prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands by operations authorized by the 

leasing law. 

 Ensure that all public lands are subject to application for mineral leasing, unless specifically 

withdrawn. 

 Continue to base site-specific decisions regarding lease issuance and the attachment of 

appropriate stipulations on existing laws, regulations, and policies, and in conformance with 

the approved LUP. 

Management Actions 

 In highly sensitive areas, where special stipulations are not sufficient to protect surface 

resource values, stipulations for no surface occupancy for leasable mineral development may 

be attached to the lease. 

 Should activity cease on a mining claim, wells would become government property and the 

determination of whether or not the wells are capped would be made by BLM. 

 When BLM manages the subsurface estate only, BLM would consult with the surface owner 

prior to issuing a contract or permit. 

 No surface occupancy for oil and gas leases would be applied within the Colorado and Gila 

River Riparian WHA and the Desert Mountains WHA where AGFD has identified sensitive 

desert bighorn sheep habitat. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-149 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Administrative Actions 

 Continue to administer exploration and development in the planning area in accordance with 

surface and mineral management regulations. 

2.19.2 LOCATABLE MINERALS 

Laws and regulations applicable to mining claims on public lands in the planning area include: 

 General Mining Law of 1872, as amended 

 FLPMA 

 43 CFR 3700 – Multiple Use; Mining 

 43 CFR 3800 – Mining Claims under the General Mining Laws 

Policy/guidance specific to the BLM include: 

 BLM Manual 3800—Mining Claims under the General Mining Laws

 BLM Handbook H-3042-1—Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook

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. Occupancies would meet the requirements and standard stipulations contained in 

the BLM Arizona Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Mining Claim Use and 

Occupancy (USDOI BLM 1997b). 

Locatable Mineral Potential 

 Within the planning area, 290,500 acres have moderate potential and 268,100 acres have high 

potential for metallic locatable minerals. For non-metallic locatable minerals, the area of 

moderate potential is 1,127,200 acres, and the area of high potential is 18,700 acres (USDOI 

BLM 2005c). 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Ensure that public lands are available for exploration, location, and development of mining 

claims in accordance with existing mining laws unless withdrawn or segregated from entry. 

 Prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands by operations authorized by the 

mining laws. 

Management Actions Common to All 

 As part of the land ownership adjustment program, consolidate surface and subsurface 

(minerals) estates under one ownership when possible, thereby improving manageability of 

the Federal lands involved. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-150 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Require notices when mechanized equipment is used for exploration or processing and 

cumulative disturbance is five acres or less. 

 Require a mining plan of operations in accordance with 43 CFR 3800 for operations 

including, but not limited to; 

o Where disturbance is greater than five acres or where bulk sampling would remove 1,000 

tons or more of ore; 

o In the California Desert Conservation Area designated by the California Desert 

Conservation Area plan as “controlled or limited” use areas; 

o In designated ACECs or currently withdrawn or reserved lands where the mining claim 

predates the withdrawal or reservation; 

o In closed OHV management areas; 

o In lands or waters known to contain federally listed threatened or endangered species or 

in proposed or designated critical habitat. 

 In withdrawn areas, a validity examination would be required at prior existing claims before 

submittal of a mining plan of operations to verify the valid discovery of a valuable mineral 

deposit. 

 Require reclamation of all disturbances created by casual use mining. 

Administrative Actions 

 Continue to administer exploration and development in the planning area in accordance with 

current surface and mineral management regulations. 

 Monitor public lands for the occurrence of unauthorized use. 

 Inventory and monitor mines which provide habitat for bats. 

2.19.3 SALABLE MINERALS 

Laws and regulations applicable to salable minerals on public lands in the planning area include: 

 Acquired Lands Mineral Leasing Act of 1947 

 Mineral Materials Act of 1947 as amended 

 FLPMA; and 43 CFR Part 3600 

 Surface Resources Act of 1955 

 BLM Handbook H-3042-1—Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook 

 BLM Manual and Handbook 3600 

Removal of mineral materials from BLM-administered lands requires either a sales contract or a 

free use permit. Disposal of mineral materials is a discretionary action and would be authorized 

in accordance with appropriate laws, regulations, and policies, in conformance with the approved 

LUP. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-151 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

It is BLM’s policy to make mineral materials available to the public and local governmental 

agencies whenever possible and wherever it is environmentally acceptable. In response to 

increased demand for mineral materials in the planning area, YFO has proposed several sites for 

community pits. Community pits would make mineral materials available in small quantities. 

The use of community pits would more readily satisfy public demand while restricting surface 

disturbance to a limited number of areas. Mineral material disposals would continue to be 

authorized in other locations in the planning area if appropriate. 

All community pit proposals must have a site-specific environmental analysis completed prior to 

implementation, including NEPA, NHPA Section 106, and ESA Section 7 documentation. If the 

site-specific analysis reveals that the community pit would have an adverse or significant impact 

on resources, the footprint of the proposal may be moved or reduced to avoid or minimize 

impacts. If impacts to resources cannot be sufficiently avoided or mitigated during site-specific 

analysis, the proposed community pit would not be implemented. 

There are no designated community pits under Alternative A. Alternative B proposes six 

community pits for a total of 800 acres. Alternative C would propose three community pits for a 

total of 400 acres. Alternative D would propose one community pit for a total of 100 acres. There 

are five community pits proposed on 700 acres under the Proposed Plan. A summary of 

community pits by alternative is presented in Table 2-31 below and Maps 2-13a through 2-13e. 

Table 2-31 

Community Pit Names and Sizes 

Alternative 

Pit Name Max Pit Size/Max Volume A B C D E 

Ehrenberg South 100 acres (~1,000,000 cubic yards) X* X X X X 

NE Quartzsite 100 acres (~1,000,000 cubic yards) X X X 

Dateland 200 acres (~1,000,000 cubic yards) X X X 

Brenda 100 acres (~1,000,000 cubic yards) X X 

Telegraph 100 acres (~1,000,000 cubic yards) X 

Hart 200 acres (~1,000,000 cubic yards) X X 

Total Number 1 6 3 1 5 

Total Acres 100 800 400 100 700 

*Pending, NEPA analysis is in progress. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands. 

 Public lands would be available for disposal of mineral materials at the discretion of the 

authorized officer. 

 Authorize mineral material operations on a case-by-case basis to facilitate infrastructure 

development. 

Management Actions 

 Conduct a site specific environmental analysis for the implementation of each community 

pit. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-152 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Authorize no salable mineral material permits within: 1) Category I and II desert tortoise 

habitat, and 2) the Colorado and Gila River Riparian WHA. 

Administrative Actions 

 Coordinate with Reclamation to locate and preserve adequate mineral materials to 

accommodate project needs. 

 Identify suitable locations for additional community pits where appropriate, based on future 

public need/demand. 

2.20 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT 

According to applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, YFO would identify areas or 

hazards which have potential impact to public health and safety. 

The following are public health and safety concerns in the planning area: 

 Abandoned mines 

 Unexploded ordnance (UXO) 

 International Boundary issues 

 Hazardous materials 

2.20.1 ABANDONED MINES 

A primary public safety concern with regard to abandoned mines is the danger of a person being 

injured or killed by falling into or collapse of an open shaft, adit, or pit. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Reduce or eliminate the risk to members of the public associated with abandoned mines. 

 Inventory and prioritize abandoned mine sites for reclamation, closure, or use as wildlife 

habitat. 

Management Action 

 Reduce the public risk by implementing fencing, signs, and ultimately closure of abandoned 

mine openings. 

 For abandoned mines posing a public safety hazard, design protective fences or closures to 

accommodate existing or future use by wildlife (i.e., bats, small mammals, and owls). 

 For abandoned mines that are part of an NRHP-listed or eligible historic site, the BLM would 

resolve the public safety hazard in compliance with NHPA and other applicable laws. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-153 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Administrative Actions 

 Cooperate with the appropriate Arizona and California State agencies to identify the location 

of abandoned mines and prospects. 

2.20.2 UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE 

Unexploded ordnance (UXO) consists of military materials used in tests and on training ranges. 

UXO may include but is not limited to bombs, mortars, artillery shells, rockets, submunitions 

and landmines. 

Two sources of risk exist at UXO sites: (1) risks from explosions and (2) risks from munition 

constituents (materials originating from UXO or other munitions, including the chemical 

constituents that result from their breakdown) that have leached into soil and water. Within the 

planning area, UXOs on public lands are sometimes found as a result of military maneuvers, 

both historic and present. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for investigating and mitigating environmental 

impacts related to past military use at these types of facilities. 

Given the amount of aircraft used on the various military facilities in the planning area, it is 

possible that a military aircraft could crash and be a source of UXO. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Promote public and/or environmental safety from UXO. 

Management Actions 

 Take appropriate measures to protect the public from known UXO locations on BLMadministered lands, such as signing, fencing, removal, and remediation. 

Administrative Actions 

 In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, identify the locations on BLMadministered lands that are potential areas of UXO concern. Investigate, inventory and 

record the presence of UXO on BLM-administered lands. 

 Educate and advise the public of potential UXO risks present on public lands. 

2.20.3 INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY ISSUES 

YFO manages public land along the International Boundary. The area experiences criminal 

incidents such as undocumented immigrant traffic, drug trafficking, robbery, rape, and random 

acts of violence including sporadic gunfire. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Ensure borderlands are safe for public and agency use. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-154 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Management Actions 

 Conduct and/or authorize vegetation treatments in selected locations to allow visibility and 

reduce cover for clandestine activity. Such treatments would be conducted in a way that 

considers impacts to Native American religious concerns. 

 Require mitigation for vegetation treatments to offset impacts to riparian habitat and 

recreation values. Resolve public health and safety issues by clearing hazardous fuels along 

the International Boundary under the fire management program, where appropriate. 

 Place signs regarding border safety, where appropriate. 

Administrative Actions 

 Coordinate with Mexico, Federal, State, and local agencies, and interested Native American 

tribes to address public health and safety issues on the International Boundary. 

2.20.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Hazardous materials consist of chemicals and materials that have the potential to adversely 

impact human health and the environment. In the planning area, hazardous materials may include 

but are not limited to petroleum products, industrial chemicals, acids, heavy metals, lead-based 

paint, and asbestos-containing materials. Potential sources of hazardous materials include 

abandoned mines, mining mill sites, landfills, illegal dumping, leaking fuel tanks, illegal drug 

manufacturing sites, abandoned buildings, and other sites. 

Laws governing the management of these materials include the Comprehensive Environmental 

Recovery, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation Recovery 

Act, other Federal laws and regulations, and State and local regulations. Mining and milling 

wastes are managed under CERCLA as potentially hazardous materials or hazardous waste. 

Formerly used defense sites located on BLM-administered land may contain hazardous 

materials. These materials include but are not limited to asbestos, lead paint, and petroleum 

products. Formerly used defense sites are managed in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

Given the amount of aircraft used on the various military facilities in the planning area, it is 

possible that a military aircraft could crash and be a source of hazardous materials. The materials 

could include aircraft fuel, burned materials, and possibly ordnance or munitions from the 

aircraft. 

Desired Future Conditions 

 Minimize the presence and potential impact to human health and the environment from 

hazardous materials. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-155 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Management Actions 

 Remediate areas contaminated with hazardous materials in accordance with applicable laws 

and regulations. 

Administrative Actions 

 Perform public notification of potential health risks by means of notices, signs, and other 

forms of communication. 

 Identify the presence of and characterize the types of hazardous materials present on BLMadministered lands. 

 Coordinate with Federal and State agencies to remove and/or remediate hazardous materials 

as they are identified. 

 Remediation within NRHP-listed or eligible cultural sites would be conducted in accordance 

with the NHPA. 

 Implement soil testing and groundwater monitoring to define the lateral and vertical extent of 

impact from sites with hazardous materials contamination. 

 Monitor the extent of impacts of sites containing hazardous materials, such as mining and 

milling wastes, to air, soil, and surface and groundwater. 

 Coordinate to conduct “cleanup days” on illegal dumping sites, as time and staff availability 

permits. 

2.21 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

BMPs are innovative, dynamic, and improved environmental protection practices applied to 

resource management activities to help ensure that those activities are conducted in an 

environmentally responsible manner. When incorporated into standard operating procedures, 

BMPs can protect resource values and public health by avoiding, minimizing, and/or mitigating 

impacts. 

Some BMPs are as simple as careful siting of facilities so that they blend in with the natural 

surroundings, others involve safe application of herbicides, while others involve careful 

monitoring of cultural and natural resources. BMPs are based on past experience and practices 

and continue to improve over time, building on new techniques and creative strategies for 

resource management. BMPs are not one size fits all. They should be developed in response to 

specific requirements of an activity or project and the site-specific conditions and needs. The 

following sections provide general guidance on BMPs that would be appropriate for the YFO. 

2.21.1 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

BLM manages designated Wilderness according to requirements of the Wilderness Act and 

provisions of designating legislation. Guidelines and operating procedures for all management 

activities in Wilderness Areas are provided in BLM Manual 8560—Management of Designated 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-156 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Wilderness Areas, and in Wilderness management plans, where completed for specific 

Wilderness Areas. Requiring the completion of a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide prior 

to completing non-emergency actions within Wilderness would further ensure that impacts to 

wilderness values are minimized. 

In Wilderness Areas minimum impact suppression tactics would be applied and coordinated with 

Wilderness Area management objectives and guidelines when fire suppression actions are 

required (National Interagency Fire Center 2007). 

2.21.2 VEGETATION TREATMENTS 

The following chemical, mechanical, manual, biological, and fire treatment methods would be 

used to achieve vegetation management objectives in the planning area. 

A. CHEMICAL TREATMENT 

YFO would use EPA-approved herbicides in accordance with EPA’s Endangered Species 

Pesticide Program covered in the BLM’s Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen 

Western States FEIS (USDOI BLM 1991) and further limited to those approved for use by the 

Arizona ROD. These herbicides are Atrazine; Bromacil; Bromacil + Diuron; Chlorsulfuron; 

Clopyralid; 2,4-D, Diacamba; Dicamba +2,4_D; Diuon; Glyphosate; Glyphosate + 2,4-

D;Hexazinone; Imazapyr; Mefluidide; Metsulfuron Methyl; Picloram; Picloram + 2,4-D; 

Simazine; Sulfometuron Methyl; Tebuthiuron; and Triclopyr. This list may be amended to 

accommodate subsequent updates to the herbicide EIS. 

Treatments would follow Standard Operating Procedures on pages 1-19 through 1-32 and 

project design features on pages 1-33 through 1-37 of the Environmental Impact Statement for 

Vegetation Treatments, Watersheds and Wildlife Habitats on Public Lands Administered by the 

BLM in the Western United States, including Alaska (USDOI BLM 1991). Additionally, project 

design features, including buffer strips described on page 10 of the ROD, as follows: Buffer 

zones would be used adjacent to dwellings, domestic water sources, agriculture land, streams, 

lakes and ponds. A minimum buffer zone of 100 feet wide would be provided for aerial 

application, 25 feet for vehicle application and 10 feet for hand application. Any deviations must 

be in accordance with the label for the herbicide. Herbicides would be hand wiped on individual 

plants within 10 feet of water where application is critical. Additionally, in order to protect listed, 

proposed, and candidate species, these buffer strips would be used. 

YFO would work closely with the USFWS to ensure that herbicide applications would not affect 

listed or proposed, threatened, and endangered species on a project-level basis. If adverse effects 

are anticipated during informal consultation, YFO would formally consult on these projects. If 

USFWS develops herbicide guidance for particular species that improves protection beyond the 

current BLM design features, YFO would consider and incorporate that guidance as it consults 

with USFWS on a project-level basis. The chemicals can be applied by many different methods, 

and the selected technique depends on a number of variables. Some of these are (1) the treatment 

objective (removal or reduction); (2) the accessibility, topography, and size of the treatment area; 

(3) the characteristics of the target species and the desired vegetation; (4) the location of 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-157 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

sensitive areas in the immediate vicinity (potential environmental impacts); (5) the anticipated 

costs and equipment limitations; and (6) the meteorological and vegetative conditions of the 

treatment area at the time of treatment. 

Herbicides are applied in several ways, depending upon the treatment objective, topography of 

the treatment area, target species, expected costs, equipment limitations, and potential 

environmental impacts. Herbicide applications would be timed to have the least impact on nontarget plants and animals consistent with the objectives of the vegetation management program. 

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 fixedwing 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, areas with sensitive cultural resources, or those inaccessible by 

vehicle. 

Rates of herbicide application would depend on the target species, other vegetation present, soil 

type, depth of the ground water table, and presence of other water sources. When target species 

occur in riparian areas, the application rate would be reduced to reduce injury to non-target 

species. 

The size of areas that would be treated would vary from 10 feet in diameter to 100 acres, but, 

most such areas would vary from 10 feet in diameter to less than five acres. The normal area of 

treatment by helicopter would be less than 100 acres. 

During aerial applications, nozzles to reduce drift would be used for all liquid applications. 

Liquid herbicides would not be applied when wind speeds exceed five miles per hour (mph), and 

granular herbicides would not be applied when wind speeds exceed 10 miles per hour. 

Herbicides would not be applied when conditions stated on the herbicide label cannot be met and 

when air turbulence significantly affects the desired spray pattern. Buffer zones (see Glossary) to 

protect water resources would be provided according to individual State regulations and 

guidelines and herbicide labels. 

Vehicle-mounted sprayer (hand gun or boom) applications would be mainly used in open areas 

that are readily accessible by vehicle. The boom would be used only where feasible to treat 

concentrated weed infestations. The hand gun would be used for spot treatment of weeds and 

only up to the high water line near water bodies. Neither hand guns nor booms would be used in 

riparian areas where weeds are closely intermingled with shrubs and trees. Under both hand gun 

and boom methods, sprays would be applied in a manner that gives the best possible coverage 

with the least amount of drift, and only when wind velocity is below eight mph, except in 

riparian areas where treatment would be applied only at wind velocities below five mph. Boom 

sprayers would not be used within 25 feet of water bodies. 

Hand applications could involve backpack spraying, hand wiping application, and cyclone 

broadcast spreading (granular formulations). Backpack sprayers are operated at low pressure and 

low volume and release herbicide through a single nozzle held from 0.5 to 2.5 feet above the 

ground when wind velocities do not exceed eight mph. Near water, wind velocities cannot 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-158 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

exceed five mph. Contact systemic herbicides (see Glossary), such as glyphosate, wiped on 

individual plants, would be used up to the existing high water line. Granular formulations would 

be applied through broadcast spreaders at about 3.5 feet above the ground and no closer than 10 

feet from the high water line of streams and other water bodies. 

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 nontarget 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 are 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. 

B. MECHANICAL TREATMENT 

Mechanical methods of vegetation treatment employ several different types of equipment to 

suppress, inhibit, or control herbaceous and woody vegetation. The goal of mechanical 

treatments is to kill or reduce the cover of undesirable vegetation and thus encourage the growth 

of desirable plants. YFO uses wheel tractors, crawler-type tractors, mowers, or specially 

designed vehicles with attached implements for mechanical vegetation treatments. The use of 

mechanical equipment to reduce fuel hazards would be conducted in accordance with BLM 

established procedures. Re-seeding after a mechanical treatment has been applied and is 

important to help ensure that desirable plants would become established on the site and not 

invasive species. The mechanical treatment and re-seeding 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: 

 Characteristics of the undesired species present such as plant density, stem size, woodiness, 

brittleness, and re-sprouting ability 

 Need for seedbed preparation, re-vegetation, and improve water infiltration rates 

 Topography and terrain 

 Soil characteristics such as type, depth, amount and size of rocks, erosion potential, and 

susceptibility to compaction 

 Climatic and seasonal conditions 

 Potential cost of improvement as compared to expected results 

Bulldozing is conducted with a wheeled or crawler tractor with a heavy hydraulic controlled 

blade. Vegetation is pushed over and uprooted, and then left in windrows or piles. Bulldozing is 

best adapted to removing scattered stands of large brushes or trees. There are several different 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-159 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

kinds of blades available depending on 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 only be used where all of the vegetation is intended to be 

killed. There are several different kinds of root plows that 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 species. Also, plowing is usually 

not practicable on steep slopes (greater than a 35 to 45 percent slope) or rocky soil. Plant species 

that sprout from roots may survive. 

Chaining and cabling is accomplished by dragging heavy anchor chains or steel cables hooked 

behind tractors in a U-shape, half circle of J-shaped manner. Chaining and cabling is effective on 

rocky soils and steep slopes. Chaining and cabling 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. 

There are various tractor attachments that 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. Mowing, beating, crushing, 

chopping, or shredding usually does not disturb the soil. Rocky soil and steep slopes may limit 

this use of equipment. 

Debris management after a mechanical control treatment application is critical in fuel reduction 

projects. Vegetation material that is left onsite would dry and become more hazardous than 

before the treatment. Herbaceous material is usually not a problem, because it would decompose 

relatively fast depending on soil moisture, ambient humidity, and temperature. Woody vegetation 

should be piled and burned under acceptable fire management practices. 

Efforts repeated every 21 days during the growing season can deplete the underground food 

supply of some perennials. This method would be required for at least a three-year period to 

attain satisfactory control and would be considered only in areas where slope is less than 10 

percent and where a small percentage of the vegetation consists of shrubs. This method would 

also weaken non-target species in treated areas. 

C. MANUAL TREATMENT 

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 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-160 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

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. 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. 

Manual methods are highly labor intensive, requiring periodic retreatment, ranging from every 

three weeks during the growing season to annually, depending on the target species. These 

methods have been successful in controlling annuals and biennials, but are ineffective in 

controlling creeping perennials. 

D. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 

Biological methods of vegetation treatment could employ grazing by cattle, sheep or goats, but 

would not include the use of invertebrates or microorganisms. YFO would only use cattle, sheep, 

or goats when grazing, which would not adversely affect federally 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 (USDOI 

BLM 1990a). Grazing cattle, sheep, or goats would control few plant species. 

Biological control 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. 

Domestic sheep and goats would not be used within nine miles of bighorn sheep habitat, per 

AGFD. 

Biological control methods using cattle, sheep, or goats would be applied to treat areas for short 

periods. When considering the use of grazing animals as an effective biological control measure, 

several factors would be taken into consideration including: 

 Target plant species present 

 Size of the infestation of target plant species 

 Other plant species present 

 Stage of growth of both target and other plant species 

 Palatability of all plant species present 

 Selectivity of all plant species present by the grazing animal species that is being considered 

for use as a biological agent 

 Availability of the grazing animal within the treatment site area 

 Type of management program that is logical and realistic for the specific treatment site. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-161 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

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, and (4) sheep or goats can be used 

in combination with herbicides. 

Some of the disadvantages of using domestic animals are that (1) they also use non-target 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 stool of the grazing animals, 

(5) most weed species are less palatable than desirable vegetation and would cause overgrazing, 

(6) they may accelerate movement of nonnative plants through seed ingestion and excretion, and 

(7) domestic livestock may transmit parasites and/or pathogens to resident native wildlife 

species. 

E. PRESCRIBED BURNING 

Prescribed burning is the planned application of fire to wild land 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, 

Prescribed Fire Management, and Fire Training and Qualifications. 

Prior to conducting a prescribed burn, a written plan must be prepared that takes into 

consideration existing conditions (amount of fuel, fuel moisture, temperatures, terrain, weather 

forecasts, etc.) and identifies people responsible for overseeing the fire. Potential effects to 

sensitive cultural resources, including sites that are especially susceptible to damages from fire, 

such as rock art or historic sites with wooden components, must also be considered. Planning and 

implementation for a specific prescribed fire project entails the following four phases: 

Phase 1. The Information/Assessment Phase includes identifying the area to be treated, 

inventorying and assessing site specific conditions (live and dead vegetation densities, dead 

down woody fuels loadings, soil types, etc.), analyzing historic and present fire management, 

identifying resource objectives from LUPs, and analyzing and complying with NEPA. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-162 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Phase 2. The Prescribed Fire Plan Development Phase includes developing a site specific 

prescribed fire plan to BLM Standards. It also includes reviews of the plan and obtaining plan 

approval from local BLM field office administrators. 

Phase 3. The Implementation Phase includes ignition of the fire according to the plan’s 

prescribed parameters. Implementation includes prescribed fire boundary area preparation to 

ensure that the fire remains in prescribed boundaries. Site preparation may take place in the form 

of fire line construction, road improvements, wildlife and stock trails, tree limbing, and debris 

clearing. 

Phase 4. The Monitoring and Evaluation Phase includes assessment and long-term monitoring of 

the fire treatment to ensure that 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. 

2.21.3 APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO 

WILDLAND FIRES 

The AMR concept represents a range of available management responses to wildland fires. The 

entire planning area would be managed as non-fire use. Responses range from full fire 

suppression to managing fires for resource benefits (fire use). Management responses applied to 

a fire would be identified in the fire management plans and would 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. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION ACTIONS 

 Suppression tactics would be utilized that limit damage or disturbance to the habitat and 

landscape. No heavy equipment would be used (such as dozers), unless approved by the Field 

Office Manager. 

 Use of fire retardants or chemicals adjacent to waterways would be accomplished in 

accordance to the Environmental Guidelines for Delivery of Retardant or Foam Near 

Waterways, as specified in the most recent Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations. 

 All known cultural resources would be protected from disturbance. 

 When suppression actions are required in Wilderness areas, minimum impact suppression 

tactics would be utilized and coordinated with Wilderness area management objectives and 

guidelines as specified in the most recent Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations. 

 When AMR allows as well as providing for fire fighter and public safety, land and resources 

management objectives, values at risk, weather, fuel conditions, threats and values to be 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-163 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

protected, and available resources, utilize minimum impact suppression tactics on lands 

managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

 The general and species-specific Conservation Measures listed in Appendix 2-C would be 

implemented to the extent possible to minimize adverse effects to federally listed, proposed, 

or candidate species occurring within the planning area. 

 For fire suppression activities, a protocol for consultation would be developed as a part of the 

Biological Opinion (BO). This programmatic consultation would contain 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 BO would outline coordination needs for emergency response 

actions that may affect a federally listed/proposed species and/or critical habitat. The 

following protocol would apply: YFO would 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 would work with YFO during the emergency response to apply the appropriate 

Conservation Measures. When Conservation Measures cannot be applied during the 

suppression activities, YFO would, after the fact, need to consult on any suppression actions 

that may have affected the federally protected species or its habitat. If Conservation 

Measures are adhered to, YFO would report on the actions taken and effects to the species 

and its habitat following the fire, but no further consultation on that incident would be 

required. 

2.21.4 WILDLIFE WATERS 

Wildlife water developments would be constructed according to AGFD specifications (AGFD 

2007). 

2.21.5 SPECIES REINTRODUCTIONS AND TRANSPLANTS 

Reintroductions and transplants are conducted pursuant to procedures in MS 1745 and Master 

MOUs with AGFD and CDFG, as appropriate, for animals, and applicable agencies for plants. 

Reintroductions and transplants for federally listed species are done in cooperation with State 

agencies and the USFWS. 

Typically, a suitability analysis is conducted to determine if sufficient habitat of appropriate 

quality is available. The cooperating agencies develop a proposed action for the reintroduction or 

transplant and incorporate agency (State and Federal) procedures. The NEPA process and other 

environmental compliance is initiated after the proposed action is developed. Upon completion 

of environmental compliance and approval process, the State agency takes the lead in 

trapping/acquiring (based on individual species requirements) wild animals from the healthy 

source population, transports captures to the reintroduction site (based on individual species 

transport requirements), and conducts a release. Follow-up monitoring ensues until agencies are 

satisfied the project was successful or until adaptive management is required (e.g., predator 

control, supplemental stocking, or other measures). 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-164 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

2.21.6 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

A. FLAT-TAILED HORNED LIZARD 

1. Prior to project initiation, an individual shall be designated as a field contact 

representative. The field contact representative shall have the authority to ensure 

compliance with protective measures for the FTHL and will be the primary agency 

contact dealing with these measures. The field contact representative shall have the 

authority and responsibility to halt activities that are in violation of these terms and 

conditions. 

2. All project work areas shall be clearly flagged or similarly marked at the outer 

boundaries to define the limit of work activities. All construction and restoration 

workers shall restrict their activities and vehicles to areas that have been flagged to 

eliminate adverse impacts to the FTHL and its habitat. All workers shall be instructed 

that their activities are restricted to flagged and cleared areas. 

3. A biological monitor shall be present in each area of active surface disturbance 

throughout the work day from initial clearing through habitat restoration, except where 

the project is completely fenced and cleared of FTHLs by a biologist. The monitor(s) 

shall perform the following functions: 

a) Develop and implement a worker education program. Wallet-cards summarizing 

this information shall be provided to all construction and maintenance personnel. 

The education program shall include the following aspects at a minimum: 

• biology and status of the FTHL, 

• protection measures designed to reduce potential impacts to the species, 

• function of flagging designating authorized work areas, 

• reporting procedures to be used if a FTHL is encountered in the field, and 

• importance of exercising care when commuting to and from the project area 

to reduce mortality of FTHLs on roads. 

b) Ensure that all project-related activities comply with these measures. The 

biological monitor shall have the authority and responsibility to halt activities 

that are in violation of these terms and conditions. 

c) Examine areas of active surface disturbance periodically (at least hourly when 

surface temperatures exceed 85oF) for the presence of FTHLs. In addition, all 

hazardous sites (e.g., open pipeline trenches, holes, or other deep excavations) 

shall be inspected for the presence of FTHLs prior to backfilling. 

d) Work with the project supervisor to take steps, as necessary, to avoid disturbance 

to FTHLs and their habitat. If avoiding disturbance to a FTHL is not possible or 

if a FTHL is found trapped in an excavation, the affected lizard shall be captured 

by hand and relocated. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-165 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

4. Sites of permanent or long-term (greater than one year) projects where continuing 

activities are planned and where FTHL mortality could occur, may be enclosed with 

FTHL barrier fencing to prevent lizards from wandering onto the project site where 

they may be subject to collection, death, or injury. Barrier fencing should be in 

accordance with the standards outlined in the Rangewide Management Strategy. After 

clearing the area of FTHLs, no on-site monitor is required. 

5. Construction of new paved roads shall include a lizard barrier fence on each side of 

the road that is exposed to occupied FTHL habitat. Exceptions may occur in 

accordance with the following evaluation, to be applied separately to each side of the 

road. This prescription may also be applied to canals or other fragmenting projects. 

Side is made nonviable for FTHLs even if connected to the other side: 

• Compensate for the entirety of the fragmented parcel. 

Side is viable only if connected to the other side: 

• Compensate for the entirety of the fragmented parcel, or 

• Provide fencing and effective culverts or underpasses that will maintain 

connectivity. 

Side is viable even if not connected to the other side: 

• Provide fencing (no culverts). 

Specifications for barrier fences are provided in the Rangewide Management Strategy. 

The FTHL Interagency Coordinating Committee will make the determination of 

FTHL population viability based on the size, configuration, and habitat condition of 

the isolated parcel, threats from adjacent lands, and existing scientific evidence of 

edge effects on FTHL. Culvert design will be provided by the FTHL Interagency 

Coordinating Committee. 

B. GILA MONSTERS 

If any Gila monsters or desert tortoises are observed, their location shall be recorded and the 

sighting along with any information concerning the sighting shall be reported to the BLM 

wildlife biologist at the YFO. 

C. SONORAN DESERT TORTOISES 

1. Project activities shall be scheduled when tortoises are inactive (typically 

November 1 to March 1). 

Within all categories of desert tortoise habitat, a desert tortoise protection education program 

shall be presented to all employees, inspectors, supervisors, contractors, and subcontractors who 

carry out proposed activities at the project site. The education program shall include discussions 

of the following: 

 The legal and sensitive status of the tortoise; 

 A brief discussion of tortoise life, history, and ecology 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-166 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

 Mitigation measures designed to reduce adverse effects to tortoises; and 

 Protocols to follow if a tortoise is encountered, including appropriate contact points. 

The project proponent shall designate a field contact representative (FCR) who shall be 

responsible for overseeing compliance with these mitigation measures and for coordination on 

compliance with the BLM. The FCR and authorized/qualified biologist(s) shall have the 

authority and the responsibility to halt all project activities that are in violation of these 

mitigation measures. The FCR shall be responsible for oversight of compliance with these 

mitigation measures, coordination with permitting agencies, land managers, and State Game and 

Fish Departments; and shall serve as a contact point for personnel that encounter desert tortoises. 

The FCR shall be on site during project activities and shall be familiar with and have a copy of 

these mitigation measures. 

Prior to implementation of any BLM-authorized surface-disturbing activities, work sites shall be 

surveyed for desert tortoises by a qualified biologist approved by the BLM. Surveys shall be in 

accordance with standardized protocol approved by the BLM. For surface-disturbing activities 

occurring during the desert tortoise season (March 1 through November 1), surveys shall be 

conducted within 24 hours of initiation of surface-disturbing activities. The 100-percent surveys 

of new areas of disturbance shall be conducted a maximum of three times, or two consecutive 

times if no desert tortoises are found. During surveys, occupied desert tortoise burrows in or 

within 40 feet of areas to be disturbed shall be excavated using hand tools by an authorized 

biologist. Burrows discovered in areas to be disturbed by project activities shall be collapsed or 

blocked to prevent entry by tortoises (any tortoises in those burrows shall be relocated first). 

Desert tortoises and any desert tortoise eggs found in areas to be disturbed shall be relocated and 

handled in accordance with the following measures. 

If a tortoise is found in a project area, activities shall be modified to avoid injuring or harming it. 

If activities cannot be modified, tortoises shall be moved from harm’s way. Upon discovery of a 

desert tortoise in harm’s way, the authorized biologist shall translocate the animal the minimum 

distance possible (but not more than 2 miles) within appropriate habitat to ensure its safety from 

death, injury, or collection associated with the project or other activities. The authorized biologist 

shall be allowed some discretion to ensure that survival of each relocated desert tortoise is likely. 

Desert tortoises shall not be translocated to lands outside the administration of the Federal 

government without the written permission of the landowner. 

Handling procedures for desert tortoises shall adhere to protocols outlined in the Management 

Plan for the Sonoran Desert Population of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona. 

Only biologists authorized by the BLM and the appropriate State Fish and Game Department 

shall handle desert tortoises. The holder shall submit the name(s) of the proposed authorized 

biologist(s) to the BLM for review and approval at least 45 days prior to the onset of activities 

that could result in a take. 

The authorized biologist shall maintain a record of all desert tortoises encountered during project 

activities. This information shall include for each desert tortoise: 

 The locations and dates of observation; 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-167 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 General condition and health, including injuries and state of healing and whether animals 

voided their bladders; 

 Location moved from and location moved to; and 

 Diagnostic markings; i.e., identification numbers of marked lateral scutes. 

No notching of scutes or replacement of fluids with a syringe is authorized. 

Vehicle use shall be limited to existing or designated routes. 

Areas of new construction or disturbance shall be flagged or marked on the ground prior to 

construction. All construction workers shall strictly limit their activities and vehicles to areas that 

have been marked. Construction personnel shall be trained to recognize markers and understand 

the equipment movement restrictions involved. 

Blading of new access or work areas shall be minimized. Disturbance to shrubs shall be avoided. 

If shrubs cannot be avoided during equipment operation or vehicle use, they shall be crushed 

rather than excavated or bladed and removed. 

Project features that might trap or entangle desert tortoises such as open trenches, pits, open 

pipes, etc., shall be covered or modified to prevent entrapment. This may only be necessary 

during the tortoise active season and may be unnecessary if an on-site biologist is monitoring 

activities. 

Construction sites shall be maintained in a sanitary condition at all times. The project proponent 

shall be responsible for controlling and limiting litter, trash, and garbage by immediately placing 

refuse in predator-proof, sealable receptacles. Trash and debris shall be moved when 

construction is complete. 

After completion of the project, trenches, pits, and other features in which tortoises could be 

entrapped or entangled, shall be filled in, covered, or otherwise modified so they are no longer a 

hazard to desert tortoises. 

After project completion, measures shall be taken to facilitate restoration, where practicable. 

Restoration techniques shall be tailored to the characteristics of the site and the nature of project 

impacts identified in the mitigation plan as developed by project biologists, AGFD, and 

permitting State and Federal agencies. Techniques may include removal of equipment and 

debris, recontouring, replacing boulders that were moved during construction, seeding, planting, 

transplanting of cacti and yuccas, etc. Only native plant species shall be used in restoration. 

The project proponent shall submit a monitoring report to the BLM within 60 days of project 

completion. For long-term or ongoing projects that may result in continuing impacts to tortoises 

and habitat, annual monitoring reports shall be prepared. Monitoring reports shall briefly 

document the effectiveness of the desert tortoise mitigation measures, actual acreage of desert 

tortoise habitat disturbed, the number of desert tortoises excavated from burrows, the number of 

desert tortoises moved from construction sites, and other applicable information on individual 

desert tortoise encounters. The report shall make recommendations for modifying or refining the 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-168 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

mitigation program to enhance desert tortoise protection and reduce needless hardship on the 

project proponents. 

In accordance with Compensation for the Desert Tortoise (Desert Tortoise Compensation Team 

1991), signed by the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group, authorizing agencies shall 

require compensation for residual impacts to desert tortoise habitat. 

Oil, fuel, pesticides, and other hazardous material spills shall be cleaned up and properly 

disposed of as soon as they occur in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations. 

All hazardous material spills must be reported promptly to the appropriate surface management 

agencies and hazardous materials management authorities. 

Workers shall check under vehicles for desert tortoises before vehicles are moved. If tortoises are 

found, they shall be allowed to move out of harm’s way on their own or shall be moved by an 

authorized biologist prior to moving the vehicle. 

No unleashed pets (e.g., dogs) shall be allowed on the construction site. 

On long-term or permanent projects in which continued encounters with desert tortoises are 

expected, such as construction of schools, factories, power plants, office buildings, and other 

permanent or long-term projects in moderate to high density desert tortoise habitat, the site shall 

be enclosed with desert tortoise barrier fencing to prevent tortoises from wandering onto the 

project site where they may be subject to collection, death, or injury. Barrier fencing shall consist 

of wire mesh with a maximum mesh size of one-inch (horizontal) by two-inch (vertical) fastened 

securely to posts. The wire mesh shall extend at least 18 inches above the ground and preferably 

12 inches below the surface of the ground. Where burial is not possible, the lower 12 inches shall 

be folded outward, away from the enclosed site, and fastened to the ground so as to prevent 

tortoise entry. Any gates or gaps in the fence shall be constructed and operated to prevent desert 

tortoise entry (such as installing tortoise guards similar to cattle guards, and/or keeping gates 

closed). Specific measures for tortoise-proofing gates and gaps shall be addressed project by 

project. Fencing is a relatively expensive mitigation measure and may not be appropriate in areas 

of very low tortoise density. 

In desert tortoise habitat, project-related vehicles shall not exceed 25 miles per hour on unpaved 

roads. 

New paved roads and highways or major modifications of existing roads through desert tortoise 

habitat shall be fenced with desert tortoise barrier fencing. Culverts, to allow safe passage of 

tortoises, shall be constructed approximately every one mile of new paved roads and railroads 

(culverts can also serve the more typical purpose of conducting water under roads and railroads). 

The culvert diameter needed to encourage tortoise use is correlated with culvert length, but 

generally short culverts of large diameter are most likely to be used. Culvert design shall be 

coordinated with the AGFD and authorized State and Federal agencies. The floor of the culvert 

shall be covered with dirt and maintenance shall be performed as necessary to maintain an open 

corridor for tortoise movement. 

Use of roads constructed for specific nonpublic purposes such as access routes to microwave 

towers shall be gated to limit access. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-169 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Temporary access routes created during project construction shall be modified as necessary to 

prevent further use. Closure of access routes shall be achieved by ripping, barricading, posting 

the route as closed, and/or seeding and planting with native plants. 

2. Projects Conducted During Tortoise Activity Period (Typically March 1 to 

November 1) 

Within all categories of desert tortoise habitat, for projects conducted during normal tortoise 

activity period (typically March 1 to November 1), construction and operation activities shall be 

monitored by a qualified biologist (approved by the BLM). The biologist shall be present during 

all activities in which encounters with tortoises may occur. The biologist shall watch for tortoises 

wandering into construction areas, check under vehicles, check at least three times per day any 

excavations that might trap tortoises, and conduct other activities necessary to ensure that death 

and injury of tortoises is minimized. 

Temporary fencing, such as chicken wire, snow fencing, chain link, and other suitable materials 

shall be used in designated areas to reduce encounters with tortoises on short-term projects, such 

as construction of power lines, burial of fiber optic cables, etc., where encounters with tortoises 

are likely. 

D. SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER 

To avoid disturbing birds during migration, activities in SWFL migratory habitat shall be 

avoided during spring migration (May 1 to June 30) and fall migration (Aug 15 to Oct 7). 

2.21.7 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACTIVITIES 

Desired plant community objectives would be quantified for each allotment through the 

rangeland monitoring and evaluation process. Ecological site descriptions available through the 

USDOA NRCS and other data would 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 YFO is managing over the long term. Once established, desired plant community objectives 

would be updated and monitored based on indicators for the Land Health Standards. These 

standards were developed through a collaborative process and identify the characteristics of and 

the management actions needed to promote and sustain healthy ecosystems on public lands. 

Monitoring studies would be used to determine conformance with the Land Health Standards 

and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. Monitoring studies generally include actual use, 

utilization, trend, and climate. The three management categories would be used to set priorities. 

These studies would be analyzed through the evaluation process to determine management 

actions needed to achieve standards and meet multiple-resource management objectives. 

Rest rotation, deferred rotation, seasonal or short duration use, or other grazing management 

systems may be implemented where the need has been identified through monitoring. 

Monitoring would be used to assess the effectiveness of changes brought about by new 

management practices. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-170 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Intensity, season and frequency, and distribution of grazing use should provide for growth and 

reproduction of the plant species needed to reach desired plant community objectives. 

Deferment of livestock would be considered where possible in cooperation with lease and permit 

holders. This deferment may allow for the use of prescribed fire or other vegetative treatments, 

or the use of the area as a grass bank to allow for rest in other grazing allotments. 

Administrative vehicular access to repair range improvements by the grazing lessee would be 

authorized through issuance of the grazing permit. 

One-time travel to access sick or injured livestock away from designated routes could be 

authorized to transport the individual to a medical facility. 

Any compensation for a loss of range improvements within the pastures would be made in 

accordance with 43 CFR 4120.3-6. 

Livestock management changes may be made when sufficient assessment, inventory, or 

monitoring data are available. 

Fence construction and maintenance would follow guidance provided in the BLM Handbook on 

Fencing No. 1741-1. 

2.21.8 TYPICAL RANGE OF HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS 

Following is a discussion of typical design features, construction practices, and implementation 

procedures for range or habitat improvements that could be constructed following approval of 

the RMP/ROD. The extent, location, and timing of such actions would be based on allotmentspecific management objectives adopted through the evaluation process, interdisciplinary 

development and analysis of proposed actions, and funding. 

A. FENCES 

All new fences would be built to BLM manual specifications. Fences would normally be 

constructed to provide exterior allotment boundaries, divide allotments in pastures, protect 

streams, and control livestock. Most fences would 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 would be modified. Proposed fence lines would usually not be bladed or 

scraped. Gates or cattle guards would be installed where fences cross existing roads. 

All new or reconstructed fences in big game habitat, including desert bighorn sheep habitat, 

would meet specifications in BLM Handbook 1741-1 or be designed to allow for the movement 

of big game, including desert bighorn sheep. YFO would consult with AGFD and CDFG on the 

design and location of new fences. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-171 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

B. PIPELINES 

Wherever possible, water pipelines would be buried. The trench would be excavated by a 

backhoe, ditch witch, or similar equipment. Plastic pipe would be placed in the trench and the 

excavated material would be used to backfill. Most pipelines would have water tanks spaced as 

needed to achieve proper livestock distribution. 

C. RESERVOIRS 

Stock pond sites would be selected based on available watershed and hydrologic information. All 

applicable State laws and regulations would be followed. 

D. WELLS 

Well sites would be selected based on geologic reports that predict the depth to reliable aquifers. 

All applicable State laws and regulations that apply to groundwater would be observed. 

E. SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDINGS 

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. 

2.21.9 WILD HORSE AND BURRO ACTIVITIES 

A. SUPPLEMENTAL WATER 

In response to restricted or prohibited access to the Colorado River, and to enhance management 

opportunities for wild horses and burros within the Cibola-Trigo HMA, supplemental water may 

be developed within the HMA. Such developments may include wells, water catchments, and 

earthen tanks. Locations would be determined on a case-by-case basis and dependent upon 

available funding. Wells would likely be redevelopment of an existing well. Water catchments 

would use current underground storage techniques currently employed by AGFD. Earth tanks 

would require moving the soil and constructing a dam with an impoundment behind it. 

B. CAPTURE TECHNIQUES 

There are three capture techniques utilized to gather wild horses and burros. There are two 

methods that are helicopter assisted, and one is bait trapping. Because the primary water source 

is the Colorado River, water trapping is not a viable option for capturing these animals in a 

majority of the HMA. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-172 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Bait traps utilize feed, generally alfalfa hay, to entice the animals to a specific location. This 

method is not used for capturing wild horses but is a very efficient method for wild burros. Hay 

is placed within a trap constructed of portable panels, with a bayonet gate. Burros enter the trap 

to eat, but can not see a hole big enough to exit. This is an efficient method to capture a small 

number of burros, and is regularly employed in nuisance situations. 

Helicopter assisted gathers use a low flying helicopter to herd the animals to either a group of 

riders who would rope them or into a wing trap where they are captured in a trap constructed of 

portable panels. During helicopter herding, the animals are moved at their own pace toward the 

trap or ropers. If they are being roped, they are led to stock trailers and loaded. If they are 

trapped, the animals are moved to a back pen adjacent to the trap so that additional animals can 

be gathered. When capture operations are done for the day, the animals are loaded onto stock 

trailers. Roping is a method best suited for large open washes and when a few animals are 

targeted for removal. Wing traps are an efficient means of gathering large numbers of animals 

and is easily moved to a new location. 

During helicopter assisted gathers, various safeguards to ensure the health and safety of the wild 

horses or burros and personnel are employed. Animals would not be herded from more than four 

miles away from the trap. Mothers with young foals are allowed to drop away from the others if 

the foal is unable to keep up. In the summer months, once the temperature reaches 105 degrees, 

herding operations are ceased. YFO has not had any incident of serious injury or death to 

captured animals in the last 14 years. 

C. TRANSPORT 

Captured animals are transported in stock trailers from trap locations to either temporary holding 

or to holding facilities in Kingman, Arizona. All stock trailers have skid proof floors, are closed 

top, and safe for transport of wild horses and burros. At temporary holding, the animals are 

separated by sex, fed, and watered. Once capture operations are completed or if a load needs to 

be shipped, the animals are taken to Kingman, Arizona, where they would be vaccinated, freeze 

branded, and available for adoption. 

2.21.10 RECREATION 

YFO applies BMPs to ensure that recreational facilities and activities comply with all applicable 

natural and cultural resource management laws, regulations, and policies, and to further promote 

sustainable land use ethics. Two sets of supplementary rules have been established by the YFO 

to regulate public occupancy, use, and conduct within the LTVAs and seven other developed 

recreation fee sites. These supplementary rules address a variety of natural and cultural resource 

and public health and safety protection measures. The YFO continuously monitors and updates 

these Supplementary Rules as needed and according to the guidance set forth in 43 CFR 8365.1-

6. The YFO develops stipulations for activities authorized through the YFO’s SRP program, 

including organized group events, vending operations, and commercial activities. Stipulations 

are typically established to protect natural and cultural resource values, public health and safety, 

and limit the displacement of existing recreational uses. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-173 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

2.21.11 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

The route evaluation criteria set forth in this PRMP/FEIS (see Section 2.12.2.B) will ensure that 

all of the public lands’ various resource values are considered during the future travel 

management planning process. The implementation of future route designation decisions will 

comply with the BLM policies set forth in IM No. AZ-2006-043, Section 106 Compliance for 

Designating Off-Highway Vehicle Routes and Areas in Land Use Plans (August 14, 2006) and 

IM No. 2007-030, Clarification of Cultural Resource Considerations for OHV Designation and 

Travel Management (December 15, 2006). In addition, the YFO will continue using its authority 

under 43 CFR 8364.1 to enact closure or restriction orders to protect persons, property, and 

public lands and resources. 

2.21.12 VISUAL RESOURCES 

There are numerous design techniques for visual resources that can be used to reduce the visual 

impacts from surface-disturbing projects. These techniques should be used in conjunction with 

BLM’s visual resource contrast rating process wherein both the existing landscape and the 

proposed development or activity are analyzed for their basic elements of form, line, color, and 

texture. Design techniques are discussed in the BLM VRM Manual 8431 in terms of 

fundamentals and strategies. The fundamentals and strategies are all interrelated, and when used 

together, can help resolve visual impacts from proposed activities or developments. 

Design fundamentals are general design principles that can be used for all forms of activity or 

development, regardless of the resource value being addressed. Applying these three 

fundamentals would help solve most visual design problems: 

 Proper siting or location 

 Reducing unnecessary disturbance 

 Repeating the elements of form, line, color, and texture 

Design strategies are more specific activities that can be applied to address visual design 

problems. Not all of these strategies would be applicable to every proposed project or activity: 

 Color selection 

 Earthwork 

 Vegetative manipulation 

 Structures 

 Reclamation/restoration 

 Linear alignment design considerations 

These techniques are only a portion of the many design techniques available to help reduce the 

visual impacts resulting from surface-disturbing activities or projects. Additional design 

techniques are utilized as BMPs to avoid or minimize impacts to visual resources. Consultation 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-174 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

with planners, landscape architects, and other design professionals would help to further reduce 

the visual impacts of any development. 

2.21.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Management of cultural resources involves inventory to discover and record cultural resources, 

evaluation to determine their scientific and public importance, planning to determine their most 

appropriate uses, protection to safeguard the uses, and authorizing or otherwise accommodating 

their proper use. 

A cultural resource inventory is maintained for all BLM-administered land. This inventory 

includes three classes: (1) Class I – synthesis of existing information, (2) Class II – sample field 

survey, and (3) Class III – intensive field survey. Cultural resources discovered through 

inventory are evaluated against the criteria of eligibility for the NRHP, and are nominated for 

listing. 

Native American comments, concerns and perspectives are sought on all BLM actions 

potentially affecting cultural resources. YFO consults specifically with Native American tribes 

and traditional religious practitioners in accordance with the American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act, Section 106 of the NHPA, EO 13007, and the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act. 

Cultural resource protection efforts include both physical and administrative measures. 

Administrative measures include such actions as withdrawals, closures to public access, special 

designations, land acquisitions, easements, and protective covenants or stipulations to provide for 

protection of sensitive resources. Physical protection includes measures such as site-specific 

stabilization, signs, fencing, adaptive reuse, law enforcement surveillance and patrols, public 

awareness activities, site interpretation, and other actions. 

YFO also protects cultural resources by following the NHPA Section 106 process for all 

undertakings with the potential to affect cultural resources. Avoidance is the preferred course of 

action when a proposed project may affect an archaeological or historic site. In some cases, it is 

not possible to avoid NRHP-eligible sites; those important primarily for the scientific 

information they contain are then conserved through data recovery. 

2.21.14 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Management of paleontological resources emphasizes the non-renewable nature of fossils, their 

usefulness in deciphering ancient and modern ecosystems, the public benefits and public 

expectations arising from their scientific, recreational and educational values, BLM’s interest in 

the continued advancement of the science of paleontology, and the importance of minimizing 

resource use conflicts within a multiple use framework. 

Paleontological resources are considered in all levels of planning, such as RMPs, EISs, resourceor area-specific activity plans, and land tenure adjustments. For paleontological resources, this 

includes: 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-175 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

1. Identifying areas and geological units, i.e., formations, members, etc., containing 

paleontological resources. 

2. Evaluating the potential of areas to contain vertebrate fossils or uncommon non-vertebrate 

fossils. 

3. Assessing the impacts to paleontological resources from the planned actions. 

4. Developing strategies to mitigate resource use conflicts and loss of paleontological resources 

and related information. 

5. Developing management recommendations to promote the scientific, educational and 

recreational uses of fossils on public lands. 

Surface disturbing actions may adversely impact paleontological resources. Where areas 

containing fossils are identified during environmental (NEPA) review of land-use actions, landuse authorizations or transfer of title, existing data is used to assess potential impacts to 

paleontological resources. A paleontological field survey is carried out by a qualified 

paleontologist whenever analysis of existing data indicates that vertebrate fossils or noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils are, or are likely to be, present in an area proposed for 

surface disturbance. Compliance with NEPA may involve mitigation where vertebrate fossils, or 

noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils, are known. Mitigation may be 

accomplished, for example, by (1) collection of data and fossil material, (2) obtaining 

representative samples of the fossils, (3) avoidance, or (4) in some cases by no action. In some 

cases, surface disturbance may have a beneficial impact on paleontological resources where it 

exposes additional outcrop areas for study, or public education/interpretation. Based on the 

formal analysis of existing data and the field survey, a decision whether or not to mitigate is 

made by the Authorized Officer. 

Paleontological Resource Use Permits are issued to qualified applicants for the purpose of 

facilitating collection of fossils for scientific research and educational uses, or mitigating adverse 

impacts resulting from surface disturbing projects. Protection measures to prevent or detect 

unauthorized uses of paleontological resources, include patrol/surveillance, signs, special 

designations, and public information and education programs. 

2.21.15 MINERAL RESOURCE ACTIVITIES 

Unless otherwise restricted, all Federal mineral estates administered by YFO within the planning 

area are available for orderly and efficient development of mineral resources. Mineral 

exploration and development is generally encouraged on public land in keeping with BLM’s 

multiple use concepts. Overall guidance on the management of mineral resources appears in the 

Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, Sec. 102(a)(120) of FLPMA, National Materials and 

Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, and BLM’s Mineral Resources Policy 

of May 29, 1984. 

Exploration and development of all mineral resources would be conducted in accordance with all 

applicable laws and regulations. Acquired lands would be opened to mineral entry, unless critical 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-176 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

resource values (threatened and endangered species, riparian habitat, scenic values, cultural 

resources, etc.) or public health and safety require closure. 

Issuing ROWs where there are active mining claims is routine and covered by legislation and 

regulation. The ROW purchaser or permittee is informed of the rights of the mining claimant. 

Mining might intermittently or temporarily obstruct the ROW. 

A. LOCATABLE MINERALS 

The 43 CFR 3715 and 3809 regulations provide for the management of surface disturbance 

associated with mineral exploration and development including mining claim use and occupancy. 

YFO reviews mining notices and plans in the time allotted as identified in the regulations. For 

notice-level operations, if time permits, a site visit would be conducted by an YFO staff member. 

A site visit would always be conducted by YFO staff during the processing of a plan of 

operations. 

When occupancy is proposed under mining plans and notice-level operations, proper NEPA 

documentation would be required. YFO would 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 regulation. The amount of such bonds is for the full amount required 

to complete 100 percent of the required reclamation as if YFO 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 law 

provides for numerous other permits including but not limited to: an Aquifer Protection Permit 

and a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit both issued by ADEQ, a Section 

404 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a flood control permit issued by the 

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. YFO would 

cooperate with all interested agencies to ensure that operations conducted on BLM-administered 

lands are in full compliance with all Federal, State, and local health, 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 the specific 

requirements of 43 CFR 3715.2. At a minimum, all occupancies would meet the requirements 

and standard stipulations for occupancy contained in the BLM Arizona Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment for Mining Claim Use and Occupancy. 

Surface disturbing activities at a level greater than casual use in Wilderness areas, national 

monuments, ACECs, and other areas identified in 43 CFR 3809.11 would require a plan of 

operations before mining can begin. Operations proposed for lands that are withdrawn from 

mineral entry would cause BLM to initiate a validity examination and would be allowed only on 

claims with a valid discovery and location existing before designation. Before BLM can approve 

mining plans of operation submitted for work in areas withdrawn from mineral entry, 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 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-177 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means 

with a reasonable prospect of success in developing a valuable mine. 

B. LEASABLE MINERALS 

Lease applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Leases would be issued with 

necessary restrictions to protect resources. Stipulations to protect important surface values would 

be based on interdisciplinary review of individual proposals and environmental analyses. 

C. MINERAL MATERIALS 

The Mineral Materials Act of 1947 and 43 CFR 3600 regulations provide for the disposal and 

regulation of mineral materials. It is BLM’s policy to make mineral materials available to the 

public and local governmental agencies. Applications for mineral materials are considered on a 

case-by-case basis and require either a sales contract or a free use permit from the appropriate 

BLM office. Disposal of mineral materials is a discretionary action and would be authorized in 

accordance with appropriate laws, regulations, and policies, in conformance with the approved 

LUP. Appropriate measures would be taken to protect the environment and minimize impacts to 

public health and safety. 

2.21.16 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

A. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Hazardous materials incidents in the planning area have resulted from leaking underground 

storage tanks, mining sites, occupancy trespasses, drug labs, wire burning sites, industrial waste, 

and illegal dump sites. 

Although illegally dumped materials are not routinely classified as hazardous materials, the 

problem of discarded used tires, household trash, and commercial waste and materials has 

increased as the result of increased fees at county and private landfills and transfer stations. Also 

of concern are incidents of unexploded military ordnance and explosives from abandoned mining 

operations. YFO would clean up any hazardous materials that are illegally dumped on public 

land. 

 Minimize releases of hazardous materials through compliance with current regulations. 

 When hazardous materials are released into the environment, assess their impacts on each 

resource and determine the appropriate response, removal and remedial actions to take. 

YFO would evaluate all actions (including land use authorizations and disposals, mining and 

milling activities, and unauthorized land uses) for hazardous materials, waste minimization, and 

pollution prevention. 

 Identify appropriate mitigation for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities associated with 

all types of hazardous materials and waste management and all types of fire management. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-178 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Site-specific inventories of lands being disposed of or acquired would be completed. It is 

departmental policy to minimize potential liability of the Department of the interior and its 

bureaus by acquiring property that is not contaminated, unless directed by Congress, court 

mandate, or as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Mining and milling sites would be inspected to determine appropriate management for hazardous 

materials. Parties responsible for contamination would be identified and held liable for cleanup 

and resource damage costs, as prescribed by law. 

C. ABANDONED MINE LANDS 

YFO would educate the public about the risks associated with AML1 sites and unexploded 

ordnance through signs, bulletin boards, and/or kiosks. 

As funding is available, the Management Activities listed below would continue: 

 Inventory AML1 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, YFO would 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. The method of closure would vary and be identified during sitespecific NEPA analysis. 

 Assess the impacts to waters of Arizona and California from abandoned mines, tailings, or 

mineral deposits within one mile of surface waters and reclaim sites presenting water quality 

concerns. 

 Inspect AML1 sites to identify all physical hazards presenting a safety risk to the public and 

take appropriate action to mitigate many hazards. 

 Prevent public access to AML1 contaminated areas. 

 Notify the public of the conditions at an AML1 site in close proximity to populated areas. 

Where surveys indicate the potential for important bat habitat, YFO and its partners would take 

appropriate actions, such as the installation of bat gates, to preserve the habitat while addressing 

the public hazards. 

In cases where AML1 remediation actions may affect biological, cultural, or historical resources, 

the impacts are mitigated by avoiding the characteristics that make cultural sites eligible to the 

NRHP, recording the resources, relocating the resources, or stabilizing significant resources, 

consistent with reducing the threat to public health and safety. 

D. UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE 

The following actions would be appropriate with regard to the discovery of UXO. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-179 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 If UXO is discovered on public lands in the planning area, appropriate measures would 

immediately be taken to restrict access to the site. 

 The appropriate military response unit would be notified of the UXO. For the planning area, 

that unit is currently 710th EOD, San Diego, California (619) 553-8500 (FAX 619-553 8095). 

2.22 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING 

2.22.1 IMPLEMENTATION 

LUP decisions become effective upon approval of the RMP. These decisions fall into two 

categories: Desired Future Conditions (goals and objectives), Management Actions (allowable 

uses and actions to achieve outcomes). Examples of decisions that become effective upon 

approval of the RMP include land use allocation decisions, and special designations such as an 

ACEC. Management actions that require additional site-specific project planning as funding 

becomes available are implementation decisions and would require further environmental 

analysis. Decisions to implement these projects are subject to administrative review at the time 

when such decisions are made. 

YFO would continue to involve and collaborate with the public during implementation of this 

plan. Opportunities to become involved in the plan implementation and monitoring would 

include development of partnerships and community-based citizen working groups. YFO invites 

citizens and user groups within the planning area to become actively involved in implementation, 

monitoring, and evaluation of RMP decisions. YFO and citizens may collaboratively develop 

site-specific goals and objectives that mutually benefit public land resources, local communities, 

and the people who live, work, or play on the public lands. 

2.22.2 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

The adaptive management process is a flexible process that generally involves four phases: 

planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. This RMP revision is an integral part of 

the adaptive management strategy. Adaptive management is a flexible approach to learning from 

the outcomes of management actions, accommodating change, and improving management. It 

involves synthesizing existing knowledge, exploring alternative actions, and making explicit 

forecasts about their outcomes. Management actions and monitoring programs are carefully 

designed to generate reliable feedback and clarify the reasons underlying outcomes. Actions and 

objectives are then adjusted based on this feedback and improved understanding. In addition, 

decisions, actions, and outcomes are carefully documented and communicated to others, so that 

knowledge gained through experience is passed on rather than being lost when individuals move 

or leave the organization. 

BLM land use planning uses adaptive management through a four-phase process. The first phase 

is planning. When planning is finished, the RMP is implemented. Implementation of land use 

allocations, designations, and allowable-uses occur as soon as a ROD is signed, unless other 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-180 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

appropriate NEPA analysis is required. Management actions would occur throughout the life of 

the plan. Periodically the plan is evaluated (usually every five years) to determine if the decisions 

are accurate, being implemented, or need to be changed based on current information. 

The Desired Future Conditions listed under each resource program are decisions that provide the 

parameters by which the BLM manages the lands and resources. The BLM uses continual 

monitoring of resource conditions to determine if the Management Actions being implemented 

are achieving the Desired Future Conditions. Adaptive management is applied in cases where the 

existing management is clearly not meeting those desired conditions or other alternatives could 

better meet the objectives. In such cases, adaptive management may include revising BMPs, or 

possibly revising an entire RMP, as is being done with this plan. Periodic RMP amendments are 

expected to occur as resource conditions, resource values, or goals and objectives change. LUP 

evaluations typically occur every five years, which are a complete analysis of existing 

conditions, anticipated issues, and the current decisions providing for the management of 

resources. Based on this interdisciplinary evaluation, the authorizing officer determines whether 

any, some, or all decisions remain appropriate for the management of the area. 

A “limit of acceptable change” identifies specific thresholds for a resource that would not be 

crossed. Should those thresholds be reached adaptive management would be applied to stop or 

reverse resource degradation. 

Based on the YFO’s LUP evaluation in the year 2000, it was determined that many of the 

decisions were either outdated according to resource conditions, new policies, or future goals. As 

YFO obtains new information, it would evaluate monitoring data and other resource information 

to periodically refine and update desired conditions and management strategies. This approach 

ensures the continual refinement and improvement of management prescriptions and practices. 

Implementation-level planning, such as site-specific ACEC plans or Wilderness Area plans, are 

monitored periodically to ensure decisions are valid. As for LUPs, if needed, these plans are 

changed using principles of adaptive management and limits of acceptable change. 

2.22.3 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 

Although BLM’s intent and commitment to accomplish Administrative Actions is generally 

addressed in RMP/EIS-level documents, such activities are neither LUP-level decisions nor 

implementation-level management action decisions. Administrative Actions are day-to-day 

activities conducted by BLM, often required by FLPMA, but do not require a NEPA analysis or 

decision by a responsible official to be accomplished. Examples of Administrative Actions 

include but are not limited to mapping, surveying, inventorying, monitoring, collecting 

information needed such as research and studies, and completing project specific or 

implementation level plans. 

2.22.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

LUP monitoring is conducted in three stages. The first is to ensure that decisions are 

implemented in accordance with the approved RMP/ROD. This type of monitoring is conducted 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-181 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

as RMP decisions become effective or when decisions to approve implementation level plans or 

to implement site-specific projects are approved or implemented. 

The next stage of monitoring is to determine whether LUP decisions are achieving the desired 

effects. Effectiveness monitoring provides an empirical data base on impacts of decisions and 

effectiveness of mitigation. Effectiveness monitoring is also useful for improving analytical 

procedures for future impact analyses and for designing or improving mitigation and 

enhancement measures. 

The last stage of monitoring is to determine whether a LUP decision continues to be the correct 

or proper decision over time. Evaluation monitoring goes beyond effectiveness monitoring and 

focuses on examining the validity of decisions. Evaluation monitoring is tied to adaptive 

management and the results of monitoring may require an update (amendment) to the RMP. 

2.23 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

Table 2-32, beginning on page 2-183, provides a summary of the impacts that would occur from 

implementing the No Action and four action alternatives. Chapter 4 provides a more detailed 

analysis of impacts. 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-182 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Page intentionally left blank. 
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Special Designations – Wilderness Areas 

From All Management Actions Regardless of Resource 

Eight congressionally designated Wilderness Areas totaling approximately 167,800 acres would continuaccording to the Wilderness Act of 1964 under all alternatives. 

Special Designations – National Historic Trails 

From Visual Resource Management 

None identified. VRM Class II 

allocations would protect 17 miles of NHT values. 

VRM Class II allocations would protect 12 miles of NHT values. 

VRM Classes I and II allocations would protect 12 miles of NHT values. 

Special Designations – National Byways 

From Special Designations None identified. The Agua Caliente and 

the Gold Nugget Back Country Byways travel across the Sears Point ACEC and the Dripping Springs ACEC respectively, providing protection to Back Country Byway values. 

Same as Alternative B. None identified. 

From Visual Resource Management 

None identified. VRM Class II 

allocations would protect 79 miles of Back Country Byway values. 

Class II allocations would protect 11 miles of Back Country Byway values. 

None identified. 

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-184 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Special Designations – ACECs 

From Special Designations No Back Country 

Byways. 

2.3 miles of the Agua Caliente Byway crosses the Sears Point ACEC, potentially resulting in adverse impacts to ACEC values. 

Gold Nugget Byway crosses the Dripping Springs ACEC and 2.3 miles of the Agua Caliente Byway crosses the Sears Point ACEC, potentially resulting in adverse impacts to ACEC values. 

No Back Country Bywaylocated within ACECs. 

From Travel Management None identified. None identified. 600-acre Closed OHV 

Management Area at Dripping Springs would result in increased protection of ACEC values. 

600-acre Closed OHV Management Area at Dripping Springs, 1,400acre Closed OHV Management Area at SeaPoint, and 56,600 acres oClosed OHV ManagemeAreas in the Palomas Plawould result in increased protection of ACEC values. 

From Lands and Realty Management 

None identified. 1,900 acres of ROW 

Corridors within the Big Marias ACEC would potentially result in adverse impacts to ACEC values. 

Same as Alternative B. 10,300 acres of ROW 

Corridors proposed in thPalomas Plain ACEC an1,900 acres in the Gila River Terraces and TrailACEC, potentially resulting in adverse impacts to ACEC values
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Special Designations – ACECs (cont.) 

From Mineral Resource Management 

Protection of ACEC values on 6,500 acres withdrawn from mineral development. 

Protection of ACEC values on 3,600 acres withdrawn from mineral development. 

Protection of ACEC values on 5,400 acres withdrawn from mineral development. 

Protection of ACEC values on 8,300 acres withdrawn from mineral development. 

From Wilderness Characteristics Management 

None identified. None identified. None identified. A majority of the 

429,200-acre Palomas Plain ACEC proposal would overlap with lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics, which would provide indirect benefits to the proposed ACEC’s recognized values. 

Vegetation Resources 

From Special Designations Betty’s Kitchen NRT 

would remain at 0.5 mile, no additional impacts to vegetation resources are expected. 

Betty’s Kitchen NRT would be extended five miles (5.5 miles total). Construction of the extended trail would result in potential adverse impacts to vegetation resources. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-186 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Vegetation Resources (cont.) 

From Special Designations (cont.) 

No Back Country Byways. 

220 miles of Back Country Byways proposed in seven areas. Byways have the potential to cause losses of roadside vegetation if improvements are constructed. 

76 miles of Back Country Byways proposed in four areas. Byways have the potential to cause losses of roadside vegetation if improvements are constructed. 

Same as Alternative A. 

6,700 acres of ACECs resulting in protective measures to vegetative resources (beneficial impacts). 

Same as Alternative A. 28,900 acres of 

ACECs resulting in protective measures to vegetative resources (beneficial impacts). 

491,400 acres of ACECs resulting in protective measures to vegetative resources (beneficial impacts). 

12,400-acre Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt resulting in protective measures to vegetative resources (beneficial impacts). 

No proposed VHAs. 12,400 acres of VHAs 

resulting in protective measures to vegetative resources (beneficial impacts). 

22,900 acres of VHAs resulting in protective measures to vegetative resources (beneficial impacts). 

From Vegetation Resource Management 

134,700 acres closed to firewood collection. 

142,800 acres closed to firewood collection. 

179,300 acres closed to firewood collection. 

1,318,000 acres closed to firewood collection. 

From Wildland Fire Management 

The Arizona Fire Land Use Plan Amendment decisions would be carried forward, which are common to 

suppression of wildland fires would be used to protect riparian areas and natural resources. 
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Vegetation Resources (cont.) 

From Fish and Wildlife Management 

539,500 acres of WHAs resulting in protective measures to vegetative resources (beneficial impacts). 

1,545,800 acres of WHAs resulting in protective measures to vegetative resources (beneficial impacts) (exceeds planning area acres because proposed WHAs overlap). 

1,605,200 acres of WHAs resulting in protective measures to vegetative(beneficial impacts) (exceeds planning area acres because proposed WHAs overlap). 

900,400 acres of WHAs resulting in protective measures to vegetative resources (beneficial impacts). 

From Recreation Management 

Adaptive management would be used on a case-by-case basis to determine if the expansion or development of new recreation sites would be necessary to meet public demands or address user and resource conflicts. Additional impacts to terrestrial vegetation from new and expanded recreation sites would be considered and disclosed as required by NEPA during the development of subsequent recreation site activity plans. Recreation activities may result in the introduction and spread of non-native invasive species in both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

The expansion of existing recreation sites or the development of new recreation sites would not occur, resulting in no new impacts to vegetation resources from recreation management. The potential for recreational activities to introduce and spread non-native invasive species in both terrestrial and aquatic environments would still continue. 

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-188 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Vegetation Resources (cont.) 

Adverse impacts to vegetation resources within 400 acres at the Ehrenberg Sandbowl Open OHV Management Area. 

Adverse impacts to vegetation resources on 3,800 acres of Open OHV Management Areas. 

Adverse impacts to vegetation resources on 2,400 acres of Open OHV Management Areas. 

Same as Alternative A. 

OHV use and other trail-based activities can facilitate the dispersal and establishment of non-native inva

From Travel Management 

Reduced impacts on 1,200 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

Reduced impacts on 3,200 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

Reduced impacts on 3,500 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

Reduced impacts on 66,000 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

19,100 acres available for disposal, potentially adversely impacting vegetation resources. 

46,900 acres would be available for disposal, potentially adversely impacting vegetation resources, including special status plants. 

10,500 acres would be available for disposal, potentially adversely impacting vegetation resources, including special status plants. 

8,200 acres available for disposal, potentially adversely impacting vegetation resources, but not disposing of blue sand lily habitat. 

From Lands and Realty Management 

Adverse vegetation resource impacts on 300 miles of ROW Corridors and six communication sites. 

Adverse vegetation resource impacts on 500 miles of ROW Corridors and 13 communication sites. 

Adverse vegetation resource impacts on 500 miles of ROW Corridors and 11 communication sites. 

Adverse vegetation resource impacts on 400 miles of ROW Corridors and eight communication sites. 
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Vegetation Resources (cont.) 

Adverse vegetation resource impacts on 100 acres of one community pit. 

Adverse vegetation resource impacts on 800 acres of six community pits. 

Adverse vegetation resource impacts on 400 acres of three community pits. 

Adverse vegetation resource impacts on 100 acres of one community pit. 

From Mineral Resource Management 

Mineral entry withdrawals within 6,500 acres and 167,800 acres of Wilderness. 

Mineral entry withdrawals within 3,600 acres and 167,800 acres of Wilderness. 

Mineral entry withdrawals within 5,400 acres and 167,800 acres of Wilderness. 

Mineral entry withdrawals within 8,300 acres and 167,800 acres of Wilderness. 

From Wilderness Characteristics Management 

None identified. Indirect beneficial 

impacts to vegetative resources may occur on 48,400 acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Indirect beneficial impacts to vegetative resources may occur on 91,400 acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Indirect beneficial impacts to vegetative resources may occur on 310,200 acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Wildland Fire Management 

From Travel Management Under all alternatives, motorized access for emergency purposes such as wildland fire fighting would no

Travel Management policies. 

Fish and Wildlife Management Including Special Status Species 

Protection of wildlife habitat in 6,700 acres of ACECs. 

Same as Alternative A. Protection of wildlife 

habitat in 28,900 acres of ACECs. 

Protection of wildlife habitat in 491,900 acres of ACECs. 

From Special Designations 

No Back Country Byways proposed. 

Adverse impacts to wildlife habitat from 220 miles of Back Country Byways. 

Adverse impacts to wildlife habitat from 76 miles of Back Country Byways. 

No Back Country Byways proposed. 

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-190 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Fish and Wildlife Management Including Special Status Species (cont.) 

From Special Designations cont. 

No impacts identified from NRT. 

Impacts to riparian habitat and disturbance of wildlife from construction and use of a five-mile extension of the Betty’s Kitchen NRT. 

None identified. None identified. 

From Travel Management No impact to Sonoran 

desert tortoise habitat. 

Adverse impacts to wildlife habitat from 1,800 acres of Open OHV Management Areas within WHAs and 650 acres within Category III Sonoran desert tortoise habitat. 

Adverse impacts to wildlife habitat from 1,700 acres of Open OHV Management Areas within WHAs and 600 acres within Category III Sonoran desert tortoise habitat. 

No impact to Sonoran desert tortoise habitat. 

No impacts from disposals identified. 

Reduced habitat restoration opportunities for SWFL and yellowbilled cuckoo from disposal of leased land near the Colorado River. 

None identified. None identified. 

From Lands and Realty Management 

No impacts from disposals identified. 

Disposal of 320 acres of Category III desert tortoise habitat. 

Disposal of less than one acre of Category III desert tortoise habitat. 

None identified. 
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Fish and Wildlife Management Including Special Status Species (cont.) 

From Fish and Wildlife Management 

None identified. Beneficial impacts 

within 704,800 acres of the proposed Palomas Plain WHA. 

Beneficial impacts to sand dune habitat in 59,400 acres of the proposed Dunes WHA. 

Beneficial impacts to sand dune habitat in 59,400 acres of the proposed Dunes WHA and within 704,800 acres of the proposed Palomas Plain WHA. 

From Wilderness Characteristics Management 

None identified. Indirect beneficial 

impacts to wildlife habitat may occur on 48,400 acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Indirect beneficial impacts to wildlife habitat may occur on 91,400 acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Indirect beneficial impacts to wildlife habitat may occur on 301,200 acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

HMAs not specifically addressed in previous plans. 

Cibola-Trigo HMA allocations would reduce the number of nuisance animalsbe located on the east side of Highway 95. AML2 would remain at 165 burros 

to wild horse and burro habitat may occur from reductions or other changes in allocations may impact individuals or populations, when allocation changes ror relocation) of wild horses and burros. 

Visual Resource Management 

From All Management Actions Regardless of Resource 

Impacts to the landscapes of the public lands are disclosed through the identification of proposed projec

the landscape's existing form, line, texture, and color. Implementation of this RMP and any subsequent RMP would seek to comply with the identified visual resource class objectives through design or mitiga

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-192 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Wilderness Characteristics 

From Special Designations None identified. None identified. None identified. Most of the proposed 

lands with wilderness characteristics would overlap with the proposed Palomas Plain ACEC, providing protective measures for these lands. 

From Vegetation Resources Management 

None identified. None identified. None identified. More parcels of land 

with wilderness characteristics contain non-native invasive species. Treatment of these species could negatively affect the experiences found in lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

From Fish and Wildlife Management 

None identified. The proposed Palomas 

Plain WHA would overlap with lands with wilderness characteristics in this alternative, benefiting lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as Alternative B. None identified. 
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Wilderness Characteristics (cont.) 

From Fish and Wildlife Management (cont.) 

None identified. None identified. The potential impacts 

to naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation from seasonal hunting and wildlife habitat improvement projects would likely be more common than under Alternatives B or the Proposed Plan. 

The potential impacts to naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation from seasonal hunting and wildlife habitat improvement projects would likely be the most common under this alternative. 

From Travel Management None identified. Potential impacts to 

experience solitude from 0.400 miles of road per square mile in lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Potential impacts to experience solitude from 0.563 miles of road per square mile in lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Potential impacts to experience solitude from 1.002 miles of road per square mile in lands with wilderness characteristics. 

From Lands and Realty Management 

None identified. None identified. None identified. Affected by 3,600 

acres of proposed ROW Corridors north of the Town of Quartzsite. 

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-194 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Wilderness Characteristics (cont.) 

From Mineral Resource Management 

None identified. None identified. The potential impacts 

to naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation from mining and mineral leasing activities would be more common than under Alternatives B or the Proposed Plan. 

The potential impacts to naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation from mining and mineral leasing activities would be the most prevalent under Alternative D. 

Cultural Resources 

Enhanced protection of cultural sites within 6,700 acres of ACECs. 

Same as Alternative A. Enhanced protection of 

cultural sites within 28,900 acres of ACECs. 

Enhanced protection of cultural sites within 491,900 acres of ACECs. 

From Special Designations 

No Back Country Byways. 

Potential impacts to cultural sites from 220 miles of Back Country Byways. 

Potential impacts to cultural sites from 76 miles of Back Country Byways and 64 miles of the Highway 95 Scenic Byway. 

None identified. 

From Livestock Grazing Management 

Potential impacts to cultural resources within 1,005,800 acres available to livestock grazing. 

Potential impacts to cultural resources within 680,900 acres available to livestock grazing. 

Potential impacts to cultural resources within 428,300 acres available to livestock grazing. 

None identified. 

From Recreation Management 

None identified. Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan would designate SRMAs and RM

enhance targeted recreational opportunities and experiences. 
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Cultural Resources (cont.) 

None identified. Potential impacts to 

cultural sites on 3,800 acres of Open OHV Management Areas. 

Potential impacts to cultural sites on 2,400 acres of Open OHV Management Areas. 

From Travel Management None identified. 

Reduced impacts on 1,200 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

Reduced impacts on 3,200 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

Reduced impacts on 3,500 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

Reduced impacts on 66,000 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

From Visual Resource Management 

Protection of cultural sites within 183,000 acres of VRM Class I and II areas. 

Protection of cultural sites within 709,600 acres of VRM Class I and II areas. 

Protection of cultural sites within 782,900 acres of VRM Class I and II areas. 

Protection of cultural sites within 817,200 acres of VRM Class I and II areas. 

Protection of cultural sites within 6,500 acres of withdrawn lands (plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness). 

Protection of cultural sites within 3,600 acres of withdrawn lands (plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness). 

Protection of cultural sites within 5,400 acres of withdrawn lands (plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness). 

Protection of cultural sites within 8,300 acres of withdrawn lands (plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness). 

From Lands and Realty Management 

None identified. ROW Corridors cross 

three SCRMAs. 

ROW Corridors cross seven SCRMAs. 

Same as Alternative B 

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-196 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Cultural Resources (cont.) 

From Lands and Realty Management (cont.) 

None identified. Potential impacts to 

cultural sites at seven additional communication sites. 

Potential impacts to cultural sites at five additional communication sites. 

Potential impacts to cultural sites at two additional communication sites. 

Potential adverse impacts on 100 acres identified for community pits. 

Potential adverse impacts on 800 acres identified for community pits. 

Potential adverse impacts on 400 acres identified for community pits. 

Same as Alternative A. 

From Mineral Resources Management 

Beneficial impacts from 3,700 acres proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry in ACECs. 

Same as Alternative A. Beneficial impacts 

from 5,400 acres proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry in ACECs. 

Same as Alternative C. 

From Wilderness Characteristics Management 

None identified. Indirect beneficial 

impacts to cultural resource values may occur on 48,400 acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Indirect beneficial impacts to cultural resource values may occur on 91,400 acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Indirect beneficial impacts to cultural resource values may occur on 301,200 acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Paleontological Resources 

None identified. Potential impacts from 

5.0 mile extension of Betty’s Kitchen NRT and 220 miles of Back Country Byways. 

Potential impacts from 76 miles of Back Country Byways. 

None identified. 

From Special Designations 

Reduced impacts in 6,700 acres designated as ACECs 

Same as Alternative A. Reduced impacts in 

28,900 acres designated as ACECs. 

Reduced impacts in 491,900 acres designated as ACECs. 
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Paleontological Resources (cont.) 

From Visual Resource Management 

Potential adverse impacts in designated VRM classes III and IV (1,135,000 acres). Reduced impacts on 15,200 acres of VRM Class II. 

Potential adverse impacts in designated VRM classes III and IV (608,400 acres). Reduced impacts on 541,800 acres of VRM Class II. 

Potential adverse impacts in designated VRM classes III and IV (589,100 acres). Reduced impacts on 561,100 acres of VRM Class II. 

Potential adverse impacts in designated VRM classes III and IV (500,800 acres). Reduced impacts on 624,800 acres of VRM Class II. 

Potential impacts within the 400-acre Ehrenberg Sandbowl Open OHV Management Area 

Potential impacts within 3,800 acres of Open OHV Management Areas. 

Potential impacts within 2,400 acres of Open OHV Management Areas. 

From Travel Management Same as Alternative A. 

Reduced impacts on 1,200 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

Reduced impacts on 3,200 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

Reduced impacts on 3,500 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

Reduced impacts on 66,000 acres (nonwilderness) and 167,800 acres (Wilderness) of Closed OHV Management Areas. 

From Lands and Realty Management 

Potential impacts within 74,600 acres of ROW Corridors and 200 acres of communication sites. 

Potential impacts within 129,900 acres of ROW Corridors and 300 acres of communication sites. 

Potential impacts within 129,900 acres of ROW Corridors and 300 acres of communication sites. 

Potential impacts within 91,300 acres of ROW Corridors and 200 acres of communication sites. 

From Mineral Resource Management 

Protection of resources within 6,500 acres of withdrawn lands plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness. 

Protection of resources within 3,600 acres of withdrawn lands plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness. 

Protection of resources within 5,400 acres of withdrawn lands plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness. 

Protection of resources within 8,300 acres of withdrawn lands plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness. 

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-198 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Air 

From Travel Management Continue existing 400-

acre Ehrenberg Sandbowl Open OHV Management Area, which is outside of the PM10 non-attainment 

area. 

3,800 acres of proposed Open OHV Management Areas. 1,900-acre Blaisdell Open OHV Management Area within the PM10 nonattainment area; 

Expanded Ehrenberg Sandbowl (800 acres) and Martinez Lake (1,100 acres) Open OHV Management Areas outside of the PM10 non-attainment 

area. 

2,400 acres of proposed Open OHV Management Areas. 1,300-acre Blaisdell Open OHV Management Area within the PM10 nonattainment area; 

Expanded Ehrenberg Sandbowl (800 acres) and Martinez Lake (300 acres) Open OHV Management Areas outside of the PM10

non-attainment area. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Water 

From All Management Actions Regardless of Resource 

Differences in impacts to water resources between alternatives vary according to the acreages open to magricultural leasing, and grazing. However, the anticipated differences between the alternatives would bminimal overall. 

Soil 

None identified. Soil disturbance from 

5.0 mile extension of Betty’s Kitchen NRT and 220 miles of Back Country Byways. 

Soil disturbance from 76 miles of Back Country Byways. 

Same as Alternative A. 

From Special Designations 

Reduced impacts in 6,700 acres designated as ACECs. 

Same as Alternative A. Reduced impacts in 

28,900 acres designated as ACECs. 

Reduced impacts in 491,400 acres designated as ACECs. 
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental 

Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Soil (cont.) 

From Visual Resource Management 

Potential adverse impacts to soils in designated VRM classes III and IV (1,135,000 acres). 

Potential adverse impacts to soils in designated VRM classes III and IV (608,400 acres). 

Potential adverse impacts to soils in designated VRM classes III and IV (589,100 acres). 

Potential adverse impacts to soils in designated VRM classes III and IV (500,800 acres). 

Loss of soil productivity on Open OHV allocation at the 400-acre Ehrenberg Sandbowl. 

Loss of soil productivity on 3,800 acres of Open OHV Management Areas. 

Loss of soil productivity on 2,400 acres of Open OHV Management Areas. 

Same as Alternative A. 

From Travel Management 

Reduced soil impacts within 1,200 acres of Closed OHV Management Areas plus existing protection of soil resources within 167,800 acres of Wilderness. 

Reduced soil impacts within 3,200 acres of Closed OHV Management Areas plus existing protection of soil resources within 167,800 acres of Wilderness. 

Reduced soil impacts within 3,500 acres of Closed OHV Management Areas plus existing protection of soil resources within 167,800 acres of Wilderness. 

Reduced soil impacts within 66,000 acres oClosed OHV Management Areas plus existing protection of soil resources within 167,800 acres of Wilderness. 

From Travel Management (cont.) 

Motorized travel throughout most of the planning area would continue to be limited to existing routes. It is possible that there are additional existing routes which have not been identified on the proposed YFO route inventory, and there-fore, a slightly higher acreage of soil resources would continue to be impacted under Alternative A. 

Motorized travel throughout most of the planning area would be limited to exuntil the YFO Travel Management Network has been established. After the YNetwork has been established, OHV use would be limited to designated route

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-200 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental 

Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Soil (cont.) 

From Lands and Realty Management 

Adverse soil impacts on 74,600 acres of ROW Corridors and 200 acres on six communication sites. 

Adverse soil impacts on 129,900 acres of ROW orridors and 300 acres on 13 communication sites. 

Adverse soil impacts on 129,900 acres of ROW Corridors and 300 acres on 11 communication sites. 

Adverse soil impacts on 91,300 acres of ROW Corridors and 200 acres on eight communication sites. 

From Mineral Resource Management 

Protection of soils on 6,500 acres non-wilderness plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness withdrawn from mineral development. 

Protection of soils on 3,600 acres non-wilderness plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness withdrawn from mineral development. 

Protection of soils on 5,400 acres nonwilderness plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness withdrawn from mineral development. 

Protection of soils on 8,300 acres nonwilderness plus 167,800 acres within Wilderness withdrawfrom mineral development. 

Public Health and Safety 

From Special Designations 

None identified. None identified. None identified. The proposed 4,500-

acre Limitrophe ACEC designation could benefit proper management of the area and address public health and safety concerns. 

From Coordinated Management Areas 

None identified. The Limitrophe would be 

identified as a 4,500 acre Coordinated Management Area, which would emphasize addressing existing public health and safety issues. 

None identified. None identified. 
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental 

Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Public Health and Safety (cont.) 

From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

None identified. Moving the HMA west of Highway 95 in Alternatives B, C, D, and the Propo

public health and safety by reducing the risk of vehicles striking horses and b

Social and Economic Conditions 

No changes to social conditions are expected to occur. 

Same as Alternative A. 12 of the 16 allotments 

would no longer be available for grazing. The social impact to ranchers would be minimal because these allotments have not been grazed for many years. The five allotments that are actively grazed would remain available. 

16 allotments would no longer be availablfor grazing, which would have adverse social impacts to ranchers using these areas. These impacts would be more adverse than Alternative C, because five of the 17 allotments are actively grazed. 

From Livestock Grazing Management 

No changes to allotments would occur and no changes to economic conditions would be expected to occur. 

Economic impacts would be the same as Alternative A. 

428,170 acres currently grazed would not be affected. No significant changes in grazing fee revenues would be anticipated. Therefore, there would likely be no noticeable economic changes. 

Adverse economic impacts would likely occur because revenues would no longer be generated by livestock grazing fees, and employmenand personal income would be lost on a local level. 

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-202 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Social and Economic Conditions (cont.) 

No significant changes to social conditions would be expected to occur. 

Beneficial social impacts would likely occur to visitors interested in developed and motorized recreational opportunities. Visitors seeking remote settings and more primitive recreation may experience adverse impacts due to conflicts with developed and motorized uses. 

Social impacts under Alternative C would be similar to those addressed under Alternative B; however, impacts would be balanced between visitors seeking developed and motorized uses and those seeking more remote and primitive uses. 

Visitors seeking remote, primitive, and non-motorized types of recreation would experience beneficial impacts. Adverse social impacts may occur to those visitorseeking an increase in recreational facility development and motorized access. 

From Recreation Management 

No significant changes to economic conditions would be expected to occur. 

Beneficial economic impacts would likely result from an increase in visitors due to an emphasis on developed and motorized recreation. 

Beneficial economic impacts would likely result from emphasizing a balance of multiple uses on public lands. 

Economic impacts would be the same as Alternative A. 
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Social and Economic Conditions (cont.) 

OHV Management Areas: 400 acres Open, 169,000 acres Closed, and 1,148,600 acres Limited. Beneficial social impacts may occur from the continued availability of Open and Limited OHV Management Areas. Adverse social impacts would occur from increased recreational use of routes under current policies and practices. 

OHV Management Areas: 3,800 acres Open, 171,000 acres Closed, and 1,143,200 acres Limited. Beneficial social impacts would likely occur to those public users interested in OHV recreation. Adverse social impacts would likely be minimal, as access for both motorized and non-motorized uses would continue throughout the planning area. 

OHV Management Areas: 2,400 acres Open, 171,300 acres Closed, and 1,144,300 acres Limited. Social impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B. 

OHV Management Areas: 400 acres Open, 233,800 acres Closed, and 1,083,800 acres Limited. Social impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A. 

From Travel Management 

No significant changes to economic conditions would be expected to occur. 

Economic conditions would likely experience a slight increase due to potential increases in OHV users. 

Economic impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B. 

Economic impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A. 

From Lands and Realty Management 

74,600 acres of ROW Corridors and 200 acres on six communication sites. 

129,900 acres of ROW Corridors and 300 acres on 13 communication sites. 

129,900 acres of ROW Corridors and 300 acres on 11 communication sites. 

91,300 acres of ROW Corridors and 200 acres on eight communication sites. 

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-204 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Social and Economic Conditions (cont.) 

Leases, permits, and easements would continue to be authorized on a caseby-case basis. No significant changes to social conditions would be expected to occur. 

May adversely impact the public’s perception of the recreational experience, particularly those that enjoy solitude and primitive areas due to an increased in motorized use and diminished scenic quality. Beneficial impacts would likely occur due to an increase in utility availability to the public and improved communication capabilities. 

Impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B, with the exception that this alternative proposes significantly less land available for disposal, therefore reducing potential adverse impacts to public land users. 

Impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A. 

From Lands and Realty Management (cont.) 

19,100 acres available for disposal. 

46,900 acres available for disposal. Adverse impacts to social conditions may occur due to the increase in public land disposals as these lands may no longer be available for public use. 

10,500 acres available for disposal. 

8,200 acres available for disposal. 
2.0 D

Yuma Field Office 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Social and Economic Conditions (cont.) 

From Lands and Realty Management (cont.) 

No significant changes to economic conditions would be expected to occur. 

Economic impacts would be primarily beneficial due to an increase in ROW cCrridors and communications sites that would result in an increase in BLM revenues as well as an increase in employment related to construction and maintenance of corridors and sites in the planning area 

Economic impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B. 

Economic impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A. 

From Mineral Resource Management 

Mineral resources on 100 acres managed for Salable Minerals in one community pit may result in adverse social impacts from increased demand of mineral resources as the planning area communities grow. This alternative may not meet public demand for mineral resources as the planning area grows. 

Mineral resources on 800 acres managed for Salable Minerals in six community pits may result in beneficial social impacts from the continued and expanded availability of mineral resources to the community. 

Mineral resources on 400 acres managed for Salable Minerals in three community pits may result in beneficial and adverse social impacts similar to those discussed for Alternatives B and E, but at a lesser scale. 

Same as Alternative A. 

PRMP/FEISApril 2008 
2.0 Description of Alternatives 

Page 2-206 

Table 2-32 

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative 

(cont.) 

Environmental Element 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Social and Economic Conditions (cont.) 

From Mineral Resource Management (cont.) 

Economic conditions would remain relatively the same with regard to mineral resource management as no significant changes in resource availability would occur. 

Beneficial economic impacts would occur regarding revenue, employment, personal income, and county tax bases because of expanded availability of mineral resources. 

Beneficial economic impacts similar to those discussed for Alternatives B and E, but at a lesser scale. 

Economic impacts would be the same as Alternative A. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

CHAPTER 3.0 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 3 describes the environmental components of BLM-administered Federal lands within 

the planning area that would potentially be affected by implementation of the alternatives 

proposed and impacts described in the PRMP/FEIS. Key environmental components include: 

 Air, Water and Soil Resources 

 Vegetation Resources 

 Fish and Wildlife Resources 

 Wild Horse and Burro Management 

 Wildland Fire Management 

 Cultural Resources 

 Paleontological Resources 

 Visual Resources 

 Wilderness Characteristics Management 

 Livestock Grazing Management 

 Mineral Resources 

 Recreation Management 

 Travel Management 

 Lands and Realty Management 

 Special Designations 

 Public Health and Safety 

 Social and Economic Conditions 

 Environmental Justice 

Information sources and analysis data utilized to write this chapter were obtained from directly 

related past RMPs, Management Framework Plans, Plan Amendments, and various other 

management planning documents from BLM. Information and data were also collected from 

many other related planning documents and research publications prepared by various Federal 

and State agencies, universities, and private publications pertaining to the resources found within 

the planning area. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a description of key resources found 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

within the existing environment of the planning area, which will be used as a baseline to evaluate 

and assess the impact of the five resource management alternatives. Descriptions and analysis of 

the impacts themselves are presented in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. 

The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA direct agencies to reduce excessive paperwork by 

“incorporating by reference” relevant prior documents (40 CFR 1500.4(j)). BLM LUPs, along 

with supplements or documents tiered to those original LUPs, frequently present more detailed 

information on the affected environment of the BLM-administered public lands than can be 

presented in this PRMP/FEIS. Therefore, in an effort to reduce paperwork, the affected 

environment sections of the LUPs, supplemental, or tiered documents listed below are 

incorporated by reference. 

USDOI BLM 

 1982 FEIS, Proposed Grazing Management Program for the Lower Gila North EIS Area. 

Yuma, Mohave, Yavapai, and Maricopa Counties, Phoenix District, Arizona

 1983 Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan. Lower Gila North Resource Area, 

Arizona

 1987a Yuma District RMP and FEIS. Yuma District, Arizona 

 1987b Lower Gila South Final Wilderness EIS 

 1988a Lower Gila South RMP and FEIS. Phoenix District, Arizona

 1988b Lower Gila South RMP Monitoring Plan

 1990b Lower Gila South RMP—Goldwater Amendment

 1992b Yuma District RMP Amendment

 1994b A Final Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative EIS

 1994c Five Year Monitoring Program Planning Update for the Yuma RMP 1986-1991

 1994d Yuma District (Bill Williams) RMP Amendment

 1994e Yuma District (Havasu) RMP Amendment

 1996a Yuma District (Lands) RMP Amendment

 1997a Statewide Amendment for Standards and Guides (Arizona Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration)

 2002b North Baja EIS and Yuma District RMP Amendment 

 2004c Arizona Statewide LUP Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality

 2005c Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the Lower 

Gila South RMP 

Page 3-2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

3.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING AREA 

The planning area encompasses 1.3 million acres along the lower Colorado River in southwest 

Arizona and southeast California. It is configured in an area 155 miles long and up to 90 miles 

wide (see Chapter 1, Section 1.2, for additional planning area description). Northeastern portions 

of the planning area are in close proximity (less than 60 miles) to the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

The western boundary, approximately 150 miles east of San Diego, generally parallels the 

Colorado River to the west and includes land in California. The planning area is located in the 

counties of Yuma, La Paz, and Maricopa in Arizona and counties of Imperial and Riverside in 

California. The planning area boundary encompasses 5,035,000 acres of land with mixed 

ownerships. Within these counties, 1,318,000 acres, or 26 percent, are administered by BLM. 

Planning area acres and the percentage of BLM-administered lands within each county are 

presented in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1 

Planning Area Acres within Arizona and California Counties 

Location Total County Area 

(acres) 

YFO 

Administered 

Area (acres) 

YFO administered 

Acres as a Percent of 

Total County Area 

Arizona 

La Paz 2,880,000 660,800 22.9 

Maricopa 5,904,600 89,400 1.5 

Yuma 3,534,100 520,900 14.7 

California 

Imperial 2,942,100 28,800 1.0 

Riverside 4,608,000 18,100 0.4 

Total 19,868,800 1,318,000 6.6 

Adjacent land jurisdictions occupy approximately 5,034,983 acres within three Arizona and two 

California counties in the planning area. These land jurisdictions include AGFD, Arizona State 

Lands, Luke Air Force–BMGR, BLM Field Offices (Lake Havasu, Lower Sonoran, El Centro, 

Palm Springs, Hassayampa, and Needles), Reclamation, CDFG, Cibola NWR, Cocopah Indian 

Reservation, CRIT, Fort Yuma–Quechan Indian Reservation, Imperial NWR, Kofa NWR, 

MCAS–Yuma, YPG, and private land including regional irrigation districts. Approximately 26 

percent of the acreage in the planning area (1.3 million acres) is BLM-administered land (Map 1-

1). The majority, 89 percent, of BLM-administered land in the five counties is located within 

Yuma (676,156 acres) and La Paz (514,757 acres) counties, Arizona. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

3.2 AIR, WATER, AND SOIL RESOURCES 

3.2.1 AIR QUALITY 

The existing air resource environment in the planning area may be characterized according to 

identification of the existing sources of air pollution in the region; the climatology of the region, 

which regulates the transport of emissions; and the existing air quality within the region. These 

three topics are discussed in the following sections. 

A. CLIMATE 

The planning area is located within the Lower Colorado River Valley subdivision of the Sonoran 

Desert, which is classified as a dry tropical climate characterized by hot summers, mild winters, 

low rainfall, high evaporation rates, and low humidity (Brown 1994). According to the Arizona 

Climate Summaries produced by the Western Regional Climate Center, mean maximum summer 

temperatures in the planning area range from 110° Fahrenheit at Mohawk to 104° Fahrenheit at 

Kofa Mine and Salome, Arizona. Mean minimum winter temperatures range from 33° Fahrenheit 

at Salome to 46° Fahrenheit at Kofa Mine (Western Regional Climate Center 2005). 

The Sonoran Desert is characterized by a bimodal precipitation pattern (rainy season in both the 

winter and summer). The higher elevations in the planning area experience greater amounts of 

precipitation than lower elevations. Mean monthly precipitation varies from 0.06 to 1.4 inches 

throughout the year in Salome and from 0.01 to 0.5 inch in Yuma Valley (Western Regional 

Climate Center 2005). Because of the combination of high temperatures and low precipitation, 

the Lower Colorado River Valley is the driest subdivision of the Sonoran Desert (Brown 1994). 

Prevailing wind directions are generally from the north in the fall and winter months, from the 

west-northwest and west in the spring, and from the south-southeast in the summer months. 

Wind speeds average 7.8 miles per hour annually (Western Regional Climate Center 2005). 

B. AIR QUALITY 

The CAA, enacted in 1970 and amended in 1990, authorized the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to set air quality standards and regulate emissions of pollutants into the air to 

protect human health and the environment from the effect of airborne pollution. The CAA 

authorized the EPA to achieve this objective by setting air quality standards and regulate 

emissions of pollutants into the air. EPA has established emission standards for mobile (e.g., 

automobile) and stationary (e.g., factories) sources for pollutant emissions. These controls are 

implemented in Arizona through EPA and the ADEQ. 

The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards for seven pollutants: PM10 

(particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter), PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 

microns in diameter), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and lead. The 

standards for these pollutants are shown in Table 3-2. If the standards are violated in an area, that 

area is designated as being in “non-attainment” for that pollutant, and the State must develop a 

Page 3-4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

plan for bringing that area back into “attainment.” The State of Arizona has adopted the EPA 

standards for six of the seven pollutants, with the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in 

diameter standard only recently being promulgated by EPA. All areas within the planning area 

boundaries meet these standards, with the exception of particulate matter. 

Table 3-2 

Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (μg/m3

) 

Pollutant Averaging Time 

Federal 

(NAAQS) 

Arizona 

(AAAQS) 

California 

(CAAQS) 

24-Hour 150 150 50 PM10 Annual 50a 50 30 

24-Hour 65b -- -- PM2.5 Annual 15c -- -- 

Hourly -- -- 655 (0.25) 

3-Hour 1,300 (0.5)d 1,300 (0.5)d -- 

24-Hour 365 (0.14) 365 (0.14) 105 (0.04) Sulfur Dioxide 

Annual 80 (0.03) 80 (0.03) -- 

Hourly -- -- 470 (0.25) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 100 (0.053) 100 (0.053) -- 

Hourly 235 (0.12)e 235 (0.12) 180 (0.09) Ozone 8-Hour (0.08)f -- -- 

Hourly 40,000 (35) 40,000 (35) 20,000 Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 10,000 (9) 10,000 (9) 10,000 

90-Day -- -- 1.5 Lead Quarterly 1.5 1.5 -- 

Notes: Annual standards are never to be exceeded. Other standards are not to be exceeded more than once a year. 

The numbers in parentheses are in parts per million. 

NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; AAAQS = Arizona Ambient Air Quality Standards 

CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter a

 To attain this standard, the expected annual arithmetic mean PM10 concentration at each monitor within an area 

must not exceed 50 μg/m3

. b

 To attain this standard, the three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area must not exceed 65 μg/m3

. c

 To attain this standard, the three-year average of the annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or 

multiple community oriented monitors must not exceed 15 μg/m3

. d

 Secondary standard.

e

 The one-hour NAAQS will no longer apply to an area one year after the effective date of the designation of that area 

for the eight-hour ozone NAAQS. The effective designation data for La Paz and Yuma Counties in Arizona is 

October 18, 2000.

f

 To attain this standard, the three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 parts per million. 

The best available data on concentrations of criteria air pollutants relevant to the planning area 

are discussed in the Air Quality Baseline Report (USDOI BLM 2005e). 

C. EMISSIONS FROM ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS 

The planning area includes lands which do not meet the air quality standards for particulate 

matter and are in non-attainment for PM10 in the City of Yuma, Yuma County, Arizona. The 

primary sources of PM10 pollutants in the non-attainment area are windblown dust and human 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

activity. While windblown dust is generated in undisturbed areas, it is much more prevalent 

where the natural soils have been disturbed by human activity. Windblown dust emanates from 

agricultural fields, miscellaneous disturbed areas, unpaved roads, and urban disturbed areas. 

Other human activities contributing to particulate emissions include travel on paved and unpaved 

roads, and operation of permitted sources. 

Primary activities within the planning area that generate air pollutants include prescribed burns, 

recreational travel on and off roads and trails, road construction, site preparation, mining, and 

livestock animals. Also, emissions from inside as well as outside the planning area are generated 

by mobile sources (primarily motor vehicles), stationary or point sources (including commercial 

and industrial operations), and area sources (primarily from agricultural operations, including 

burning of field residues). 

Emission inventory data used to characterize the planning area was obtained from the EPA Air 

Data website. The most recent data available from this source at the time of this writing was 

1999 data. Table 3-3 presents 1999 total annual air pollutant emissions for each county within 

the planning area. As the majority of the planning area is contained within Yuma and La Paz 

counties in Arizona, a detail of source category emissions in these counties for 1999 has been 

provided in Table 3-4. 

Table 3-3 

1999 Emissions by County (tons per year) 

State 

County 

Name VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Arizona La Paz 2,493 3,085 22,739 169 3,207 1,133 

Arizona Yuma 8,506 10,438 58,214 572 12,850 3,254 

Arizona Maricopa 131,054 153,301 861,574 8,460 102,028 31,615 

California Imperial 11,738 15,694 86,766 791 24,918 7,519 

California Riverside 46,147 48,903 313,079 2,536 40,740 14,795 

Source: EPA Air Data 

VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = the sum of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO) concentrations

CO = carbon monoxide (CO); SO2 = sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in 

diameter 

Table 3-4 

1999 Emissions by Source Group (tons per year) 

Source Group VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Yuma County 

Fuel Combustion—Electric Utilities 20 372 202 10 19 19 

Industrial Fuel Combustion 9 586 79 39 11 8 

Other Fuel Combustion 88 273 228 8 46 45 

Other Industrial Processes 0 0 0 0 92 44 

Waste Disposal and Recycling 162 37 824 5 168 158 

Highway Vehicles 3,391 5,583 39,166 202 163 127 

OHVs 1,359 3,438 12,203 267 195 174 

Miscellaneous Sources 279 148 5,512 41 12,156 2,680 

Page 3-6 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-4 

1999 Emissions by Source Group (tons per year) 

(cont.) 

Source Group VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

La Paz County 

Fuel Combustion—Electric Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Industrial Fuel Combustion 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Fuel Combustion 28 19 97 0 13 13 

Other Industrial Processes 0 0 0 0 4 0 

Waste Disposal and Recycling 8 4 119 0 12 12 

Highway Vehicles 970 2,286 14,039 73 63 50 

OHVs 684 579 2,512 51 58 53 

Miscellaneous Sources 301 161 5,969 44 3,057 1,004 

Source: EPA Air Data 

VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = the sum of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO) concentrations

CO = carbon monoxide (CO); SO2 = sulfur dioxide (SO2); PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in 

diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

As seen in Tables 3-3 and 3-4, the majority of emissions in Yuma and La Paz counties are 

attributed to highway vehicles, OHV, and miscellaneous sources. The most predominant sources 

within the “miscellaneous sources” category are prescribed burning, road construction, and 

fugitive dust. 

D. EMISSIONS FROM ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE YUMA PM10

NON-ATTAINMENT AREA 

Yuma, Arizona experienced an exceedance of the 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for PM10 on August 18, 2002. The Yuma area is currently a moderate non-attainment 

area for PM10. If the August 18, 2002 reading is not flagged as a natural or exceptional event, the 

exceedance would be considered a violation and result in the Yuma area being reclassified to a 

non-attainment area (Map 3-1). 

ADEQ has flagged the exceedance as attributable to a high wind natural event under EPA’s 1996 

Natural Events Policy and ADEQ’s 1999 Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events Policy. 

Emission estimates for 1999 and 2016, provided in the Technical Support Document, Yuma 

Natural Events Action Plan (ADEQ 2004), are summarized in Table 3-5. For a detailed 

discussion of the major sources of PM10 in the Yuma PM10 non-attainment area see the technical 

support document. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-5 

Yuma PM10 Non-attainment Area Emissions Summary 

Emission Source 

1999 Annual 

Emissions (tons) 

2016 Annual 

Emissions (tons) 

Agricultural and Prescribed Burning 40.7 34.1 

Agricultural Tilling 3,572.0 3,572.0 

Agricultural Cultivation and Harvesting 15.7 15.7 

Windblown Dust 130,331.0 127,046.0 

Unpaved Roads – Re-entrained Dust 10,183.0 5,537.0 

Paved Roads 3,419.0 5,839.0 

Road Construction 6,761.0 10,702.0 

General Building Construction 53.8 87.7 

Aircraft 15.5 16.4 

Unpaved Airstrips 1.0 1.1 

Stationary Sources 77.0 119.0 

Railroad Locomotives 17.0 15.0 

Total 154,487.0 152,985.0 

Source: ADEQ 2004 

Note: With the exception of windblown dust, all emission estimates are for the Yuma County portion of the nonattainment area. 

E. SUMMARY OF EXISTING AIR QUALITY 

With the exception of the Yuma PM10 non-attainment area, air quality in the planning area is 

generally excellent. ADEQ has taken several steps to improve the PM10 air quality in the Yuma 

non-attainment area with the goal of having the region reclassified as an attainment area. 

3.2.2 WATER RESOURCES 

A. GROUNDWATER 

The ADWR designates the boundaries of groundwater basins within the State of Arizona. 

Portions of the Parker, Ranegras Plain, Lower Gila, Western Mexican Drainage basins, and the 

Harquahala Irrigation Non-expansion Area are within the planning area. The entire Yuma basin 

is within the planning area. The Western Mexican Drainage basin lies totally within the BMGR 

and the Cabeza Prieta NWR and thus is outside the scope of this planning document (Map 3-2) 

(ADWR 2004a). 

The planning area encompasses a small portion of land along the California side of the Colorado 

River. In California, the groundwater basins that occur adjacent to the Colorado River within the 

planning area boundary are, from north to south, Rice Valley; Quien Sabe Point Valley, which 

shares its entire border with the Colorado River Indian Reservation; Palo Verde Valley; Palo 

Verde Mesa; Arroyo Seco Valley; and Yuma Valley (Map 3-2). 

BLM manages lands directly adjacent to the Colorado River. In some places, no alluvium exists 

that could provide sustainable aquifer material. The water levels in alluvial deposits of the 

above-mentioned basins are in direct response to flow in the Colorado River (California 

Page 3-8 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Department of Water Resources 2003). Descriptions of the groundwater basins in the planning 

area are presented below. 

1. Yuma Basin (Arizona) 

The Yuma basin discussion is derived from Overby (1997). Cenozoic basin fill alluvium 

composes the groundwater reservoir in the Yuma basin. Based on measurements taken in 1992, 

water levels are relatively shallow ranging from a few feet below land surface near the Gila and 

Colorado rivers to over 300 feet below land surface in the Yuma desert. Generally, water levels 

ranged from six to eight feet below land surface to more than 20 feet below land surface in the 

valleys. Near BLM-administered land in the Laguna and Gila mountains, water levels ranged 

from nine feet to 33 feet below land surface north of U.S. Interstate Highway 8 (I-8). Deeper 

water levels exist south of I-8, as the land elevation rises to what is known as the Upper Mesa. 

Not many wells exist in this area along the Gila Mountains. Near the International Boundary 

with Mexico in the southwest portion of the Yuma basin, water levels ranged from 90 to 111 feet 

below land surface. 

Comparison of 1992 data and 1960 data shows that water levels in the Yuma basin have changed 

very little except along the International Boundary where water levels have decreased 

approximately 20 to 25 feet. This is in response to pumping from a well field east of San Luis, 

Arizona. The groundwater from this well field is delivered to Mexico. 

Water from the Colorado River is the source of almost all groundwater recharge in the Yuma 

basin. The Gila River is also a source of short-term recharge during periods of flooding. 

Groundwater is a source of irrigation water only in the South Gila Valley and in small areas 

outside the established irrigation districts and on Yuma Mesa. The City of Yuma obtains its 

drinking water almost exclusively from the Colorado River (City of Yuma 2005). Groundwater 

is used for domestic drinking water supply east of the City of Yuma and by individual RV and 

mobile home parks. Groundwater may be used in sand and gravel operations on BLMadministered land. 

Because recharge occurs mainly by Colorado River water, either directly or from irrigation 

returns, groundwater throughout the basin has total dissolved solids concentrations greater than 

500 milligrams per liter, with many wells exceeding concentrations of 1,000 milligrams per liter. 

While not necessarily a health risk, high total dissolved solids may limit the use of such 

groundwater as a drinking water source based on aesthetic qualities such as taste, odor, and 

color. 

2. Harquahala Basin and Irrigation Non-expansion Area 

Discussion of the Harquahala basin and Irrigation Non-expansion Area is derived from Hedley 

(1990). The Harquahala basin is a typical alluvium-filled structural basin of the Sonoran Desert 

Basin and Range Province. The alluvium comprises heterogeneous deposits of clay, silt, sand, 

and gravel. The thickness of the alluvium varies from 0 foot at the mountain fronts to perhaps as 

much as 5,000 feet. Groundwater occurs in a regional aquifer within the alluvium in an 

unconfined condition. In the spring of 1989, depth to water in the regional aquifer ranged from 

199 feet to 654 feet below land surface. The basin historically experienced major water level 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

declines beginning in the 1950s resulting in the designation of the basin as an Irrigation Nonexpansion Area. 

Irrigation is the primary use of groundwater in the Harquahala Irrigation Non-expansion Area. 

Wells and irrigated land are mostly on private land and land administered by the Arizona State 

Land Department. Little depth to water information exists closer to the mountain fronts (under 

land administered by BLM). Shallower depth to water might be expected in these areas, but the 

resource may also be limited due to the thinning of the alluvium. 

Moderately high concentrations of dissolved fluoride and high concentrations of dissolved solids 

in parts of the basin cause the groundwater to be not suitable for drinking purposes without 

treatment. 

3. Ranegras Plain Basin 

Source material for the Ranegras Plain basin discussion is from Johnson (1990). Groundwater in 

the Ranegras Plain basin primarily occurs in Tertiary and Quaternary alluvium comprising clay, 

volcanics, conglomerate, and smaller amounts of sand and gravel. Groundwater in the basin 

generally flows to the northwest toward the Town of Bouse. Depth to water in the center of the 

basin, north of U.S. Interstate Highway 10 (I-10), generally ranged from 175 to 300 feet below 

land surface. I-10 forms the northern boundary of the planning area in this basin. The majority of 

the land in the basin south of I-10 is administered by BLM. There are little groundwater data 

available south of I-10. A review of well registration records indicates that water levels are 

probably in excess of 200 feet below land surface in this area (ADWR 2004a). 

North of I-10, irrigation is the primary use of groundwater in the Ranegras Plain basin. There is a 

small amount of private land and land administered by the Arizona State Land Department south 

of I-10, where irrigation is also the primary use of groundwater. Some commercial/light 

industrial use occurs along I-10. Livestock watering is the primary use of groundwater on BLMadministered land within this basin. 

4. Parker Basin 

Little published information exists regarding groundwater conditions throughout the Parker 

basin. The Parker groundwater basin extends along the Colorado River from above the northwest 

boundary of the planning area roughly to Imperial Dam. The eastern boundary of the basin abuts 

the Ranegras Plain basin and runs through the Kofa NWR and along the Chocolate Mountains to 

the Colorado River near Imperial Dam. The basin includes the Cibola Valley and La Posa Plains 

sub-basins. The Cibola Valley sub-basin comprises the southern portion of the Parker basin 

along the Colorado River. Groundwater in this sub-basin is generally in hydraulic connection to 

the river. The La Posa Plains sub-basin may be considered an “internal” basin, separated from 

direct impact by flow in the Colorado River. 

The CRIT Reservation covers most areas adjacent to the Colorado River from the northern 

boundary of the planning area to I-10. The majority of BLM-administered lands within the basin 

are in the La Posa Plain sub-basin surrounding the Town of Quartzsite, and in a narrow strip 

along Highway 95 between the YPG and the Kofa NWR. The remainder of BLM-administered 

land is limited to near the Colorado River in the Cibola Valley sub-basin. 

Page 3-10 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

In the northern part of the basin, the Colorado River alluvium overlies the Miocene Bouse 

Formation. It is reported that the Bouse Formation and the Colorado River alluvium constitute 

the main aquifer in the Parker Valley (Tucci 1982). Groundwater within the Colorado River 

alluvium is in hydraulic connection with and responds to changes in flow of the river. Near the 

river, water levels may be expected to be only several feet below the land surface. River water is 

the main source of agricultural irrigation. Drainage ditches lower the water table beneath 

cropland and maintain it at sufficient depths to reduce waterlogging and damage to crops (OwenJoyce 1988). Further away from the river, groundwater is used as a domestic drinking water 

source, primarily in the Town of Quartzsite, Arizona. Groundwater is also used in sand and 

gravel and other mining operations in the Parker basin. 

Most of the La Posa Plain sub-basin is undeveloped, with the Town of Quartzsite being an 

obvious exception. The Town of Quartzsite’s population in 2002 was reported at 3,430. The 

influx of winter visitors causes the population to approach a temporary peak of 250,000. The 

town supplies drinking water to its population from two wells. One well draws water from 600 

feet and the other from 1,000 feet below land surface (Quartzsite 2005). BLM provides water to 

the La Posa LTVA south of the Town of Quartzsite through a well located in the southeast 

portion of the LTVA. 

The ADWR maintains water level index wells near the Town of Quartzsite. The water level in 

one well west of town near I-10 measured 494 feet below land surface in 2003. The water level 

had declined 10 feet over the past 10 years. The water level in a well six miles south measured 

138 feet below land surface in 2004. The water level has declined 18 feet in the past 13 years 

(Overby 2005). 

5. Lower Gila Basin 

There is no recent publication describing the groundwater resource in the Lower Gila basin. 

Conditions are considered relatively stable precluding additional investigations (Overby 2005). 

Groundwater use in the Lower Gila basin is concentrated in the Wellton-Mohawk area 

immediately adjacent to the Gila River. The primary source of groundwater is imported irrigation 

water. The main water-bearing unit comprises the unconsolidated alluvium deposited by the Gila 

River and its ephemeral tributaries, and the unconsolidated to weakly consolidated alluvium in 

the valleys separating the mountains. The quality of the groundwater makes it marginal to 

unusable for irrigation. Most of the water used for irrigation is imported from the Colorado 

River. Low well yields in the rest of the basin allow for domestic, livestock watering, and small 

mining uses (Leake and Clay 1979). 

B. GROUNDWATER QUALITY

Water quality varies with depth and location in the planning area. Total dissolved solid content in 

1988 ranged from less than 1,000 to 4,000 milligrams per liter. Extensive groundwater 

contamination by agricultural pesticides and nitrates exists in the Yuma area (ADEQ 1998). 

Volatile organic compound contamination has been reported at the MCAS-Yuma (ADWR 2006). 

The Town of Quartzsite, Arizona, is a small desert community of about 3,430 residents, mostly 

retired. Its economy is supported by a January-through-February gem show, which attracts as 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

many as a million annual visitors, many of whom are campers. This seasonal influx has caused a 

great burden on the upper groundwater aquifer compounding an existing problem of improperly 

maintained septic systems. The upper groundwater aquifer ranges in depth from 40 to 75 feet 

below the surface in shallow areas and from 400 to 500 feet below the surface in the deeper 

aquifer areas. ADEQ found high levels of nitrates in the groundwater of the shallow aquifer. An 

exhaustive study found that the contamination was caused by illegal dumping of waste and 

septage from RVs. A regional wastewater treatment system to address this problem is currently 

being planned. The system would include creating several RV dump stations around the 

community. 

Known groundwater contamination also exists within Tyson Wash, northwest of the intersection 

of Highway 95 and Business Route I-10 in the Town of Quartzsite. Tetrachloroethene, a solvent 

commonly used in dry cleaning, is present in the groundwater approximately 40 to 70 feet below 

the ground (ADEQ 2001). 

ADEQ’s Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program conducts sampling in groundwater basins 

throughout the State. Monitoring efforts were focused in 1998 to two areas (Maricopa and Yuma 

counties) based on the results of previous data collected. These areas have intense agricultural 

activities. Groundwater in these areas was tested for six constituents: pesticides; arsenic; 

fluoride; hardness; nitrates; radiochemicals (gross alpha and uranium); and total dissolved solids. 

The Yuma areas tested above average for nitrates and total dissolved solids. Generally, the 

highest nitrate concentrations tend to follow an arc starting in the Casa Grande area, continuing 

through Buckeye, and reaching Yuma through the lower Gila River area. The highest total 

dissolved solids levels were associated with agricultural areas along the Colorado, Gila, and 

Virgin rivers (ADEQ 2004). 

The YFO recreation program manages water treatment facilities designed to treat sewage and 

protect water quality. At the Imperial LTVA there are currently two lined evaporative lagoons 

located at South Mesa. The YFO is permitted by the California Regional Water Quality Control 

Board to monitor the wastewater at these sewage lagoons per order number R7-2002-0007. The 

wastewater stream has been monitored on an annual basis and is in compliance for all designated 

criteria. The La Posa LTVA treats sewage through a leachfield system. The Quartzsite area does 

not produce enough water resources for a lagoon system. The leachfield is perched on a 210 foot 

layer of silt and gravel which overlays 1,000 feet of clay, safely separating it from any aquifer. 

YFO has been in compliance with water quality standards at this facility. Construction plans are 

being developed to augment or replace the existing system to meet current ADEQ standards. 

Wells associated with the LTVAs provide drinking water for the winter visitors. Two wells have 

been developed in the La Posa LTVA. One drilled in 1985 supplies approximately 10,000 

gallons a day. Another well, drilled in 2002 provides a smaller output of 1,500 gallons per day. 

Drinking water is also provided at the Imperial LTVA and at Squaw Lake. Two Reclamation 

piezometer wells were equipped and are being used for water source wells. The remaining 

piezometer wells in the area still allow for groundwater quality monitoring throughout the 

Imperial LTVA. There are several wells associated with mining claims and agricultural leases 

throughout the planning area. Should activity cease on the claim or at the lease, the wells would 

become Federal government property and the determination of whether or not the wells are 

capped would be made by BLM. 

Page 3-12 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

C. SURFACE WATER 

1. Surface Water Features 

Surface waters in the planning area can be divided into sub-basins or portions of the landscape 

that collect runoff from the surface, concentrate it into channels, and conduct the resulting flow 

to a definable outlet (Map 3-3). The National Water Resources Council and the U.S. Geological 

Survey standardized watershed boundaries in the Southwest (U.S. Water Resources Council 

1978). The planning area occurs within the Lower Colorado River Region, which is further 

divided into smaller basins and then sub-basins. Sub-basins that make up the majority of the 

planning area include the Imperial Reservoir, Lower Colorado River, Lower Gila River, Tyson 

Wash, Bouse Wash, Centennial Wash, Tenmile Wash, San Cristobal Wash, Tule Desert, Rio 

Sonoyta, and Yuma Desert Area sub-basins. 

Surface waters in the planning area range from large rivers to dry washes (Map 3-3). The two 

primary surface waters are the Colorado and Gila rivers, which total 152 miles and 107 miles in 

length, respectively (Table 3-6). Over 10,000 additional miles of ditches and washes also occur 

in the planning area. Most of these (92 percent) are intermittent (dry washes that only flow when 

sufficient precipitation falls within the watershed; flows can last anywhere from momentary to 

24 hours depending upon the intensity of the storm). The remaining eight percent are considered 

perennial; however, these primarily consist of irrigation ditches and canals. There are no 

perennial streams within the planning area. 

Table 3-6 

Lengths of Rivers, Ditches, and Washes in Planning Area 

Surface Water Length within Yuma Planning Area (miles) 

Colorado River 152 

Gila River 107 

Other Ditches and Washes 10,595 

Total Length in Planning Unit 10,854 

Source: Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resources Information System, and Reclamation 

2001 

Surface water information, including types, lengths, and locations, was provided by the 

hydrography layer obtained from the Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resources 

Information System (converted in 1988 from U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000 scale, digital 

line graph data). Additionally, surface water miles along the Colorado River within the planning 

area were obtained from Reclamation (2001). 

Several dams occur within the planning area including the Palo Verde Diversion Dam, Imperial 

Dam, and Laguna Dam, all on the Colorado River, and the Morelos Dam at the Northerly 

International Boundary. Upstream of Morelos Dam, the main river channel carries water that is 

delivered to Mexico pursuant to the 1944 Water Treaty, along with occasional high flows. 

Normally, all of these water deliveries are diverted into Mexico’s Reforma Canal at Morelos 

Dam. The diversity of surface water types reflects the varied topography, climate, and human 

modification of the landscapes. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Dripping Springs is the only perennial spring located on BLM-administered land within the 

planning area; it is an important source of water for several wildlife species. This microhabitat 

supports various riparian associated plant species and is an important oasis in the desert 

environment. 

2. Surface Water Use 

Despite a relatively dry climate, the Colorado River contains substantial surface water and serves 

as the primary water source in the planning area. The Gila River also flows occasionally, but 

most of the lower Gila River is ephemeral and flows only in response to precipitation or water 

releases from upstream dams (ADWR 2005). Aside from these major rivers and associated 

reservoirs, the only perennial surface water located on BLM-administered land in the planning 

area is Dripping Springs, located southeast of the Town of Quartzsite. This spring is used 

primarily by wildlife. 

The Colorado River originates at about 10,000 feet elevation in the Rocky Mountains of 

Colorado and flows southwest for 1,470 miles to the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez) in 

Mexico. It marks the International Boundary between Arizona and Mexico for 23.7 miles in the 

planning area. Before the construction of more than 20 dams along its route and tributaries, its 

flow regularly reached the Gulf of California. In total, the Colorado River drains 242,000 square 

miles in the U.S. and 3,000 square miles in Mexico. 

The Secretary of the Interior is vested with the responsibility to manage the mainstream 

waters of the lower Colorado River pursuant to a body of law commonly referred to as the 

“Law of the River.” The Law of the River includes, but is not limited to, Federal and State 

laws, interstate compacts, an international treaty, court decisions, Federal contracts, Federal 

and State regulations, and multi-party agreements. 

In 1963, a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court made explicit the amount of water appropriated 

among the lower Colorado River states, as well as the amounts that had been implicitly 

"reserved" for Native American tribes and Federal public lands. This decision prompted funding 

of the Central Arizona Project, completed in the 1980s. The project comprises a mountain 

aqueduct through which water from the southern end of Lake Havasu on the Colorado River is 

pumped up and into an aqueduct that flows southward to the two cities of Phoenix and Tucson. A 

relatively short segment of this tunnel crosses the planning area near the northeastern boundary. 

The headwaters of the Gila River originate in the Mogollon Mountains of western New Mexico. 

The river flows west across southern Arizona, draining 57,900 square miles before joining the 

Colorado River near Yuma within the planning area. Before dams were built on the Gila River 

upstream of the planning area, flow would occur during spring snowmelt and summer monsoon 

rains. 

Within the planning area, most diversions from the Colorado and Gila rivers provide water for 

the large agricultural production area, but other uses are also supported. Within the State of 

Arizona, water withdrawals are prioritized into first through sixth water priorities, depending on 

when rights were originally claimed (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). BLM’s water 

entitlements in the State of Arizona are fourth priority. As of July 2004, 348 surface water filings 

existed in the planning area, including rights and claims established under the Public Water Code 

Page 3-14 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

(1919), the Water Rights Registration Act (1974), and the Stockpond Registration Act (1977). Of 

these, 10 percent (35 filings) were filed by the BLM for wildlife and recreation uses (ADWR 

2004a). The priority dates of BLM filings span from 1926 through 2001. The remaining filings 

include 20 filed by other Federal agencies, 37 by Arizona agencies or the University of Arizona, 

and 256 by private individuals, companies, or irrigation districts. 

Surface water in the planning area is also used to support wildlife, livestock, agriculture, and 

mining. Wildlife catchments have been created in the planning area and are managed by AGFD. 

In total, 52 wildlife catchments exist in the planning area. In addition, wells, tanks, springs, and 

other water sources have been established for livestock and wildlife. BLM allotment permittees 

are also allowed to put in wells or catchments. Water in the planning area is limited. Refer to the 

Grazing Management section for additional details. Agricultural leases are obtained from the 

YFO; however, lessees must obtain their own irrigation water. Similarly, mining claimants must 

obtain their own water supply for mining activities on BLM-administered lands in the planning 

area. 

3. Surface Water Quality 

Several legal and policy requirements govern surface water quality, including the CWA, the 

Colorado Salinity Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Action Plan, EO 

11988 on Floodplain Management, and BMPs. Under Section 303(d) of the 1972 CWA, states, 

territories and authorized tribes are required to develop a list of water quality limited segments. 

Waters on the list do not meet water quality standards or support beneficial uses, even after point 

sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. 

The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for water on the lists and 

develop action plans, called TMDL, to improve water quality. 

Surface water bodies are listed for water quality impairment in the lower Colorado River below 

Imperial Reservoir and the lower Gila River below Painted Rock Dam (local drainage) 

watersheds, two watersheds within the planning area. However, only one impaired water body, a 

segment of the Gila River, is proposed for listing under the 2004 303(d) listing within the 

planning area; the remaining impaired streams and lakes in these watersheds occur upstream of 

the planning area. The segment of the Gila River proposed for listing extends from Coyote Wash 

to Fortuna Wash. This segment was on Arizona’s 1998 303(d) list for turbidity and boron 

(ADEQ 2005). It became part of the active monitoring program and is again proposed for listing 

in Arizona’s 2004 303(d) list of impaired waters. The 2004 list identifies boron and selenium as 

the water quality issues in this segment. No TMDL assessments have been conducted to date 

(ADEQ 2005) in the planning area. 

The proposed Gila River segment is currently under review as part of Arizona’s 2004 303(d) list. 

On November 16, 2004, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Arizona's 303(d) 

listing submission. EPA identified additional waters and pollutants that need to be included on 

Arizona's final 303(d) list. After EPA transmits the final 303(d) list to the ADEQ and following 

the public comment period, BLM will incorporate EPA's changes and will publish the final 

303(d) Listing Report. California is currently developing the 2004 Section 303(d) list. On July 

25, 2003, EPA approved California's 2002 303(d) list. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Arizona has been affected by drought conditions during most of the last decade (Arizona 

Governor’s Drought Task Force 2004a). Recent conditions on the Colorado River, and economic 

and environmental drought impacts, have resulted in the creation of a statewide drought strategy. 

On March 20, 2003 Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano issued EO 2003-12 and established the 

Governor’s Drought Task Force to address drought issues under the leadership of the ADWR 

(Arizona Governor’s Drought Task Force 2004a). This effort emphasizes providing assistance to 

rural communities with potable water supply needs and includes a water conservation strategy 

(Arizona Governor’s Drought Task Force 2004b). 

Goals of the annual Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan include identifying the impacts of 

drought on water users, defining sources of drought vulnerability, establishing monitoring 

programs to alert water users and resource managers to the onset and severity of droughts, and 

preparing drought response options and mitigation strategies to reduce the impact of drought on 

water users. The plan identifies a process for communication and coordination between Arizona 

State agencies, Federal agencies (including the BLM), Tribal governments, State lawmakers, 

water users, resource managers, and scientists. 

Management concerns related to surface water include the proliferation of giant salvinia 

throughout the lower Colorado River, potentially elevated levels of nitrate related to agricultural 

uses, the ongoing regional drought, and detectable levels of perchlorate in the Gila River (Green 

2005). The withdrawal of water from the Colorado and Gila rivers causes depletions that are not 

entirely replaced by natural runoff. Much of the remaining water is lost to evaporation and 

groundwater recharge. Sedimentation from soil erosion (described in the Soil Resources section) 

may contribute to water quality degradation. Washes used as travel ways for vehicles occur 

throughout this dry region. 

D. FLOODPLAINS 

The YFO is subject to occasional high-intensity summer and fall rainstorms which can lead to 

flash flooding. The greatest hazard from these thunderstorms occurs in the usually dry washes, 

particularly those where human activities have modified the natural drainage system. The 

Colorado River is also subject to flooding throughout the winter and spring season from rapid 

snowmelt in the upper Colorado River Watershed. 

The major flood control structures on the lower Colorado River are the Glen Canyon and Hoover 

Dams. The two major water storage levels in these reservoirs are regulated in association with 

the small reservoirs to provide flood protection, year-round water use, and hydroelectric power. 

In combination with these storage facilities, Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

have developed extensive levee systems along many parts of the river to ensure safe passage of 

water during periods of high flow. 

BLM-administered public lands along the lower Colorado River are used for recreation, wildlife 

habitat, and agriculture. Agricultural use of the floodplain is described in Section 3.15 Lands and 

Realty under the Land Disposal and Acquisition sections, wildlife use in the floodplain is 

described in Section 3.4, Fish and Wildlife, under the Riparian subsection, and the recreation use 

is described in Section 3.13, Recreation, of this chapter. 

Page 3-16 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

The base floodplain is an area expected to be inundated by floodwaters on the average of once in 

100 years. Flood insurance rate maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

are generally accepted as the best delineations of base floodplains. 

The Colorado River Floodway Protection Act, Public Law 99-450, was signed into law on 

October 8, 1986. The Act calls for the establishment of a federally declared floodway from Davis 

Dam to the Southerly International Boundary between the United States and Mexico. As required 

by the Act, Reclamation has developed maps that show the floodway boundaries. In accordance 

with Section 5 of the Act, these floodway maps shall have the same force and effect as if 

included in the Act. BLM adheres to the stipulations listed in the Act when it allows 

development in the floodway. 

3.2.3 SOIL RESOURCES 

Arizona is characterized by three physiographic provinces: the Colorado Plateau, the Basin and 

Range, and a Transition Zone of intermediate characteristics. The planning area lies within the 

Basin and Range physiographic province (Hendricks 1985). 

The Basin and Range physiographic province occupies approximately the southwestern 40 

percent of Arizona and is characterized by northwest-trending, block-faulted mountain ranges 

separated by deep, alluvium-filled basins. The province was created about 20 million years ago 

as the earth's crust stretched, thinned, and then broke into some 400 mountain blocks that partly 

rotated from their original horizontal positions. These mountains of late Precambrian and 

Paleozoic rock continue to erode and fill the intervening valleys with fresh sediment (USDOI 

USGS 2004). 

Mountain ranges in the planning area generally are dominated by Tertiary volcanics with some 

Precambrian (Proterozoic) to Mesozoic igneous or metamorphic core complexes. The deep 

intermontane basins generally contain Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks overlain by 

Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic sequences. 

The planning area occurs within the Sonoran Basin and Range ecoregion (EPA 2005). 

Ecoregions are large units of land and water that share similar climate, topography, and 

biological communities. Ecoregions can provide a spatial framework for ecosystem assessment, 

research, inventory, monitoring, and management (Weinstein et al. 2003). The Sonoran Basin 

and Range subecoregion contains scattered low mountains and has large tracts of federally 

owned land, including BLM-administered lands. Much of this area is used for military training. 

The soils in the planning area are associated with a variety of climates, vegetative cover, 

topography, and geology. A detailed soil survey is available for the YPG (USDA SCS 1991), but 

it does not extend to other portions of the planning area. This soil survey and the STATSGO for 

Arizona (USDA NRCS 1994) were used to characterize soils in the planning area. The same 

approach was adopted in the Preliminary Assessment of Biodiversity Values and Management 

Framework Adaptation for the Expanded Kofa Complex and Yuma Resource Management Area 

in Southwestern Arizona (Weinstein et al.2003). Particular soil features were identified based on 

communications with BLM specialists and the Expanded Kofa Complex vegetation map 

(Weinstein et al. 2003). 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

In total, five soil suborders (specific soil types) are found in the planning area (Map 3-4). Almost 

90 percent of the planning area consists of Aridisols (Table 3-7), a soil order (general soil type) 

of the USDA NRCS Soil Classification System. Aridisols are commonly found in dry 

environments that are low in organic matter and rich in deposited salts. Of the remaining 10 

percent of the planning area, the largest area consists of Entisols, or soils of recent development 

with no or poorly developed soil horizons. Less than one percent of the planning area consists of 

badlands, rock outcrop, and water. Badlands occur in semi-arid landscapes that have been 

influenced by heavy river (fluvial) erosion. They are characterized by deep ravines and gullies, 

sharp ridges, and generally barren surfaces. 

Table 3-7 

Soil Order, Suborder, and Areas in Planning Area 

Soil Type Area within the Planning Area 

Soil Order Soil Suborder Acres Percent (%) 

Argids 1,679,900 33.4 Aridisols Orthids 2,736,600 54.4 

Fluvents 418,700 8.3 

Entisols Orthents 157,100 3.1 

Psamments 4,600 0.1 

Badlands 6,500 0.1 

Rock Outcrop 22,300 0.4 

Water 8,300 0.2 

Total within Planning Area 5,034,000 100.0 

Source: STATSGO (USDA NRCS 1994) 

In general, soils in the planning area developed under hot, dry conditions and are characterized 

as having thermic or hyperthermic temperature regimes and aridic or semi-aridic moisture 

regimes. The soil suborders Orthids and Argids occur throughout the planning area (Map 3-4). 

These soils are light-colored, contain little organic matter, and have at least one diagnostic 

subhorizon. Orthids can be calcareous throughout, but can also have accumulations of carbonates 

(calcic horizon), cemented carbonates (petrocalcic horizon), or cemented silica (duripan), with 

limited areas having accumulations of gypsum (gypsic horizon). 

Argids can have clay (argillic horizon) or sodium (natric horizon) accumulations in the 

subsurface. Sonoran and Mohave Desert Scrub are the primary vegetation communities 

associated with Orthids and Argids soils in the planning area. Fluvents occur along the Gila 

River floodplain in the planning area. In general, Fluvents form in recent loamy or clayey 

alluvial deposits near stream channels or on piedmont slopes. Several vegetation communities, 

including Chihuahuan Desert Scrub, Plains and Great Basin Grassland, Great Basin Desert 

Scrub, and Great Basin Pinyon–Juniper Woodland are associated with Fluvents in the planning 

area. 

Orthents occur along rocky areas in the planning area. These shallow soils develop over rock and 

are commonly found on steep slopes or very dry environments. Orthent soils are characterized by 

a lack of horizon development, because they form in dry climates and the parent materials are 

resistant to weathering. Sonoran and Mohave Desert Scrub are the primary vegetation 

Page 3-18 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

communities associated with Orthents. Psamments, poorly developed sandy soils, are associated 

with sand dunes in the planning area. 

A. SENSITIVE SOILS 

Sensitive soils occur throughout the planning area and include desert pavement, cryptobiotic 

(biological) soil crusts, stabilized sand dunes, and wetland soils. Sensitive soils are significant 

because of their susceptibility to erosion and their roles in supporting plants and wildlife. Soil 

disturbances (particularly to sensitive soils) last a long time in the arid southwest where 

estimated recovery times range from less than a century up to several millennia depending on the 

nature and intensity of the disturbance and soil properties (Belnap et al. 2001; Weinstein et al. 

2003). 

Desert pavements and cryptobiotic (biological) soil crusts are scattered throughout the planning 

area. Desert pavements form in the most arid parts of the Sonoran Desert, where annual rainfall 

is generally less than eight inches on average (Weinstein et al. 2003). Desert pavements occur on 

low flat ridges separated by narrow channels (rills). Examples of desert pavement within the 

planning area occur on the Palomas Plain (Weinstein et al. 2003). Desert pavement consists of a 

single layer of tightly packed pebbles and small stones, the surface of which is covered with a 

dark varnish. Extremely fine-grained soils of silt- and clay-sized particles are found beneath the 

pavement surface (McAuliffe 1999). Perennial plants are often absent from these surfaces; 

instead the pavements support a sparse seasonal cover of ephemeral species (Turner and Brown 

1994). The tightly packed surface of desert pavement inhibits infiltration of precipitation and 

promotes runoff, which funnels water into the adjacent rills (Weinstein et al. 2003). Desert 

pavements may play a key role in hydrologic function by transferring rainfall and surface runoff 

from a large area and funneling it to nearby wooded wash channels that support trees and other 

vegetation (Turner and Brown 1994). 

Cryptobiotic soil crusts are composed of highly specialized communities of cyanobacteria, 

mosses, and lichens. These biological crusts cover open spaces between vascular plants on 

relatively barren soils. Cryptobiotic crusts generally occur where vascular plant cover is sparse. 

Crust cover is generally greatest at lower elevation sites in semiarid areas (Belnap et al. 2001). 

The vertical and horizontal vascular plant structure of many semi-arid vegetation communities 

optimizes growth of biological soil crusts. Vascular plants create windbreaks and shade, 

influencing how much moisture and light reach the soil surface. They also trap leaf litter, 

keeping the interspaces free of substantial or persistent litter cover. Biological crusts in many 

regions are best developed in interspaces between shrubs. Invasive exotic plants generally 

decrease the biological crust cover in most ecosystems (Belnap et al. 2001). Stable or embedded 

rocks at or near the soil surface can increase soil crust cover by perching water and armoring the 

surface from physical disturbances. In general, more stable, fine-textured soils (such as silty 

loams) support greater crustal cover than less stable, coarse-textured soils (Belnap et al. 2001). 

North and east slopes generally favor crustal development. 

Stabilized sand dunes form another sensitive soil in the planning area. Stabilized dunes have 

more dense vegetation cover than other dune types, which anchors sand in place. Sand dune 

complexes were identified as part of the vegetation mapping for the Expanded Kofa Complex 

(Weinstein et al. 2003). Dune systems within the Expanded Kofa Complex are principally 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

stabilized or semi-stabilized dunes with small areas of unvegetated, active dunes. Major dune 

complexes within the planning area include (1) the La Posa Dunes on the La Posa Plain in the 

northern portion of the planning area, (2) relatively small, isolated dune patches on the western 

arm of YPG near Cibola, referred to as the Cibola Dunes, (3) the northern portion of the 

Mohawk Dunes near Dateland; and, (4) the mesa dunefield in the southern portion of Yuma. 

Sand dunes serve as significant soil resources, because they support rare plant communities. 

Wetland soils occur in areas along the Colorado and Gila rivers throughout the planning area. 

Overuse of natural surface water and groundwater resources and the loss of natural hydrological 

regimes have affected wetland soils (Weinstein et al. 2003). For detailed information about 

wetland and riparian areas, also refer to the Vegetative Resources section. 

B. PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLAND 

The USDA NRCS formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service has defined Important 

Farmlands in Yuma and La Paz County into three categories, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 

and Additional Irrigated Farmland. Prime Farmland is one of the most important resources of the 

Nation. This exceptional land can be farmed continuously or nearly continuously without 

degrading the environment. It will produce food, fiber, forage, feed and oilseed crops with the 

least amount of energy used. It is the most responsive to management and requires the least 

investment for maintaining the productivity. 

Unique Farmlands are land other than Prime Farmland that is used for production of specific 

high-value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing 

season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high-quality and/or high yields of a 

specific crop when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. Examples of 

such crops are citrus, seed crops, vegetables, and fruit. 

Additional Irrigated Farmland has some properties that distinguish it from Prime Farmland 

including seasonal wetness, limited rooting depth or flooding. 

All YFO agricultural leases within the planning area are Prime or Unique farmland. YFO 

currently authorizes approximately 1,528 acres of land in Arizona and California for agricultural 

lease (approximately 228 acres in California and 1,300 acres in Arizona). All cropland in YFO is 

irrigated cropland due to limited rainfall (three inches or less per year) (USDA NRCS 2005). 

3.3 VEGETATION RESOURCES 

The planning area is within the Lower Colorado Valley Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert. The 

extreme aridity characterizing this region is reflected in open plains covered sparsely with 

drought-tolerant shrubs, grasses, and cacti. Vegetation succession progresses very slowly in the 

desert, except where surface disturbance has taken place or moisture levels are high as a result of 

human influence. Despite the prolific seed-producing ability of many desert species, only a few 

plants survive to maturity due to low rainfall and harsh air and soil temperatures (USDOI BLM 

1987b). Low precipitation also results in very slow perennial plant growth, and annual 

Page 3-20 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

production of woody materials in the planning area is especially low as a result of these slow 

growth rates. Average rainfall for the planning area is three inches annually. 

3.3.1 TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION 

Upland desert vegetation communities begin only a few hundred feet from the major river 

systems and associated riparian vegetation. Variation in slope, substrate, elevation, drainage, and 

disturbance regimes results in development of a variety of upland vegetation types. The upland 

vegetation, exclusive of riparian areas, can be generally split into two Major Land Resource 

Areas as classified by the USDA NRCS: Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub (sub-unit number 40-

4AZ) and Sonoran-Mohave Desert Shrub Mix (sub-unit number 40-3AZ) (USDA NRCS 2005). 

A. LOWER SONORAN DESERT SCRUB LAND RESOURCE UNIT 

Vegetation in the Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub Major Land Resource Areas comprises the 

majority of the planning area. This class of vegetation occurs within the elevation range of 200 

feet at Imperial Reservoir to 3,788 feet at Castle Dome Peak. Creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), 

bursage (Ambrosia spp.), and brittlebush (Encelia spp.) are common to all desert washes. Trees 

such as paloverde (Parkinsonia spp.), ironwood, catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), and mesquite, 

are confined primarily to the major washes. The nearly level alluvial fans and plains have 

uniform stands of sparsely spaced shrubs dominated by creosotebush. Sand dunes are also 

common in some areas. 

Upland plant communities in this Major Land Resource Area are dominated by desert shrubs and 

cacti. Creosote and white bursage are the major shrubs. Big galleta (Pleuraphis rigida) and 

longleaf Mormon-tea (Ephedra trifurca) dominate sandy sites, and hill sites are dominated by 

white brittlebush and teddybear cholla (Opuntia bigelovii) with an overstory of littleleaf 

paloverde (Parkinsonia microphylla), ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), and elephant tree 

(Bursera microphylla). Trees common in bottom sites include mesquite, blue paloverde, catclaw 

acacia, smoketree dalea, and bitter condalia (Condalia globosa). Winter annual grasses and forbs 

are present following favorable moisture. Ephemeral production by these annual species is an 

important source of forage for wildlife and livestock in the planning area. Average annual 

production of these shrub lands is 200 pounds per acre (USDA NRCS 2005). 

B. SONORAN-MOHAVE DESERT SHRUB MIX LAND RESOURCE 

UNIT 

The Sonoran-Mohave Desert Scrub Mix Major Land Resource Area occurs on mountain slopes 

and relatively high elevations within the planning area (between 1,800 feet in the Mohave 

Mountains and 5,681 feet in the Harquahala Mountains). This type supports a rich mixture of flora 

in areas where coarse soils allow deep infiltration of rainwater. Some cacti, paloverde, desert 

ironwood, and crucifixion thorn (Canotia holacantha) grow in fairly dense stands in mountain 

washes. However, the rocky areas have sparse vegetation and appear barren. North-facing slopes in 

these areas often harbor very diverse vegetation communities relative to nearby habitats. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-21 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Plant communities in this Land Resource Unit are dominated by over-stories of large shrubs and 

low trees with understories of perennial grasses and forbs. Upland sites are dominated by large 

shrubs such as creosotebush, whitethorn acacia (Acacia constricta), littleleaf paloverde, 

crucifixion thorn, and Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) with understories of bush muhly 

(Muhlenbergia porteri), big galleta, threeawn (Aristida spp.), desert globe mallow (Sphaeralcea 

ambigua), desert marigold (Baileya multiradiata), and spiny golden head. Average annual 

production of these shrubby plant communities is about 600 pounds per acre. Soils of this Land 

Resource Unit are thermic (USDA NRCS 2005). 

3.3.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND RESOURCE 

AREAS 

Past efforts to map and describe vegetation in the planning area have been conducted at a very 

large scale or have relied on physiographic descriptions rather than maps to describe 

communities. Recent efforts using a combination of remote sensing, aerial photography 

interpretation, and ground-truthing have been used to create a more refined and detailed map of 

upland vegetation communities (Weinstein et al. 2003). Gap Analysis Program data available 

from the U.S. Geological Survey was used for fire management planning and used to initially 

characterize the vegetation of the planning area. This data was further augmented with 

information from a variety of sources and methods, including community models to provide a 

complete coverage representing the plant communities within the planning area (Map 3-5). A 

description of vegetation communities is found below (Hall et al. 2001; Weinstein et al. 2003). 

Additional community descriptions may be found in original sources and other regional 

vegetation descriptions such as: U.S. Geological Survey GAP Analysis (2001 and 2004) and 

Brown et al. (1979). 

A. CREOSOTEBUSH—BURSAGE DESERT SCRUB 

This community occupies flat to moderate slopes in valley bottoms and plains, low rolling hills, 

and lower bajadas extending from surrounding mountain ranges. This community is 

characterized by sparse cover of shrubs, co-dominated by creosotebush, white bursage 

(Ambrosia dumosa), triangle leaf bursage, ocotillo, white ratany (Krameria grayi), and jumping 

cholla (Opuntia fulgida) (Weinstein et al. 2003; Hall et al. 2001). The understory is typically 

sparse but may be seasonally abundant with ephemerals (Hall et al. 2001). This community is the 

most extensive of the upland communities and comprises the majority of the BLM-administered 

lands in the planning area. 

B. PALO VERDE–MIXED CACTI–MIXED SCRUB ON BAJADAS

This community is present on the upper bajadas (coalesced alluvial fans) of desert mountain 

ranges, generally transitioning into Creosotebush-Bursage Desert Scrub on the lower bajadas and 

valley bottoms. A sparse canopy of saguaro cacti (Carnegiea gigantea) and/or leguminous trees 

and a patchy understory of large and small cacti, shrubs, herbs, and grasses characterize these 

areas (Weinstein et al. 2003; Hall et al. 2001). Bursage dominates the subcanopy layer and at the 

community level is at least a co-dominant and often a dominant in regard to overall abundance. 

Page 3-22 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

The sparse herbaceous layer is dominated by perennial grasses and forbs with annuals seasonally 

present and occasionally abundant (Hall et al. 2001). 

C. PALO VERDE–MIXED CACTI–MIXED SCRUB ON ROCKY 

SLOPES 

This community occurs on bedrock outcrops throughout low mountain ranges, often above the 

bajadas community. Vegetation cover may be sparse or absent, particularly on large rock 

outcrops and areas with more arid climates. Some species characteristic of the Mountain Upland 

community may be present on north facing slopes and canyons where environments are cooler 

and soils are likely to have more moisture (Weinstein et al. 2003). Species composition is 

generally comparable to the bajadas community, but additional associated species such as 

teddybear cholla, likely distinguish it (Hall et al. 2001). 

D. ELEPHANT TREE–LIMBERBUSH ON XERIC ROCKY SLOPES

Composition in this community is similar to the Palo Verde–Mixed Cacti–Mixed Scrub on 

Bajadas community, but is characterized by the presence of elephant tree. Vegetation of this 

community may differ with aspect and substrate and may be best expressed on granitic slopes 

(Hall et al. 2001). This community is located entirely in the southern portion of the planning 

area. 

E. WOODED WASH SCRUB 

This community occurs in linear patterns in association with dry washes where intermittent, 

channel-constricted streamflow occurs. The composition of these communities is highly variable 

and dependent on site-specific drainage system characteristics and ecological processes sensitive 

to disturbance. Relative to surrounding communities, Wooded Wash Scrub communities are high 

in species richness and abundance. The relatively high vegetation production in these 

communities provides forage and thermal cover critical for the survival of many species of 

wildlife (Weinstein et al. 2003). 

1. Valley Wooded Washes 

This portion of the community is associated with dry washes within lower bajadas and valley 

bottoms where channels are dynamic. The overstory is typically dominated by deciduous trees 

including ironwood, blue paloverde, and mesquite (Weinstein et al. 2003). Understory species 

include Le Conte’s barrel cactus (Ferocactus cylindraceus), big galleta, burrobush (Hymonoclea 

salsola), wolfberry (Lycium spp.), honey mesquite, smoke tree, and graythorn (Weinstein et al. 

2003). Other shrubby cacti and sparse forbs and annual grasses may also be present (Hall et al. 

2001). 

2. Mountain Wooded Washes 

This portion of the community occurs on higher gradients in the upper bajadas and mountains 

along generally static streambeds largely confined by bedrock. Vegetation is largely influenced 

by aspect and elevation (Weinstein et al. 2003). Vegetation typically consists of paloverde 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-23 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

species, ironwood, mesquite and succulents (Hall et al. 2001). 

F. BRAIDED CHANNEL FLOODPLAIN 

Vegetation in this community occupies islands within low gradient to broad valley floodplains 

where interweaving braided channels flow during flood events and the surface is periodically 

inundated. The processes of channel development and resultant changes in disturbance intervals 

and moisture regimes result in communities differing in structure and composition from those of 

Wooded Wash Scrub. The moisture regime and surface flow pattern are critical to many species 

established in these communities. Disturbances in these conditions (e.g., caused by roads) can 

have significant impacts on species establishment and survival within this community. Species 

that differentiate this type from the Valley Wooded Wash Scrub type include fishhook barrel 

cactus (Ferocactus wislizeni) and bush muhly (Weinstein et al. 2003). Ironwood and plants 

characteristic of the Creosotebush-Bursage Desert Scrub Community are also present (Hall et al. 

2001). 

G. MOUNTAIN UPLAND COMMUNITY 

This community is characterized by an assemblage of relic chaparral and woodland plants that 

occur at the highest elevations, north facing slopes, and shaded canyons of the mountains located 

entirely within the Kofa complex. The most common plants within this type include shrub live 

oak (Quercus turbinella), one-seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma), and Arizona rosewood 

(Vauquelinia californica). Other species including barberry (Berberis spp.), crucifixion thorn, 

Bigelow’s beargrass (Nolina bigelovii), desert willow, acacia, and perennial grasses are also 

present in this community. The precise composition is dependant on microclimates and 

substrates (Weinstein et al. 2003). 

H. DUNE COMPLEX 

The Dune Complex is found throughout the desert southwest and provides conditions that 

support unique vegetation communities and habitats. These areas are characterized by sparsely or 

unvegetated active dune fields, stabilized dunes with more dense vegetation cover that serves to 

anchor sand in place, and wind-blown sand sheets that overlie other soil substrates. Dunes have 

low species similarity and high rates of occurrence of endemic plants relative to vegetation of 

other regional habitats. Vegetation is characterized by an abundance of ephemeral plants 

generally absent from adjacent areas (Weinstein et al. 2003). 

Within the planning area, dune vegetation is dominated by big galleta and white bursage. Other 

characteristic species include creosotebush, evening primrose (Oenothera deltoidea), desert sand 

verbena (Abronia villosa), hairy desert sunflower (Geraea canescens), desert twinbugs (Dicoria 

canescens), ocotillo, perennial and ephemeral forbs and grasses, longleaf Mormon tea, white 

ratany, Emory dalea (Psorothamnus emoryi), and littleleaf ratany (Krameria parvifolia) 

(Weinstein et al. 2003; Hall et al. 2001). Sahara mustard, an invasive non-native species, is also 

common within this complex (Weinstein et al. 2003). 

Page 3-24 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

I. CREOSOTEBUSH–BIG GALLETA SCRUB 

This community is very limited in extent and is located on sandy soils and sand sheets extending 

from dunes. This type was not distinguishable at the scale of the map (see Map 3-5), but is 

expected to be located in some areas mapped as Creosotebush-Bursage Desert Scrub (Weinstein 

et al. 2003). Big galleta is the sole or dominant grass in the herbaceous layer, while creosotebush 

is the dominant shrub. 

J. MESQUITE WOODLAND 

This community is associated with wooded wash and riparian systems and provides habitat for a 

variety of vertebrate species. Occurrences of this community are remnants of a community 

historically found throughout the Desert Southwest, but now more limited in extent due to 

agricultural use and other factors. This community may include honey mesquite (Prosopis 

glandulosa) and screwbean mesquite (Prosopis pubescens), mixed with salt cedar (Weinstein 

et al. 2003). 

K. RANEGRAS PLAIN 

Vegetation within this unique community includes extensive stands of mesquite, big galleta, salt 

cedar, and bush muhly. Vegetation occurs primarily on the outer edges of the floodplain and is 

clumped in places. Much of the natural distribution of the Ranegras Plain, north of the planning 

area boundary, has been converted to agriculture (Weinstein et al. 2003). 

L. OTHER (RIPARIAN, AGRICULTURAL, INDUSTRIAL, 

UNKNOWN) 

Other areas either classified as riparian zones or other types representing human disturbances are 

found throughout the planning area. Riparian zones are classified and discussed separately. 

3.3.3 AQUATIC VEGETATION 

The lower Colorado and Gila rivers support a variety of native and non-native aquatic vegetation 

and algae. Aquatic vegetation is classified into three different types; submerged (generally rooted 

at the bottom and completely underwater), emergent (those which grow above the water in 

shallow areas) and floating (leaves that float above the surface). Submerged plants include sago 

pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus and P. foliosus) curly leaf pondweed (P. crispus), American 

pondweed (P. americanus), brittle naiad (Najas minor), southern naiad (N. guadalupensis), 

watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spp.), Eurasian watermilfoil (M. spicatum), and coontail 

(Ceratophyllum demersum). Emergent plants include many of the species discussed in the 

riparian section such as cattail (Typha spp.) and bulrush (Scirpus spp.), as well as parrot feather 

(C. emersum). Floating plants include duckweed (Lemna minor), water pennywort (Hydrocotyle 

spp.), and giant salvinia. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-25 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

3.3.4 RIPARIAN HABITATS AND WETLANDS 

Riparian habitats are areas of transition between upland and aquatic ecosystems that are 

influenced by lateral water flow from adjacent stream channels (Brown et al. 1979). These 

habitats are among the most productive ecosystems and provide many important ecological 

functions and benefits including improving water quality by filtering out nutrients from runoff, 

maintaining stream temperatures by providing shade, and helping to control sediment loading 

into aquatic systems. The BLM definition of riparian is a form of wetland transition between 

permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation of 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. 

Riparian areas in the arid southwestern U.S. are important to a variety of vertebrate species 

(Szaro 1991). Disturbance plays an integral role in establishing and maintaining undisturbed 

southwestern riparian ecosystems, and flooding is the most common natural disturbance in these 

systems (Szaro 1991). Fire acts as periodic disturbance and influences the composition and 

structure of riparian ecosystems. Riparian ecosystems in the southwestern U.S. have been altered 

extensively since European settlement. Introduction of non-native plants have greatly changed 

species composition and structure of riparian communities (Ohmart and Anderson 1982). 

Riparian vegetation supports particularly high species richness and abundance of several 

vertebrate groups compared to drier uplands (Ohmart and Anderson 1982; Szaro 1991). The 

riparian ecosystem maintains an exceptional biological diversity of both vertebrate and 

invertebrate species in a variety of habitat types, including areas colonized by non-native trees 

and shrubs. Naturalization of non-native plants has greatly changed the composition and 

structure of the riparian ecosystems and also altered the fire regime in the riparian areas through 

the accumulation of deciduous litter (Ohmart and Anderson 1982). 

Riparian habitats within the planning area are generally associated with large river corridors and 

are found along the lower Colorado and Gila rivers on BLM-administered lands, Tribal, military, 

USFWS, State, and private lands (Map 3-6). Pockets of lakes and reservoirs are also scattered 

throughout the planning area. Sandy desert washes are not included in this discussion; they are 

classified as xeroriparian, or dependent upon intermittent water sources. The planning area is 

extremely arid outside of the two major river systems, and all of the vegetation communities 

depend upon the bimodal pattern of rainfall for germination and growth. Sandy desert washes 

are xeroriparian. Riparian vegetation types in the planning area vary from woody riparian, which 

is typically dominated by a mix of native cottonwood-willow, native mesquite, and non-native 

salt cedar communities to arrowweed (Pluchea sericea), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), and marsh 

communities (Brown 1994; Ohmart et al. 1988) (Map 3-7 and 3-8) (Table 3-8). 

Page 3-26 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-8 

Vegetation/Cover Types along the 

Lower Colorado River and Lower Gila River Corridors within Planning Area 

Vegetation/Cover Type Characteristics 

Total Mapped 

Acreage in 

Planning Area 

Cottonwood–Willow Willow and cottonwood at least 10% of total trees 2,700 

Salt cedar Salt cedar species constituting 80–100% of total trees 36,200 

Honey Mesquite Honey mesquite constituting 90–100% of total trees 2,900 

Salt cedar–Honey 

Mesquite Honey mesquite at least 10% of total trees 9,900 

Salt cedar–Screwbean 

Mesquite Screwbean mesquite at least 20% of total trees 6,000 

Arrowweed Arrowweed at least 90–100% of total vegetation 3,200 

Atriplex Saltbush species constituting 90-100% of total 

vegetation 600 

Marsh Open marsh (75% water) to nearly 100% 

cattail/bulrush 6,300 

Creosotebush Creosote 90–100% of total vegetation 900 

Agricultural Active or fallow, adjacent to riparian and aquatic 

habitats 1,500 

Open Water Open water 1,700 

River Mainstem plus tributaries and natural/artificial 

channels 10,000 

Structured Open Water “Lakes” formed by dams with variable water levels 400 

Uplands Vegetation dominated by upland species 1,400 

Total 83,700 

Source: Anderson and Ohmart 1984; Ogden 1998; Salas et al. 1996; Younker and Anderson 1997; USDOI Reclamation et 

al.2004 (LCR MSCP) 

Riparian areas in the planning area provide several essential ecological functions including 

increasing water quality, providing water storage and groundwater recharge, maintaining stream 

water temperatures by providing shade, and controlling soil erosion. One of the most important 

functions of the riparian areas is providing food, water, and cover for wildlife. The riparian 

communities in the planning area are important to resident and migratory wildlife. The lower 

Colorado and Gila rivers associated with riparian habitats support several hundreds of species of 

wildlife including the federally endangered Yuma clapper rail, SWFL, and several other special 

status species. Riparian habitats of the river systems also provide essential stopover and nesting 

sites for a diversity of neotropical migrant birds, such as flycatchers, vireos, warblers, tanagers, 

and grosbeaks. Numerous species of raptors, waterfowl, other migratory and breeding birds, 

mammals, reptiles, fish, and amphibians all use the biologically diverse riparian habitats (USDOI 

Reclamation et al. 2004). Remnant native riparian habitats along the Colorado River corridor are 

valuable to native biodiversity and support hundreds of species of migratory and resident wildlife 

(USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). The LCR MSCP provides detailed information concerning 

riparian land cover by reach in the lower Colorado River (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). 

The extent of native riparian vegetation has decreased in the western U.S. since European 

settlement due to a variety of factors, including dam construction, river channelization, cattle 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-27 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

grazing, agricultural development, recreational development, naturalization of non-native plants, 

and alterations of historical fire regimes (Knopf et al. 1988; Szaro 1991). 

Over the past several decades, the lower Colorado River has been channelized, dammed and 

diverted, resulting in significant hydrologic and ecological functional changes. The present 

regulation of natural hydrologic regime does not support extreme flow fluctuations mainly 

because of the presence of large, mainstem dams, resulting in reduced natural backwaters and 

reduced periods of inundation in adjacent floodplain lowlands. In addition, riparian woodlands 

and floodplains have been converted to agricultural and urban uses, and the species composition 

and structure of riparian ecosystems have been greatly altered by the invasion and naturalization 

of non-native trees and shrubs. 

The Gila River is primarily an intermittent system that is dry for most of the year except during 

seasons with heavy rainfall and snow at the headwaters. However, for approximately 50 miles 

above its confluence with the Colorado River, the lower Gila River has stretches with perennial 

surface flows due to agricultural irrigation returns. Many species of riparian and marsh birds, one 

native fish species, and numerous species of native amphibians use this biologically diverse 

riparian area (Weinstein et al. 2003). Similar to the Colorado River, the Gila River floodplains 

have also been converted to agricultural and urban uses, and non-native trees and shrubs have 

displaced many of the native riparian vegetation (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). 

The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory has not identified wetland types within the planning 

area. However, typical wetland types likely to be found in the planning area include riverine 

(e.g., lower Colorado and Gila rivers and their tributaries), palustrine (along the lower Colorado 

River and lower Gila River corridors), and lacustrine (e.g., Mittry Lake, Squaw Lake) systems. 

The riverine system includes all wetland and deepwater habitats contained within a channel that 

are not dominated by trees, shrubs, and persistent emergent plant species. The vegetation within 

the riverine system includes aquatic bed and non-persistent emergent plant species. Palustrine 

systems are generally adjacent to the riverine wetlands and include all wetlands dominated by 

trees, shrubs, and persistent emergents. Lacustrine systems include permanently flooded lakes, 

reservoirs, and intermittent lakes with extensive areas of deep water and considerable wave 

action (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

A. COTTONWOOD–WILLOW 

The native Cottonwood-Willow Community is found on deep, well-watered, loamy alluvial soils 

on floodplains of the lower Colorado and Gila rivers and provides suitable habitat for many 

species of wildlife and migratory birds, including the federally endangered SWFL (Holland 

1986). Although the dominant trees do not tolerate permanent inundation, this plant community 

requires periodic winter or spring flooding to create new silt beds for cottonwood and willow 

seedling establishment (Brown 1994; Ohmart et al.1988). As a result of flow stabilization by 

dams that eliminates annual spring floods, stands of the Cottonwood–Willow Community are 

primarily decadent and show little evidence of seedling recruitment (Brown 1994). During 

uncommon spring flood events, cottonwood recruitment along bank lines occurs where 

conditions allow. 

Page 3-28 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

B. SALT CEDAR 

Several species of salt cedar make up the Salt Cedar Community. These non-native plants have 

aggressively displaced the native riparian vegetation along the rivers, particularly in saline areas 

where native vegetation has been removed by fire (Brown 1994; Ohmart et al.1988; Turner and 

Karpiscak 1980). During the late fall, salt cedar will drop its leaves, increasing the salinity of 

topsoil. Through this action, the highly salt-tolerant salt cedar promotes the conditions that it 

tolerates better than native species such as cottonwood-willow. Salt cedar gradually replaces the 

native riparian communities and becomes well established as a monotypic community. It grows 

on sandy or gravelly soils and produces large numbers of very small seeds that are dispersed long 

distances by wind and water (DeLoach et al. 2000). Stabilized low flows, regular summer 

flooding of river bars, and the increase in fire frequency due to large amounts of litter produced 

by the vegetation create ideal conditions for establishment of salt cedar (DeLoach et al. 2000; 

Turner and Karpiscak 1980). 

C. HONEY MESQUITE 

The native Honey Mesquite Community is found close to the rivers and often forms monotypic 

stands of trees, but will also grow interspersed with other shrub species. This species does not 

tolerate prolonged inundation and historically grew on higher terraces in the floodplain. 

However, conversion of vegetated lands to agriculture and water regulation allowed the species 

to colonize areas closer to the rivers. Because it does not colonize or reestablish in open areas as 

readily as salt cedar, flooding, vegetation clearing, and increased fire frequency (promoted by 

salt cedar) can eliminate honey mesquite communities (Minckley and Brown 1982; Ohmart et al. 

1988). 

D. HONEY MESQUITE–SALT CEDAR 

Honey Mesquite and Salt cedar communities form when salt cedar becomes well established in 

openings within the mesquite stand. Salt cedar gradually replaces honey mesquite creating a 

monotypic salt cedar stand (Ohmart et al. 1988). Another species of mesquite, screwbean 

mesquite, is found only in association with salt cedar in the planning area, reflecting the 

expansion of salt cedar and the displacement of screwbean mesquite (DeLoach et al. 2000; 

Ohmart et al. 1988). 

E. ARROWWEED 

Arrowweed Communities occur along drier portions of the river floodplain, along canyon 

bottoms and irrigation ditches, around springs, and in sandy or gravelly washes. This species has 

replaced cottonwood–Willow in some areas because it tolerates higher soil salinities and greater 

groundwater depths, although in other areas it is being replaced by salt cedar (Brown 1994; 

Holland 1986; Ohmart et al. 1988; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-29 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

F. ATRIPLEX 

The Atriplex Community is formed by several species of saltbush (e.g., Atriplex canescens, 

A. hymenelytra, A. lentiformis, A. polycarpa). This community occurs in saline areas, often 

between stands of cottonwood-willow or salt cedar and stands of mesquite (Brown 1994; Ohmart 

et al. 1988; Younker and Anderson 1997). 

G. MARSH 

The Marsh Communities occur in areas with long-term flooding such as oxbow lakes, 

backwaters, and around reservoirs with minimal daily and annual fluctuations in water level. 

Common vegetation of Marsh Communities includes cattail and bulrush that grow in water three 

to five feet deep, and common reed (Phragmites australis) that forms dense stands along the 

banks (Brown 1994; Ohmart et al. 1988). Marsh Communities are important habitat for the 

federally endangered Yuma clapper rail. 

H. UNIQUE RIPARIAN RESOURCES 

An important and unique stretch of the lower Colorado River is found in the southern most reach 

of the river, the Limitrophe area. This reach, located below Morelos Dam, is one of the few 

remaining segments of the lower Colorado River that has not been channelized and where 

fluctuating surface water from periodic dam releases and groundwater can sustain native 

vegetation such as cottonwood and willow trees when water is available. The resultant riparian 

habitat type sustains several wildlife species, including the SWFL and the Yuma clapper rail, and 

the habitat is also important for migratory birds and several other wildlife species that are not 

listed as special status species (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). 

One special riparian habitat area along the lower Gila River is a large, contiguous stand of 

cottonwood-willow habitat located near the confluence with the lower Colorado River. This area 

supports a mixture of native riparian vegetation and provides important breeding habitat for the 

federally endangered SWFL (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt 

area along the lower Gila River in Maricopa County, Arizona, is another important riparian area; 

a total of 6,900 acres of public land riparian habitat were withdrawn in 1954 under Public Land 

Order 1015 for use as waterfowl habitat. 

3.3.5 PRIORITY SPECIES 

Priority plant species are rare, unusual, or key species that are not listed as BLM sensitive or 

listed as threatened and endangered (Appendix 2-B). They are worthy of special treatment and 

indicate ecological health, biological diversity, and unique habitats. In the planning area, priority 

plants can be indicators, such as big galleta, which indicates rangelands historically in decline. 

Riparian floodplain habitats are indicated by cottonwood and willow. Desert wash woodlands 

have priority species that are Highly Safeguarded under the Arizona Native Plant Law. Other 

priority plants are unusual, at the edge of their distributional ranges or rare but not listed by any 

agency or rare plant protection program. For example, Thurber’s stemsucker (Pilostyles thurberi) 

Page 3-30 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

occurs in desert scrub habitats. Alverson’s foxtail cactus (Coryphantha alversonii) is present on 

rocky slopes. 

3.3.6 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Special status plants are those species listed by the USFWS, BLM, State of Arizona, and State of 

California. Species are offered varying levels of protection ranging from full protection, 

requiring “take” permits for activities which would negatively impact a species occurrence, to 

identification, but no official protection, for those species suspected of being at-risk or in decline. 

The basic policy of BLM is to (1) conserve listed species and the ecosystems on which they 

depend and (2) ensure that actions authorized or carried out by BLM are consistent with the 

needs of special status species and do not contribute to the need to federally list any of these 

species. Protection is afforded to maintain the occurrence of these limited resources in 

accordance with existing laws and regulations to prevent their loss. Current Federal and State 

protection regulations and categories are summarized below. Uncommon plants not offered 

special status as described below are not currently protected. 

BLM has certain responsibilities for all special status species and as such does not reiterate 

listings provided by other agencies. The BLM sensitive species list is meant to be dynamic. If 

information shows that a species needs to be included or removed, Field Managers may make 

nominations with information supporting such action. Criteria for BLM sensitive species include 

those that are: 

 Under status review by the USFWS/National Marine Fisheries Service, 

 Whose numbers are declining so rapidly that Federal listing may become necessary, 

 With typically small and widely dispersed populations, or 

 Those inhabiting ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats (USDOI BLM 

2000). 

A. DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Within the planning area, sand dunes and isolated mountain ranges are of special interest due to 

the presence of endemic plants found there (Warren and Laurenzi 1987). Many of the species 

present on the Arizona Native Plant Law list are widely distributed throughout the planning area, 

while federally listed and BLM sensitive species are less common. No plant species listed by the 

USFWS are known to occur in the planning area. However, due to their known limited 

populations, undiscovered isolated plants or communities may be found in the planning area. 

BLM sensitive species known to be present in the planning area include blue sand lily, sand 

food, scaly sandplant, Schott wire lettuce (Stephanomeria schottii), all of which are endemic to 

sand dunes, and longleaf sandpaper plant (Petalonyx linearis) which is found on exposed rocky 

slopes. See Appendix 2-B for a list of sensitive species. Additional plant species are included on 

the list because they are located on adjacent land of other jurisdictions, or are expected to occur 

but are not verified. Kofa barberry (Berberis harrisoniana) is also known to occur on rocky 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-31 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

slopes at upper elevations in the Kofa Complex but is not know to occur on BLM-administered 

lands in the planning area. 

3.3.7 INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES 

Invasive non-native species are an increasing problem on BLM-administered lands. Noxious and 

invasive weeds are listed by State and Federal law and are generally considered those that are 

exotics and negatively impact agriculture, navigation, fish, wildlife, or public health. Currently, 

there are over 350 species of non-native plants in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion alone, many of 

which are considered to be significant threats to native flora and fauna (Lardiere and Bate 2003). 

Invasive non-native species present and potentially present in the planning area are noted in 

Appendix 2-B. Existing plan decisions and EO 13112 require that BLM discourage the 

introduction of “exotic” species on public lands. 

Invasive non-native species have a variety of origins including use as grain seed, livestock feed, 

ship ballasts, packing material, reclamation, and ornamental plants. As a result of accidental 

(e.g., contaminated crop seed) and intentional (e.g., planted for forage or soil stabilization) 

introduction, many species have spread throughout the planning area and now conflict with other 

resources and uses. The spread of invasive non-native species is furthered through such 

mechanisms as OHV and watercraft use, hiking, camping, wildlife movement, livestock grazing, 

and natural processes. Invasive species tend to establish in disturbed areas as well as areas that 

have perennial water sources or that receive frequent runoff from intermittent precipitation (e.g., 

roadside ditches). 

Invasive non-native species displace native plants as they compete for space, sunlight, water, and 

nutrients. As they become established, invasive non-native species can alter the ecosystem 

functions of the area they invade. Dramatic changes in composition can reduce the production of 

palatable forage for livestock and wildlife, and some species may be poisonous to livestock. 

Species with fast growth rates tend to increase the risk of wildfire due to the relatively high 

amount of fuel available. 

Invasive non-native species control can occur in a variety of ways including chemical, prescribed 

fire, biological, and mechanical, or a combination of techniques. The degree and type of 

rehabilitation necessary after control efforts depends upon the treatment selected. In the planning 

area, YFO has evaluated and implemented many site-specific control plans for a variety of 

species. Control methods vary, but are generally categorized as mechanical (e.g., physical 

removal, heavy equipment, use of livestock), chemical (e.g., herbicide), or biological (i.e., 

introduction of natural predators such as insects or diseases to target the invasive species). 

Integrated Pest Management is being used to manage non-native invasive species. See Section 

2.22.3 Typical Management Actions for Vegetation Treatments for Integrated Pest Management 

guidelines. 

A. DISTRIBUTION OF INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES 

The distribution of invasive non-native species is dynamic and varies in response to implemented 

control measures, management activities, and weather patterns (e.g., precipitation and 

Page 3-32 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

temperature). As such, the extent of infestations is difficult to accurately or precisely 

characterize. Regular surveys are conducted within the planning area to assess the general 

distribution of the most problematic species. Documented infestations of invasive non-native 

species are larger in size and more frequent in high-use areas than in low-use areas. Also, roads 

near Wildernesses and other remote locations have fewer and less severe infestations (Lardiere 

and Bate 2003). Invasive plant surveys are conducted annually by YFO personnel (Lardiere and 

Bate 2003), and Integrated Pest Management is being used to manage invasive species. 

1. Salt cedar 

Invasion of non-native plants in the Colorado River and Gila River systems has modified the 

riparian ecosystems resulting in lower diversity with monotypic stands of salt cedar and marginal 

quality habitats. Salt cedar, a non-native plant species known for its adaptation dealing with 

salinity and water stress, is well suited for the present hydrologic regime of the river systems and 

displacing native riparian vegetation, now dominating the lower Colorado River and much of the 

Gila River riparian communities. Only five percent of the riparian vegetation mapped by 

Reclamation along the lower Colorado River is native cottonwood-willow and honey mesquite 

communities. The remainder of the riparian vegetation is dominated by salt cedar. The majority 

of the riparian vegetation along the lower Gila River is also dominated by salt cedar, with young 

stands of cottonwood-willow and remnant mesquite wetlands scattered throughout the area 

(Weinstein et al. 2003). In addition to displacing native plant communities and altering the 

structure and species composition, salt cedar uses large amounts of water, increases soil salinity, 

decreases the quality of the habitat for wildlife, and increases fire frequency by producing large 

amounts of deciduous litter (DeLoach et al. 2000). Within the planning area, vegetation 

communities have been mapped for approximately 152 miles of the lower Colorado River and 

10.2 miles of the lower Gila River riparian corridors (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). Salt 

cedar vegetation types comprise approximately 52,100 acres, while native riparian vegetation 

types consist of 15,700 acres (Table 3-8). Control measures must address both the treatment of 

salt cedar and soil remediation. Site specific treatment plans for salt cedar are commonly 

evaluated and implemented. 

2. Giant Salvinia 

Giant salvinia is an invasive floating aquatic fern classified by the Federal government and many 

states as a noxious weed. It has become a significant problem in the planning area. Giant salvinia 

flourishes in stagnant or slow moving water. Due to high water use and low recharge rates, 

portions of the lower Colorado River are both shallow and slow moving. Its backwater ponds and 

marshes are highly susceptible to giant salvinia infestations (Lardiere and Bate 2003). In areas of 

low flows, giant salvinia can cover the total water surface in a relatively short period, doubling in 

size every 2.5 to 10 days, depending on the time of year, water temperature, nutrients, and other 

water quality parameters. Mats can grow to over 2 feet thick and cover a 10-acre backwater in 

less than a month. In water systems that have visible flow, this plant is intermingled with riparian 

vegetation on the sides of the river and canal channels where riparian vegetation such as 

bulrushes and cattails grow, hampering treatment efforts (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). 

Giant salvinia restricts and impairs water flow, inhibits recreational use, creates operational and 

maintenance problems at pumping and diversion structures, damages fisheries and aquatic 

habitats by reducing open water areas and supplanting native vegetation, decreases water quality 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-33 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

by reducing nutrients and oxygen, and increases CO2 and hydrogen sulfide concentrations 

(USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). 

Giant salvinia has been present in the lower Colorado River drainage since 1999. Surveys 

documented giant salvinia on the Colorado River and connected water bodies in varying degrees 

from Walters Camp into Mexico. A number of strategies have been implemented to control its 

spread (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and 

parrrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) are other non-native aquatic plants documented within 

the planning area. Native aquatic plants such as spiny naiad, coontail, and sago pondweed also 

grow readily throughout the aquatic environment and could be considered weedy. Several other 

non-native species have been documented to occur in varying degrees in riparian areas. 

B. OTHER COMMON INVASIVE NON-NATIVE PLANTS 

Upland invasive non-native species are now prolific throughout the planning area. The majority 

of Mediterranean grass (Schismus arabicus and S. barbatus), Sahara mustard, Bermuda grass 

(Cynodon dactylon), buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare), and iceplant (Mesembryanthemum spp.) 

infestations are located along roads, ROWs, washes, and material pits where disturbance has 

recently occurred. Bermuda grass is a popular turf grass that can be found in many residential 

areas as well as along roadsides where hay is frequently transported. Mediterranean grass has 

become common throughout most of the upland desert shrub communities and large desert 

washes (Lardiere and Bate 2003). Sahara mustard is well established on approximately 3,000 

acres of the La Posa dunes and has been found in other undisturbed wildlands (Lardiere and Bate 

2003). Infestations of leadplant (Amorpha canescens), Ravenna grass (Erianthus ravennae), and 

Bermuda grass were highly localized around perennial sources of water, namely dams and ditch 

banks. 

C. COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT EFFORTS 

The YFO is currently a member of two interagency groups created to identify and control 

invasive non-native plant infestations across jurisdictional boundaries. The King of Arizona 

Cooperative Weed Management Area (overseen by the Sonoran Desert Invasive Species 

Council) and the Lower Colorado River Giant Salvinia Taskforce are both weed management 

areas that include BLM-administered lands. Cooperation with such groups and other land 

management agencies is crucial for the future identification and control of invasive species on a 

regional scale (Lardiere and Bate 2003). 

Page 3-34 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

3.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE

Public lands administered by the BLM provide significant portions of the habitat requirements 

(food, cover, water, and space) for a diverse array of wildlife species. The habitats within the 

planning area and the wildlife species that rely on them rarely exist solely on BLM-administered 

lands and often extend across administrative boundaries to Tribal, State, private, and other 

Federal lands. More than 500 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish occur 

within the planning area as year-round residents, seasonal residents, or migrants (USDOI BLM 

1987a). This diversity has strong ecological value and attraction for the public. 

The AGFD and CDFG are responsible for managing the wildlife populations in their respective 

states. YFO coordinates closely with AGFD (Region IV) and CDFG (Region 6) to manage the 

diverse habitats that sustain these wildlife populations1. The YFO has developed several habitat 

management plans or other interdisciplinary activity plans in cooperation with AGFD that 

outline the goals and actions for managing wildlife habitats and populations on public lands 

within the planning area. Wildlife habitats and priority wildlife species within the planning area 

are discussed in these habitat management plans and are incorporated by reference. Habitat 

management plans that are applicable to the planning area include the Laguna-Martinez Habitat 

Management Plan (1988c) and the La Posa Interdisciplinary Activity Plan (1997c). 

3.4.1 GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT 

The planning area is located within the Sonoran Desert physiographic province, with the primary 

habitat type being Upland or Lowland Sonoran Desert Scrub. Vegetation types such as riparian, 

desert shrub, desert tree, grassland shrub, and agricultural lands are represented in the planning 

area. For more information on vegetation types within the planning area, see Section 3.3 

Vegetation Resources. 

Special habitat features in the planning area include cliffs, sand dunes, snags, springs, reservoirs, 

rivers, marshes, lakes, and islands. These habitats provide a wide range of variation in vegetation 

species composition, structural components, and food quality and availability, thereby hosting 

abundant and diverse wildlife. Maintenance of these and other habitat types is critical to the 

continued existence of diverse and viable populations of wildlife. 

The structure, composition, and condition of the various habitat types directly influence the fish 

and wildlife species assemblages that inhabit them. The habitats within the planning area reflect 

the influence of a variety of past and ongoing human activities and disturbances, resulting in 

significant increases in some species populations, declines in others, and the modification of 

large blocks of habitat. Increased human development as well as continued water diversion is a 

pressure on wildlife and fish populations. In many Sonoran Desert Scrub and riparian habitats, 

the proliferation of invasive non-native plants has altered the structure and composition of the 

 

1

For example, see the Master MOU between the State of Arizona, Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and the 

DOI, BLM (effective date March 18, 1987, 10 pp.) 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-35 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

habitat, leaving both the vegetation communities and their fish and wildlife inhabitants at risk of 

disturbance, fragmentation, and loss from natural or human-caused events (e.g., wildland fire). 

3.4.2 KEY HABITAT FEATURES 

Riparian habitats make up approximately three percent of the public lands in the planning area. 

Riparian areas are one of the most productive and important habitats, providing for a great 

diversity of wildlife species. Riparian areas range in total size from more than 13,000 acres in the 

Laguna–Martinez area to isolated pockets of less than five acres scattered along the length of the 

various river systems (USDOI BLM 1987a). Some riparian areas still support native plant 

species, such as cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and arrowweed communities; however, much of 

the native riparian habitats on public lands within the planning area have been severely 

fragmented, degraded, or otherwise substantially altered, thereby affecting the wildlife 

populations that inhabit them. Large areas of riparian habitats have been invaded by the invasive 

non-native (and less desirable) salt cedar. Salt cedar is extremely susceptible to fire and, 

therefore, has dramatically altered the riparian community. 

In the desert southwest, wildlife use riparian areas disproportionately more than any other type of 

habitat, and many species are riparian-obligates (i.e., use only riparian habitats). For example, 

within the planning area, more than 400 species are either directly dependent on riparian habitats 

or use them more than other habitats (USDOI BLM 1987a). In addition, the zone of influence of 

riparian habitats on wildlife species extends well beyond riparian boundaries into the adjacent 

desert communities. Many riparian-obligate wildlife species, as well as many native fish species, 

are either federally listed or considered special status species by the Federal government 

(USFWS and BLM) or State wildlife agencies in Arizona and California. 

Other key habitat features within the planning area include: 

 Sand dunes, a sensitive and unusual habitat in the low deserts of the planning area, host a 

variety of plants and wildlife, many of which occur in no other habitat. Limited sand dunes 

occur on BLM-administered lands within the planning area. 

 Mountain ranges provide important habitat for desert bighorn sheep and other wildlife 

species that could not survive on the arid plains of lower elevations. Mountain ranges in the 

planning area provide some of the best remaining bighorn sheep habitat in the southwest, 

with stable populations in several areas. 

 Wildlife watering sites including tinajas (natural water tanks in rock pools) and man-made 

water catchments provide important water sources for big game (particularly bighorn sheep 

in high elevations and mule deer in low elevations), predatory mammals, bats, birds, and 

bees, particularly during the harsh summer season. At least 83 watering sites occur on BLMadministered lands within the planning area, which include 52 water catchments. 

 Braided channel floodplains and valley desert wash woodlands occur in extensive 

networks throughout the planning area, maintaining hydrologic connections with the 

Colorado and Gila rivers. These natural communities are areas of great species richness and 

abundance in the Lower Colorado River Valley Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert providing 

Page 3-36 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

important cover, forage, and dispersal habitat for nearly every wildlife species during some 

portion of their life cycle. For example, bats and neotropical migratory birds use desert 

washes extensively for foraging, resting, shading, cover, and (for some bird species) nesting 

(U.S. Army YPG 1995). 

 Abandoned mines and natural caves are particularly important to bats for roosts and 

maternity colonies. Many of the bat species occurring in the planning area use abandoned 

mines at least part of the year. Horizontal mine shafts and natural caves also provide shelter 

for other wildlife, such as ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) and fox (Vulpes spp.) (U.S. Army 

YPG 1995). 

3.4.3 GAME SPECIES 

A. BIG GAME 

Big game species are an important aesthetic and economic resource in Arizona. Four big game 

species (or subspecies) occupy BLM-administered lands within the planning area: mule deer, 

desert bighorn sheep, collared peccary (Pecari tajacu), and mountain lion. Habitat management 

is achieved cooperatively between YFO and AGFD or CDFG. 

1. Mule Deer 

Mule deer are considered one of North America’s premier big-game species. The public has a 

high level of interest in this species for both hunting and viewing. Mule deer are found on both 

sides of the Colorado River throughout the planning area. Their populations are generally 

thought to be stable. Mule deer are the most numerous, adaptable, and widely distributed big 

game species within the planning area. Mule deer use, at least seasonally, all but the most rugged 

mountains in the planning area. They make extensive use of riparian vegetation adjacent to 

permanent water sources during the hottest months. During cooler months, and after seasonal 

rainstorms, deer are able to spread out over the adjacent desert where they use the heavily 

vegetated washes for feeding, thermal cover, and travel corridors. 

Adequate food, water, and cover are essential to the survival of deer. Mule deer rely on shrub 

and forb species for much of their diet. Some use of agricultural lands is made, although little 

damage to crops is known to occur. The “green-up” or flush of green growth provides important 

seasonal forage resources for a diversity of wildlife species, including mule deer. Competition 

can be significant during this period, particularly in riparian drainage and wash areas where 

wildlife and livestock both tend to concentrate. Some competition between mule deer and wild 

burros may also occur in vegetated desert washes. 

2. Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Desert bighorn sheep are a high priority species that receive significant local, State, and national 

attention and interest. The planning area includes the largest unfragmented habitat for desert 

bighorn sheep in Arizona (Weinstein et al. 2003). Mountain ranges in the planning area provide 

some of the best remaining bighorn sheep habitat in the southwest, covering more than 30,000 

acres, with stable populations in several areas. Bighorn sheep within the planning area are 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-37 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

occasionally used as a source population for translocation to other locations within Arizona. 

Water acts as a seasonal limitation to bighorn sheep distribution. During the hot dry summer 

months, sheep movements are confined to a limited radius around water. During cooler months 

and after seasonal rainstorms, sheep spread out over the rest of the habitat. Bighorn sheep in the 

mountain ranges surrounding the major rivers are able to use water along these rivers, when not 

excluded by development or recreationists. In addition, YFO and AGFD have cooperatively 

constructed several water catchments to provide adequate water during the hot, dry season for 

bighorn sheep inhabiting isolated mountain ranges or for populations that have been excluded 

from natural water sources by development or recreation. Sheep feed extensively year-round; 

perennial grasses are a major component of the diet in early spring and late fall when new 

growth is present, whereas annual forbs and grasses are seasonally important. 

Special habitat features used by bighorn sheep include lambing grounds and migration corridors. 

Habitat fragmentation or human disturbance poses one of the major threats to bighorn sheep 

populations. Lambing grounds in the planning area are typically the highest, most rugged and 

most isolated portions of desert mountain ranges. Lambing is a critical period in the annual cycle 

of bighorn sheep, and disturbance of these areas during the lambing season can cause 

abandonment of the range and loss of lambs. Newborn lambs can be found every month of the 

year; however, the majority of lambing in the planning area occurs between January 1 and April 

30. 

Migration corridors are traditional movement paths bighorn sheep follow between adjacent 

mountain ranges. Roads, canals, and fences serve as barriers to bighorn sheep movements, and 

entire populations have been cut off from major portions of their range. Power lines and 

pipelines may impede bighorn sheep movements in the same manner. Thirteen migration 

corridors, not including those on the BMGR, have been identified by the AGFD. Two main 

migration corridors have been identified on lands administered by BLM. The first is between the 

Chocolate Mountains and the Castle Dome Mountains near Stone Cabin, Arizona. The route has 

been cut by a two-lane highway (Highway 95), a 161-kV transmission line, and two El Paso 

Natural Gas lines. Movement between the two mountain ranges still occurs; however it is 

unknown to what extent normal movements have been impacted. The second is in the Dome 

Rock Mountains where I-10 bisects the range. This migration corridor is cut by a four-lane 

highway, two five-strand barbed wire fences, and two high-power transmission lines. 

3. Collared Peccary 

Collared peccary, or javelina, are found within Sonoran Desert scrub (Arizona Upland 

subdivision) and semi-desert grasslands. Collared peccary are scattered in small numbers within 

the eastern portion of the planning area, although populations within this part of the species 

range are generally less abundant for hunting and big game management. The species has 

expanded northward as scrub and cactus have replaced native grasslands, although no population 

estimates exist. Collared peccary are opportunistic feeders that eat flowers and fruits of a great 

variety of plants. 

4. Mountain Lion 

Mountain lions are found in the rugged mountains of the planning area and in some riparian 

habitats where the major river systems flow through mountainous areas. No population estimates 

Page 3-38 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

exist; however, numbers are thought to be low. There is no problem with predation on domestic 

livestock within the planning area. 

B. SMALL GAME, WATERFOWL, AND FURBEARERS 

Small game species include game birds and cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus auduboni), as well as a 

wide variety of waterfowl species. One or more small game species occur in virtually all 

vegetation types within the planning area. 

Game birds common to the planning area include white-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica), 

mourning dove (Zenaida macroura0, Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), and pheasant 

(Phasianus spp.). White-winged doves are summer residents, and mourning doves are yearlong 

residents in the planning area. Both species rely on riparian areas and vegetated desert washes for 

nesting and cover. Citrus orchards are also important, and both species are present to a lesser 

extent in desert and urban areas. Doves feed extensively on weed and agricultural crop seeds. 

Gambel’s quails are a common-to-abundant permanent resident throughout the planning area, 

with a population peak in late summer. Populations are concentrated in riparian areas along the 

major rivers and near water sources in the desert. Other important areas include vegetated desert 

washes. Annual seeds, green growth, and some insect matter comprise the bulk of their diet. 

Waterfowl species within the planning area include ducks (Anas spp.), geese (Branta spp.), coots 

(Fulica spp.), and gallinules (Gallinula spp.). The Colorado River is part of the Pacific flyway 

and acts as a major migration corridor for many waterfowl species. Open water along the river, 

as well as backwaters, marshes, and agricultural lands provide important cover, feeding, and 

resting areas. Most species of ducks and geese migrate through or are winter visitors only. Some 

species, such as mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), gadwalls (Anas strepera), and ruddy ducks 

(Oxyura jamaicensis) may nest in the planning area, although this is rare (USDOI BLM 1987a). 

Cottontail rabbits are common within the planning area as well. Populations are concentrated 

along the major rivers in riparian areas adjacent to alfalfa fields. 

Coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) are the 

most important furbearers in the planning area in terms of harvest, monetary value, and 

recreational days provided (USDOI BLM 1987a). Leg-hold traps are not allowed as a means of 

harvest on public lands within Arizona. Other common species include beaver, muskrat (Ondatra 

zibethica), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), badger (Taxidea taxus), kit fox, and raccoon 

(Procyon lotor). 

3.4.4 NON-GAME SPECIES 

Non-game wildlife species, which include small mammals, birds (migratory birds and raptors), 

amphibians, and reptiles, are common in habitats of the planning area. Many of these species are 

important food sources for larger birds and mammals and important as environmental quality 

indicators. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-39 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

A. SMALL MAMMALS 

The planning area has a diverse, abundant mammalian fauna, including more than 60 species of 

mammals. While the distribution, ecology, and habitat needs of many of the non-game mammals 

are poorly understood (AGFD 2001), these species occupy a variety of habitats on public lands 

in the planning area. Many of these species have small, local populations that face a variety of 

threats, and some are tied to the severely altered riparian or native grassland communities 

(AGFD 2001). Twenty-two of Arizona’s 28 bat species are found or expected to occur within the 

planning area (Weinstein et al. 2003), and 18 of these species are considered special status 

species (see Section 3.4.7 Special Status Species). The diversity of bats is perhaps due to the 

abundance of roost sites, including cliffs and abandoned mines, and the variety of foraging sites 

found on lands within the planning area (Weinstein et al. 2003). Foraging areas include springs, 

tinajas, extensive networks of wooded wash scrub and braided channel floodplains, and the 

riparian corridors along the lower Colorado and Gila rivers. BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area have not been systematically surveyed for bats. 

B. BIRDS 

More than 350 bird species occupy the various habitats of the planning area, most of which are 

non-game species. Many of these species breed within the planning area, while others migrate 

through or are seasonal (summer or winter) residents. The greatest variety and abundance of 

birds occur in the riparian and wetland habitats, which often provide oasis within the upland 

desert scrub habitat. Migratory birds represent a wide diversity of species, including shorebirds, 

waterfowl, passerines (perching birds), and raptors, and may breed or winter in any or all of the 

vegetation types within the planning area. 

The planning area provides habitat for many species of neotropical migratory birds, which breed 

in the U.S. and/or Canada and winter from Mexico to South America. The AGFD has prepared 

the Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Latta et al. 1999), which identified 43 

bird species (of the more than 280 breeding bird species in Arizona) in 13 major habitats for 

priority management and protection within the State. In addition, numerous associated bird 

species were identified that would benefit from management actions for the priority species. At 

least three major habitats and 12 priority bird species occur within the planning area. These 

major habitats and their priority bird species include Sonoran Desert Scrub (Costa’s 

hummingbird [Calypte costae], gilded flicker [Colaptes auratus], rufous-winged sparrow 

[Aimophila carpalis], Le Conte’s thrasher [Toxostoma lecontei], and purple martin [Progne 

subis]); Low Elevation Riparian Habitat (common black-hawk [Buteogallus anthracinus], 

western yellow-billed cuckoo, SWFL, and Lucy’s warbler [Vermivora luciae]); and Freshwater 

Marshes (Yuma clapper rail, California black rail [Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus], and 

American bittern [Botaurus lentiginosus]). 

Several raptor species (e.g., eagles, hawks, owls) have been documented in the planning area. 

Nesting species include prairie falcon (falco peregrinus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), 

golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), northern harrier (Circu cyaneus), great horned owl (Bubo 

virginianus), barn owl (Tyto alba), burrowing owl, and American kestrel (Falco spariverius). 

Wintering migrant species include merlin (Falco columbarius), ferruginous hawk (Buteo 

Page 3-40 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

regalis), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and sharp-shinned 

hawk (Accipiter striatus). In addition, the Harris’ hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus) has also been reintroduced into native habitat along the lower Colorado River through an interagency program. 

Precipitous rock formations and mature cottonwood, willow, and mesquite trees provide 

important nesting sites for raptors. Backwater lakes, riparian vegetation, and desert wash 

corridors provide suitable habitat for the prey base that supports the raptor population. 

C. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES 

Because the majority of the planning area’s wildlife habitats are arid or semi-arid, with a smaller 

percentage of habitats associated with water, reptiles (more than 40 species) are more prominent 

than amphibians (at least 10 species). Many amphibians and reptiles are abundant and seasonally 

conspicuous, especially the desert-dwelling species. Among them are such commonly 

encountered species as spadefoot toads (Scaphiopus spp.); whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus

spp.); side-blotched (Uta stansburiana), tree (Urosaurus ornatus), and desert spiny lizards 

(Sceloporus magister); gopher (Pituophis melanoleucus) and kingsnakes (Lampropeltis spp.); 

desert iguana (Dipsosaurus doralis); and western diamondback (Crotalus atrox) and mojave 

(Crotalus scutulatus) rattlesnakes. Two non-native species, bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and 

softshell turtle (Apalone spp.), have also become widespread and locally abundant. The 

distribution and status of many native amphibians and reptiles is not well known (AGFD 2001). 

3.4.5 FISH 

The rivers, lakes, and reservoirs occurring within the planning area support more than 35 native 

and non-native fish species. The Colorado River contains an extensive warm water fishery, 

providing a quality sportfishing experience. Common sportfish include striped bass (Morone 

saxatilis), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), black 

crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), carp (Cyprinus carpio), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), 

and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Riparian communities, backwater areas, and 

marshlands on BLM-administered lands and Reclamation-withdrawn lands provide important 

nesting, foraging, and cover habitat for many fish species. Activities occurring on upland 

terrestrial habitats can affect the water quality and other attributes of these aquatic habitats. 

Because of human-induced habitat changes, native fish in the planning area now occupy a small 

portion of their former ranges, if they are present at all. There are no surface waters within the 

planning area that support a completely native fish fauna (AGFD 2001). Historically, the lower 

Colorado River, lower Gila River, and their tributaries within were inhabited by 10 native fish 

species. Two of these native species, the machete (Elops affinis) and striped mullet (Mugil 

cephalus), are marine or brackish water species that probably never got much farther upstream 

than the Imperial Dam area (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). Occurrences of these two species 

vary with flows of the lower Colorado River as dams, water management, and floods permit 

(AGFD 2001). 

Native freshwater fish species include Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail chub, 

roundtail chub, flannelmouth sucker, desert pupfish, Gila topminnow, and woundfin. Of these 

eight native freshwater species, all but the flannelmouth sucker are federally protected by the 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-41 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

ESA, as amended, or are listed as Wildlife of Special Concern by AGFD. Only the razorback 

sucker and bonytail chub, both federally listed endangered species, are currently present within 

the planning area (see discussion in Section 3.4.7 Special Status Species). 

3.4.6 OTHER AQUATIC SPECIES 

Very little is known about Arizona’s native crustaceans and mollusks (AGFD 2001), including 

those that may inhabit aquatic habitats within the planning area. Most of these species occur in 

isolated springs or other waters that have not been developed. 

3.4.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Special status species include federally listed (endangered or threatened), proposed, and 

candidate species, and designated or proposed critical habitat; species of concern managed under 

Conservation Agreements or Management Plans; BLM-sensitive species; and State-listed species 

(Arizona and California). For purposes of this discussion, “federally protected species” is a more 

narrowly defined term, referring to those species listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed 

under the ESA of 1973, as amended, including designated or proposed critical habitat, if 

applicable; as well as candidates for Federal listing. Several special status species occurring 

within the planning area were discussed in the previous 1985 Yuma District RMP (USDOI BLM 

1987a) and other applicable LUPs for the YFO. However, additional species and designated or 

proposed critical habitats have been listed, or the species’ status has changed since the time these 

plans were written. The most recent and complete list of special status species is considered in 

this section, also see Map 3-9 “Federally Listed Species North Field Office Area,” Map 3-10 

“Federally Listed Species South Field Office Area,” and Map 3-11 “Sonoran Desert Tortoise 

Habitat Categories.” 

A. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES 

Regarding federally protected species, eight federally endangered species, one federally 

threatened species, and one candidate species occupy or have suitable habitat on BLMadministered lands within the planning area (Appendix 2-B). Two federally listed species, desert 

pupfish and Gila topminnow, have historical habitat within the planning area, but no longer 

occur there. The northern aplomado falcon is currently extirpated from Arizona. The USFWS is 

proposing to establish a non-essential experimental population area within Arizona and New 

Mexico, with the expectation that reintroduced aplomado falcons would only persist within the 

Chihuahuan Desert in southeastern Arizona (USDOI USFWS 2005a). Release sites would only 

be on lands within New Mexico (USDOI USFWS 2005a), and the expected area of persistence in 

the Chihuahuan Desert would be outside the planning area; however, released birds could 

potentially disperse as far west as Yuma County within the planning area. 

The 10 federally protected species that potentially occur within the planning area can be grouped 

as follows: one mammal, four bird, one reptile, and four fish species. The razorback sucker has 

designated critical habitat within the planning area. The SWFL, bonytail chub, desert pupfish, 

and desert tortoise (Mohave population) have designated critical habitat; however, no proposed 

Page 3-42 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

or designated critical habitat for these species occurs within the planning area. Recovery Plans, 

which identify objectives, criteria, and actions needed for recovery, have been developed for the 

10 federally listed species potentially occurring in the planning area. 

B. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN 

Two species occurring within the planning area do not have Federal status under the ESA, as 

amended, but are Federal species of concern managed under a Conservation Agreement or 

Management Plan that BLM participates in. The FTHL is managed under a Conservation 

Agreement, signed in 1997, and the FTHL Range-wide Management Strategy, 2003 revision

(FTHL Interagency Coordinating Committee 2003). YFO manages less than 1,000 acres of 

historic habitat for the FTHL in the planning area, much of this habitat is highly fragmented by 

urban and agricultural development. The Yuma Desert Management Area for the FTHL is 

located within the planning area, encompassing approximately 16,200 acres of non-military 

Federal lands and 114,800 acres of military lands. YFO does not administer any lands within the 

Management Area; all Management Area lands are administered by Reclamation or the military 

(the BMGR). 

The Sonoran population of the desert tortoise is managed by BLM under the Management Plan 

for the Sonoran Desert Population of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona (Arizona Interagency Desert 

Tortoise Team 1996). YFO has classified desert tortoise habitat into three categories based on 

habitat quality, tortoise population densities, and management potential for tortoises. YFO 

manages both Category II (approximately 238,000 acres) and Category III habitat 

(approximately 269,000 acres) for the Sonoran population of the desert tortoise. While the 

planning area contains extensive areas of suitable habitat, Sonoran desert tortoise populations are 

at low densities and are patchily distributed, as their abundance and distribution are limited by 

shelter site availability due to the extreme heat and aridity of this region (Weinstein et al. 2003). 

C. BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area have the potential for 84 wildlife and fish 

species that are BLM-sensitive species, State wildlife species of concern in Arizona, or Statelisted species in California (Appendix 2-B). Several of the bird species have been recorded in the 

planning area, but are rare, non-breeding transient species. Species that occur within the planning 

area but do not inhabit BLM-administered lands, such as the Mojave fringe-toed lizard (Uma 

scoparia), are included in the list to characterize the entire planning area, and to recognize that 

during the life of the plan (20 years), some of these species could potentially occupy suitable 

habitats on BLM-administered lands. These 84 special status species can be grouped as follows: 

18 mammal, 54 bird, seven reptile, three amphibian, and two invertebrate species. BLM 

considers these additional plant and animal species as priority species in management of public 

lands. In addition, many of these special status species, or the guilds to which they belong, have 

been identified as priorities for conservation and management in the LCR MSCP (USDOI 

Reclamation et al. 2004), the “Expanded Kofa Complex” management framework adaptation 

(Weinstein et al. 2003) of the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion conservation priorities (Marshall et al. 

2000), and the Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Latta et al. 1999). 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-43 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Brief descriptions of the current conditions of each of the federally listed, proposed, and 

candidate species, Conservation Agreement species, and Management Plan species that occur or 

have suitable habitat within the planning area are provided in Appendix 2-B. 

3.4.8 KEY HABITAT FEATURES 

The key habitat features described at the beginning of this fish and wildlife section also apply to 

special status species. Again, a majority of special status species within the planning area are 

either directly dependent on riparian habitats, braided channel floodplains, and valley wooded 

wash scrub (desert washes), or wetland habitats, or use them more than other habitats. In 

addition, all of the special status fish species that either occur or historically occurred in the 

planning area have suitable habitat within the aquatic habitats of the lower Colorado and lower 

Gila rivers. Appendix 2-B lists the habitat association for each federally protected species. Under 

the ESA, as amended, BLM Manual 6840, and the four-agency MOU,2

 BLM has a particular 

responsibility to conserve or improve habitats that are suitable for or occupied by federally listed, 

proposed, or candidate species to promote the recovery of these species. In addition to the 

general association of each species with its particular habitat types, some special status species 

have a habitat that has been designated as a critical habitat or classified as a priority wildlife 

habitat within the planning area. BLM must ensure that its actions within the planning area 

maintain or improve the designated critical habitat for the razorback sucker, BLM-categorized 

habitat for both the Mohave and Sonoran populations of the desert tortoise, and suitable habitat 

for the FTHL within the historical habitat identified in the Rangewide Management Strategy. 

3.5 WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT 

Wild horses and burros are protected by the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 

(P.L. 92-195), as amended by FLPMA and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 

(P.L. 95-514). After the passage of the 1971 Act, BLM became the managing agency responsible 

for protecting these animals and their habitat. The goal of management within HMAs is to 

maintain a viable burro population in balance with the habitat and other multiple uses. This 

includes ensuring burros have access to water and adequate forage, and that resources are 

available for wildlife habitat and other uses (USDOI BLM 1980). 

There are four HAs and seven HMAs managed by BLM in Arizona, containing approximately 

210 wild horses and 2,500 wild burros. To maintain the wild burro population at approximately 

2,000 animals statewide, Arizona BLM uses a monitoring program for vegetation and animal 

populations. When monitoring data indicate that the population has exceeded the vegetative 

community’s capacity to maintain it, horses or burros in excess of the capacity are removed and 

offered to the public through the Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Program. 

 

2

MOA on ESA Section 7 Programmatic Consultations and Coordination among BLM, Forest Service, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and USFWS, dated August 30, 2000. 

Page 3-44 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

3.5.1 CIBOLA–TRIGO HERD MANAGEMENT AREA 

The Cibola-Trigo HA was identified in 1973 as supporting wild horses and burros in accordance 

with the Act, and is comprised of slightly more than one million acres located entirely within the 

planning area (Map 2-6a) (USDOI BLM 2005f). In 1980, through completion of the CibolaTrigo HMA Plan and in conjunction with the Yuma District Management Framework Plan, the 

HA became an HMA. This was further supported with the completion of the 1987 Yuma District 

RMP. Wild horse and burro populations within the HMA roam freely on lands with different 

administrative responsibilities. Including the BLM, other agencies and entities involved in the 

management of portions of the HMA include the YPG, USFWS, and the State of Arizona. 

In Arizona, the Cibola-Trigo HMA supports both wild horses and burros. During the summer 

months, the burros are concentrated along the Colorado River or other permanent water sources. 

In late fall or early winter, depending on rainfall, they disperse throughout the HMA. They begin 

their movement back to the river in about May or June as the temperatures rise and mesquite 

beans mature. The wild horses remain near a permanent water source year round (USDOI BLM 

2005f). 

Within the HMA, there are four separate areas. The portion of the current HMA north of I-10 

proposed for elimination has had no burro or horse use documented or observed since 1989. 

Further, a vast majority of the public lands in this portion of the HMA were transferred to the 

Colorado River Indian Tribes in August, 2005, through the Colorado River Indian Reservation 

Boundary Correction Act (119 Stat 451). Small tracts of public lands in the Gila and Mohawk 

Mountains are not currently used by burros or horses. The only time burro use was identified was 

in 1973. These areas are not connected to the main portion of the HMA, but are contiguous to the 

BMGR. Preliminary planning documents in the early 1980s stated that burros were on the 

BMGR, and that their use potentially moved up these two ranges. The area proposed for 

elimination within the main body of the HMA east of Highway 95 is primarily U.S. Army 

withdrawn lands on YPG. This portion of YPG has been used for much of its history as a live 

fire and high-explosive impact zone. This activity presents an unacceptable danger to wild horses 

and burros and all attempts to manage these animals in such an environment. 

In southeastern California, only the wild burro roams between the river and the Chocolate/Mules 

and Picacho HMAs. Wild burros are managed under guidelines found in the Proposed Northern 

& Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (USDOI BLM 2002a). The HMA in 

California is dominated by intricately dissected alluvial fans and bajadas adjacent to the 

Colorado River. The uplands support sparse stands of creosote, ocotillo, and paloverde while the 

many drainages emptying into the river support dense stands of desert trees including paloverde, 

ironwood, catclaw acacia, and mesquite that are important sources of forage for burros (USDOI 

USDOI BLM 2005d). Forage use in these drainages serves as an indicator of overall resource 

capabilities. Immediately adjacent to the river are thick stands of salt cedar, Phragmites, and 

arrowweed. Further from the river, the bajadas give way to rugged mountains which receive 

minimal use depending on current climatic conditions (USDOI BLM 2005f). 

In 1980, the Cibola-Trigo HMA Plan established the AML2 for the planning area at 165 wild 

burros and 150 wild horses (USDOI BLM 1980). The AML2 represents the number of animal 

units that are determined to be within the resource capabilities and compatible with other uses. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-45 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Throughout the 1980s, regular gathers reduced the population from 1,200 to between 250 and 

400 burros. Due to budget and other constraints, few wild burros were gathered from 1990 

through 1996; removals conducted were only for nuisance animals. In the early 1990s, the 

population grew rapidly, aided by extremely wet years in 1993 and 1994. By 1996, the 

expanding population of burros, and the beginning of a drought cycle, created overuse of the 

habitat within the HMA (USDOI BLM 2005f). There are currently approximately 200 wild 

burros and 160 wild horses within the HMA according to the most recent survey and removal 

information. 

There have been few removals of wild horses within the HMA. The wild horse population tends 

to merely maintain its population. The horses tend to foal during the late winter and early spring, 

but few foals survive to be yearlings. Since 1987, only 131 wild horses have been removed. In 

2004, 36 wild horses were gathered; there were no yearlings in this removal. 

In January 1996, BLM and Imperial NWR initiated a joint planning process for the Imperial and 

Trigo Mountains Wildernesses. Wild burros were a major issue in this plan, and became a very 

volatile issue. A “Burro Subgroup” was formed to develop monitoring protocols and other 

management activities. In 1998 and 1999, a monitoring protocol was developed in collaboration 

with the NWR, AGFD, YPG, and BLM (USDOI BLM 2005f). Although the Imperial/Trigo Plan 

has not been completed, several agreements and commitments have been made that have guided 

management of wild burros on the Cibola-Trigo HMA since 1999 (USDOI BLM 2005f). These 

include: 

 The AML2 for wild burros will remain at 165. 

 Monitoring data would be collected annually in accordance with the monitoring protocol and 

would be used to periodically review the AML2 and guide removal decisions. 

 All portions of the HMA east of Highway 95 would revert to HA Status and all wild horses 

and burros would be removed due to safety concerns. 

 The Imperial and Cibola NWRs are recognized as not being within the boundaries of the 

HMA, however, because the refuges are adjacent to the river, wild burro use would be 

allowed. Such use would be maintained at minimum levels, with the objective being 20 

percent use on key species at established monitoring sites. 

3.5.2 HERD MONITORING 

Vegetation data for such attributes as species composition, age class, hedging/form class, 

utilization, and bark stripping have been analyzed annually and combined through the entire 

monitoring period. The combined averages for these attributes form baseline data to evaluate the 

success or failure of future management actions (USDOI BLM 2005f). 

In 1999, the YFO and AGFD formed a committee to develop a burro census technique for the 

State of Arizona. The committee agreed to initially test the Simultaneous Double Count that 

continues to be used for big game surveys. In May 2000, the AGFD and the YFO conducted a 

pre- and post-gather census of the Cibola-Trigo HMA to test the use of the methodology. The 

post-gather census estimated the population of wild burros in the HMA to be 396. Based upon 

Page 3-46 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

estimates of recruitment and removal, the population as of September 30, 2004 was 

approximately 170 burros. 

Data relating to color, age, and sex are also collected on wild burros removed and shipped to a 

preparation facility. The overwhelming majority of burros captured are gray. Other colors 

include brown, pink, blue, black, and maltese. No rare or unique colors have been observed 

within the HMA. The ages are nearly uniform up to age eight and the jack-to-jenny sex ratio is 

approximately 1:1. Yearlings have averaged 16 percent of the total of animals removed, which 

supports an anticipated recruitment rate of 16 percent annually. Blood samples have been drawn 

from a sample of captured burros at the Kingman Preparation Facility, in accordance with BLM 

policy, on two separate occasions. Overall, genetic variability in the Cibola-Trigo HMA appears 

to be strong (USDOI BLM 2005f). 

The only age and sex data for horses come from the 2004 gather. The ages range from six weeks 

to 11 years, but none captured were yearlings. Of the total gathered, 22 percent were foals, the 

remainder consisted of adults, 13.9 percent were 2-year olds. The male-to-female ratio was 

0.44:1, and the foals-to-female ratio was the same. Colors identified through the gather included 

brown, bay, appaloosa, and dun. 

3.6 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

3.6.1 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND WILDLANDURBAN INTERFACE 

All BLM-administered public lands in Arizona have been assigned to one of the following land 

use categories for fire management: 1—Wildland Fire Use (areas suitable for wildland fire use 

for resource management benefit) or 2—Non-Wildland Fire Use (areas not suitable for wildland 

fire use for resource benefit). Within the planning area, there are no lands in Category 1. Most of 

the planning area is categorized as Category 2, with large areas dominated by desert scrub 

communities. Fire is not a part of the natural regime for the planning area and fires are typically 

human caused. 

The goal of the Arizona BLM WUI Strategy is to implement an efficient and effective WUI fuels 

reduction program. One of BLM’s goals for the fire management program is to work 

collaboratively with communities at risk of property loss from wildfire within the WUI to 

develop plans for risk reduction (USDOI BLM 2004d). The desired resource condition is to 

maintain fuels at non-hazardous levels in WUI areas to provide for public and firefighter safety 

(USDOI BLM 2004c). 

Communities at risk within the planning area are shown in Table 3-9. Fire Management Units 

with communities of concern include the lower Colorado River (South) and the Gila River 

(Map 3-12). The current list is incomplete, because the wildland fire risk in WUI areas has not 

been determined. It would be difficult for the BLM to implement the fuels reduction program in 

the WUI without a wildland fire risk assessment. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-47 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

The YFO has developed two Community Wildfire Protection Plans with La Paz County, one 

covering communities along the lower Colorado River and the other covering communities in the 

upland desert. The YFO is currently working with Yuma County, Arizona, San Bernardino and 

Imperial Counties, California to develop community-based Community Wildfire Protection 

Plans. 

Table 3-9 

Wildland–Urban Interface/Communities at Risk by Fire Management Units 

in the Yuma/Lake Havasu Zone 

Fire Management Unit Wildland Urban Interface/Communities at Risk 

Lower Colorado River 

(South) 

Yuma is on the 2001 Federal Register list as a community at risk from wildfire. 

There are many other communities of concern that are not on the 2001 list. 

Gila River 

Three communities of concern within the FMU. None of these communities are 

listed on the 2001 Federal Register as communities at risk. Wellton is located 15 

miles from the western boundary of the FMU. Tacna is located in the middle of 

the FMU. Hyder is located near the eastern boundary of the FMU. 

Sonoran Desert 

Wilderness (South) No communities at risk within this FMU. 

Sonoran Desert Scrub No communities at risk from wildfire within this FMU on the 2001 Federal 

Register list. 

Source: BLM GIS Data; Yuma/Lake Havasu Fire Management Plan (USDOI BLM 2004d) 

 FMU = Fire Management Unit

3.6.2 FIRE ECOLOGY 

The historical fire regime patterns of Arizona lands vary in frequency (mean or median fire 

return interval) and magnitude (both intensity and severity), depending on major vegetation 

types, climate, elevation, fuel conditions, and other characteristics of the landscape. Fire history 

studies have been often used to characterize the historical range of variability. Natural resource 

managers use information on historical/natural variability to set management goals for ecological 

restoration based on natural processes of ecological systems. Prior to European settlement in the 

southwestern U.S., wildland fire was a common and widespread influence in shaping the landscape pattern (Paysen et al. 2000). Many of the historical wildland fires prior to European 

settlement were lightning induced fires, with some human induced fires by Native American 

tribes (Brown 2000). 

Within the planning area, desert scrub communities are a major vegetation type, and wildfire was 

not historically part of the disturbance ecology for these communities. The natural fire regime of 

the desert scrub communities has long return intervals, with frequencies extending hundreds of 

years (McAuliffe 1999; Rogers and Steele 1981). In these communities, the distance between 

shrubs is too great for fire to carry, unless annual plant growth in the inter-shrub spaces is 

sufficient to carry fire. In some Arizona lands, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) has increased the 

frequency of fire in the desert ecosystems. Cheatgrass and other introduced non-native annual 

grasses are prolific seed producers and grow rapidly, especially during wet years. When these 

annual plants dry, they increase the risk of wildfires. With an increased frequency of fire, native 

grasses and shrubs cannot compete, resulting in a loss of native plant communities. 

Page 3-48 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

There is little evidence for extensive fires in southwestern floodplain ecosystems prior to 

European settlement. Lightning and human induced fires now occur across a variety of lowelevation riparian ecosystems where salt cedar has invaded (Ellis et al. 1998). Colonization and 

naturalization of non-native plant species, such as salt cedar, affect native ecosystems by altering 

historical fire regimes. The deciduous nature of salt cedar, combined with the suppression of 

periodic flooding needed in river floodplain ecosystems to decrease the forest floor liter, has 

resulted in increased accumulation of fuels, rendering the riparian communities highly 

susceptibility to wildfires (Ellis et al. 1998). The frequency of fire in riparian ecosystems has 

been reduced to fire return intervals as short as five to 15 years in some cases. The short-interval 

fires can create monotypic stands of salt cedar in the riparian ecosystems. Salt cedar sprouts 

prolifically after a fire, but native riparian vegetation including cottonwood is not well adapted to 

severe fire (Ohmart and Anderson 1982; Ellis et al. 1998). The increasing frequency of fires in 

the riparian ecosystems can further change the vegetation composition and structure and may 

also have detrimental effects on riparian-obligate species. 

Wildland fires of special concern are those with the potential to burn uncharacteristically (in 

intensity, severity, and/or extent), because these fires could have long-term adverse impacts on 

ecosystem components and processes (e.g., biodiversity, soil productivity, and hydrologic 

processes). 

3.6.3 FIRE REGIMES AND RISK CONDITIONS 

Fire regime refers to the nature of fires occurring over long periods of time and the prominent 

immediate effects of fire that generally characterize an ecosystem (Brown 2000). Fire regimes 

can be defined through the attributes of frequency, seasonality, size/spatial extent, rotation (or 

fire cycle), predictability (or variation in fire frequency), and magnitude (both intensity and 

severity) (Agee 1993; Morgan el al. 2001). Fire regimes can be subdivided into components that 

vary in time, space, and magnitude. However, fire regime descriptions are often limited to the 

frequency and severity of wildfires. 

Fire regimes vary considerably by both vegetation types and landscape characteristics. Map 3-13 

and Table 3-10 display the historical/natural fire regimes, based on fire frequency and severity, 

for the vegetated lands in the planning area. The vegetated lands in the planning area are 

classified as Fire Regimes III (fire frequency of 35 to over 100 years with mixed severity) and IV 

(fire frequency of 35 to over 100 years and high severity). These fire regime groups are 

generalized and address only the primary type of fire that occurs in each regime. 

Current condition classes are a function of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes 

resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components such as species composition, structural 

stage, stand age, and canopy closure. One or more of the following activities may have caused 

this departure: fire exclusion or suppression, vegetation management, grazing, introduction and 

establishment of exotic plant species, insects or disease (introduced or native), or other past 

management activities (Hann and Bunnell 2001). 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-49 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-10 

Historical Fire Regimes Based on Fire Frequency and Severity 

Fire Regime 

Group Fire Frequency and Severity1

All Lands within the 

Planning Area (acres) 

BLM Lands within the 

Planning Area (acres) 

I 

0-35 years; 

Low (surface fire most common) 

severity 

-- -- 

II 0-35 years; 

High (stand replacement) severity -- -- 

III 35-100+ years; 

Mixed severity 1,844,600 575,8002

IV 35-100+ years; 

High (stand replacement) severity 228,100 31,4002

V > 200 years; 

High (stand replacement) severity -- -- 

Source: Schmidt et al. 2002; http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman 1

Fire frequency refers to fire return interval. Fire severity refers to fire effects to dominant above ground vegetation 

(less than or greater than 75% dominant overstory replacement). 2

Acres represent vegetated lands only. 

Map 3-14 and Table 3-11 display the current fire regime condition classes, based on degree of 

departures from historical/natural fire regimes, for the vegetated lands in the planning area. The 

vegetated lands in the planning area are mostly classified as Condition Class 1 (fire regimes 

within the historical range), with a minor portion classified as Condition Class 3 (significantly 

altered fire regimes). 

Landscape-level fire and fuels management strategies, including wildland fire suppression, 

vegetation and fuel treatments, wildland fire use, and prescribed fires are used in the planning 

area to reduce the fire hazard and risk in the wildland and WUI areas. In general, actions related 

to wildland fire and fuels management should reduce the amount of vegetated lands 

characterized as Fire Regime Condition Classes 2 and 3. Class 3 occurs within the planning area. 

Fuel hazard reduction may include prescribed fire, mechanical, biological, and chemical 

treatments or a combination thereof. The fuel treatment strategies reduce both existing fuel levels 

and risks of large damaging wildfires. 

Landscape-level fire and fuels management strategies are designed to limit wildland fire extent, 

modify fire behavior, protect values at risk, and improve terrestrial ecosystem conditions. Fire 

management and fuel treatment strategies allow land/resource managers to control fires and set 

priorities that protect fire fighters, public life and property, and natural resources. 

Page 3-50 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-11 

Current Condition Classes Based on Departures from Historical Fire Regimes 

Condition 

Class (CC) Description 

All Lands 

within Planning 

Area (acres) 

BLM Lands 

within Planning 

Area (acres) 

CC1 

Fire regimes are within a historical range and the risk of 

losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation 

attributes (species composition and structure) are intact 

and functioning within a historical range. 

1,716,600 565,4001

CC2 

Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their 

historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem 

components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed 

from historical frequencies by one or more return intervals 

(either increased or decreased). This results in moderate 

changes to one or more of the following: fire size, 

intensity and severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation 

attributes have been moderately altered from their 

historical range. 

-- -- 

CC3 

Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their 

historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem 

components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from 

historical frequencies by multiple return intervals. This 

results in dramatic changes to one or more of the 

following: fire size, intensity and severity, and landscape 

patterns. Vegetation attributes have been significantly 

altered from their historical range. 

3,000 2001

Source: Hann and Bunnell 2001; http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman 1

Acres represent vegetated lands only.

3.6.4 FIRE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND WILDFIRE 

HISTORY 

The Yuma/Lake Havasu Zone is subdivided into eight Fire Management Units—Bill Williams 

River, Gila River, High Elevation Sonoran Desert, Lower Colorado River (North), Lower 

Colorado River (South), Sonoran Desert Wilderness (North), Sonoran Desert Wilderness 

(South), and Sonoran Desert Scrub. Of these eight Fire Management Units, six overlap the 

planning area. Map 3-12 displays the spatial extent of the Fire Management Units, and 

Table 3-12 provides descriptions of the geographical locations and areas. 

Wildfire history is closely related to vegetation and climatic patterns in terrestrial ecosystems. 

Patterns of fire frequency, season, size, severity, and uniformity are functions of existing 

vegetation conditions, weather, elevation, physiographic features, ignition sources, and fire 

suppression activities. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-51 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-12 

Fire Management Units in Yuma/Lake Havasu Zone Overlapping Planning Area 

Fire 

Management 

Area Location 

All Lands 

within Planning 

Area (acres) 

BLM Lands 

within Planning 

Area (acres) 

High Elevation 

Sonoran Desert 

High Elevation Sonoran Desert FMU consists of two 

mountain ranges within the Lake Havasu Field Office 

boundaries. It represents all of the uplands in the Fire 

Zone with an elevation of 3,500 feet or more and 

includes the Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness and the 

Mohave Mountains. 

23,400 -- 

Lower Colorado 

River (North) 

Lower Colorado River (North) FMU is located along 

the Colorado River from Davis Dam south to I-10. 103,500 4,000 

Lower Colorado 

River (South) 

Lower Colorado River (South) FMU is located along 

the Colorado River from I-10 south to the Southerly 

International Boundary at San Luis, Arizona. 

266,600 45,000 

Gila River 

Gila River FMU is located east of Yuma and starts at 

the north end of the Gila Mountains and follows the 

Gila River riparian area east approximately 80 miles 

to the YFO boundary. 

159,300 33,600 

Sonoran Desert 

Wilderness 

Sonoran Desert Wilderness (North) FMU consists of 

BLM-administered wildernesses north of I-10 in 

Arizona, excluding the Harcuvar Mountains 

Wilderness. Sonoran Desert Wilderness (South) FMU 

consists of BLM-administered wildernesses south of 

I-10 in Arizona. 

1,120,800 167,800 

Sonoran Desert 

Scrub 

Sonoran Desert Scrub FMU includes the entire upland 

Sonoran Desert that is not included elsewhere. This 

FMU can be accessed from Interstates 8, 10, and 40. 

3,353,400 1,067,600 

Source: BLM GIS Data; Yuma/Lake Havasu Fire Management Plan (USDOI BLM 2004d) 

FMU = Fire Management Unit 

Between 1984 and 2003, approximately 98 percent of fires in the Yuma/Lake Havasu Zone were 

caused by humans and generally occurred between the months of February and October 

(Map 3-15). Fires caused by humans were usually associated with main travel corridors and the 

rivers. 

The number of fires varies from year to year in the planning area. The twenty-year annual 

average is approximately 36 fires, burning an average of 3,022 acres per year. Multiple fire days 

consisting of two or more fires per day have occurred 34 times in the past 20 years. Of the 34 

events, six consisted of days with three fires. 

Fires were largely confined to the Lower Colorado River (North), Lower Colorado River 

(South), and Gila River Fire Management Units, where the fires were almost entirely caused by 

humans. Fire occurrence is most common in the Lower Colorado River (South) Fire Management Unit. Based on historic data, the probability of large wildfires is also highest in this Fire 

Management Unit because of public use, fuel continuity, and reduced access. A Federal national 

team (Type I Incident Management Team) has been mobilized once between 1984 and 2003 for 

fires in the Lower Colorado River (South) Fire Management Unit. 

Page 3-52 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

While the majority of the area experiences fires ranging from less than an acre to 99 acres (Class 

A, B, and C fires), the Lower Colorado River (South) Fire Management Unit has a history of 

large fire activity, with a total of eight fires ranging from 240 to 4,100 acres (Class E and F 

fires). 

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Lands managed by the YFO have a rich and diverse cultural heritage. The ancestors of today’s 

Native Americans lived in the region for thousands of years. The Spanish first explored the 

planning area in 1540. American trappers began filtering into the area in the early 1800s and the 

U.S. took over the territory in 1848 as a result of the Mexican-American War and the Treaty of 

Guadalupe Hidalgo. Today’s southern Arizona and New Mexico south of the Gila River were 

acquired in the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. Soon Arizona had a growing pioneer population and 

an economy based on ranching and mining. All of these various visitors and residents left an 

archaeological record of their lives and their time spent in the planning area. These traces of past 

activities require a wide variety of approaches and methods for their effective management. 

These include cultural site protection, surveys for identification and evaluation, scientific 

research, ethnographic and oral history research, interpretive development, and public education. 

3.7.1 CULTURAL SEQUENCE 

A. MALPAIS (PRIOR TO 12,000 BP) 

Defined primarily by Julian Hayden (1987), the contemporary use of the term refers to 

assemblages of heavily weathered and varnished choppers, scrapers, and other core-based tools. 

Projectile points are lacking. These materials are typically found on Pleistocene-age desert 

pavements, sometimes associated with cleared circles or trails. Dating has been attempted on the 

basis of weathering and desert varnish formation, but obtaining radiocarbon or other absolute 

dates remains elusive. The existence and dating of the Malpais Complex remains controversial. 

B. PALEOAMERICAN PERIOD (13,000 TO 7,000 BP) 

Also known as the Paleoindian Period, this is when people first entered North America according 

to most archaeologists. This period is generally accepted to have occurred from about 13,000 BP 

to 7,000 BP, although there is some evidence of earlier occupations (e.g., Moratto 1984:71). 

This was a time of greater effective moisture than present. 

1. The Fluted Point Tradition 

The Fluted Point Tradition, first documented in Clovis, New Mexico, is primarily a southern 

Great Plains, big game hunting tradition. However, fluted projectile points have been found all 

over North America. In places other than the Great Plains, the economy seems more generalized. 

The typical Clovis type projectile point is a finely flaked, concave base spear point with a flute (a 

long thinning flake) running from base toward the tip. The assemblage also includes flaked-stone 

crescents, gravers, perforators, scrapers, and choppers (Justice 2002).

Yuma Field Office Page 3-53 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

2. The San Dieguito Complex and Lake Mojave Complex 

The San Dieguito Complex and the very closely related Lake Mojave Complex are primarily 

found in the deserts of Arizona, Nevada, Sonora, and the Californias (Rogers et al. 1966:24-25). 

Defined by Malcolm Rogers in the 1920s, the San Dieguito Complex represents primarily a big 

game hunting-based economy with some small game hunting and gathering of plant foods. The 

San Dieguito Complex, as currently known, contains only leaf-shaped projectile points, while the 

Lake Mojave Complex contains the long, tapered stem Lake Mojave type point and the short 

stem Silver Lake type point and an occasional Clovis fluted point. The assemblage also contains 

heavy percussion-shaped domed and keeled choppers, planes, and scrapers and finely flaked 

spokeshaves and crescents. The San Dieguito and Lake Mojave sites have limited numbers of 

slab metates for seed processing (Warren 1987).

C. THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 

1. Early Archaic (approximately 7,000 to 4,000 BP) 

The early Holocene was a time of global warming when Pleistocene lakes dried up, woodlands 

retreated upslope, and big game became relatively scarce. In response, native people gradually 

shifted their economic focus from hunting big game to gathering plant products, especially hard 

seeds. In the early Archaic, one finds the Pinto Complex in the nearby Mojave Desert and north 

in the Great Basin; few Early Archaic sites have been noted in western Arizona and none are 

known from the Salton Sink. This complex is characterized by thin slab millingstones or metates, 

large, crude Pinto series projectile points, crude choppers, scrapers, scraper-planes, and knives 

(Warren 1987; Warren and Crabtree 1986). 

2. Late Archaic (approximately 4,000 to 1,500 BP) 

During the Late Archaic Period, the Amargosa or Gypsum Complex developed. While the 

Gypsum Complex was defined for the Mojave Desert and the Great Basin, Rogers recorded 

numerous Late Archaic sites in western Arizona, but did not note any from the California side of 

the Colorado Desert (Rogers et al. 1966; Warren 1984:403-404). The Gypsum Complex is 

characterized by fine, pressure-flaked Elko (or San Pedro in eastern and central Arizona), 

Humboldt, and Gypsum-type projectile points, leaf-shaped points, rectangular-based knives, 

flaked scrapers, T-shaped drills, and occasional large scraper-planes, choppers, and 

hammerstones. Manos and basin metates became relatively common and the mortar and pestle 

were introduced late in this period (Warren and Crabtree 1986). 

D. LATE PREHISTORIC PERIOD 

Around the start of this period, ceramics begin to appear in the archaeological record along the 

lower Colorado River, as does the bow and arrow. 

1. The Patayan 

Patayan is a lower Colorado Basin culture that is also known as the Ancestral Yuman or 

Hakataya. The Patayan Complex is divided into three phases. These phases are primarily defined 

by changes in ceramic types and forms. 

Page 3-54 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

 Patayan I (AD 500 to 1000): The Patayan I phase is characterized by small mobile groups 

living in dispersed seasonal settlements, primarily along the Colorado River, but also at some 

desert springs. The subsistence economy was dominated by gathering plant foods, primarily 

mesquite pods, fishing, and hunting small game. Paddle and anvil pottery and small projectile 

points, such as the Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood Triangular types, were introduced. 

Disposal of the dead changed from inhumation to cremation. 

 Patayan II (AD 1000 to 1500): The Patayan II phase is marked by the existence of Lake 

Cahuilla. This was a huge freshwater lake that formed from time to time when the Colorado 

River flowed into the Salton Sink instead of the Gulf of California. Lake Cahuilla was 

approximately 100 miles long and 35 miles wide. It is thought to have had numerous filling 

and drying cycles over the last million years or so since the mid-Pleistocene. Late Prehistoric 

sites are very abundant along the Lake Cahuilla high stand shoreline and recessional 

shorelines. During Patayan II, a major subsistence shift took place from fishing and gathering 

along the Lake Cahuilla shoreline to floodplain horticulture in the Colorado and lower Gila 

River floodplains. Maize, tepary beans, pumpkins, gourds, and grasses were cultivated, but 

the pods of the native mesquite tree were evidently the most important food (Castetter and 

Bell 1951). People of this period typically lived in substantial houses on hills and terraces 

away from the floodplain during late winter, spring and early summer when the Colorado and 

Gila rivers would flood. After the floodplain dried out sufficiently, the people would move 

back to the floodplain and plant their crops in the moist mud. A few months after the harvest, 

they would move to an upland location again to avoid the spring flood (Castetter and Bell 

1951). 

 Patayan III (approximately AD 1500 to the 1900s): The Patayan III phase begins after the 

final desiccation of Lake Cahuilla between approximately AD 1500 and 1600. This phase is, 

therefore, in the Historic Period for the most part. It is marked by cultural continuity with 

Patayan II on the one hand, and with the ethnographically attested tribes living in the region 

in modern times on the other hand (Castetter and Bell 1951). With the drying up of Lake 

Cahuilla, people living along the east bank probably moved back to the Colorado River, 

while those on the west bank are believed to have moved to the west (e.g., Rogers 1945).

2. The Hohokam 

The Hohokam lived primarily in the Gila-Salt basin near Phoenix, Arizona, but there were 

Hohokam settlements north to the Flagstaff area, south to the Tucson area and west as far as Gila 

Bend. Cultural resources associated with the Hohokam can be found at the very eastern portion 

of the planning area, around the Maricopa County line. The Hohokam were agriculturalists who 

built an extensive system of canals to aid in the cultivation of cotton, tobacco, agave, maize, 

beans, squash, gourds and grasses. The Hohokam cultural sequence has been divided into four 

periods (Doyel 1981; Gumerman and Haury 1979). 

 The Pioneer Period (AD 200-775): Villages were small and located primarily along the 

middle of the Gila River. Here they built semi-rectangular, semi-subterranean houses. They 

dug wells and built extensive canals to support agriculture based on maize, cotton, beans, 

squash, and pig weed. Stone manos and metates were used for seed grinding. Pottery was 

undecorated brown ware. Clay human and animal figures and incense burners were also 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-55 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

made. The dead were cremated and placed in ceramic urns (Doyel 1981; Gumerman and 

Haury 1979). 

 The Colonial Period (AD 775-975): During this period, village size and Mexican influence 

increased. In larger homes, there was evidence of social stratification and grave goods were 

more ornate. Ball courts reminiscent of those in Mexico were established in larger villages. 

Iron-stained slip was introduced, resulting in a red-on-buff ware pottery.

 The Sedentary Period (AD 975-1150): The Sedentary Period saw an increase in population 

that resulted in larger irrigation canals and structures, an expansion of cultivated land, 

communal ovens for cooking bread and meat, and greater communal activity. Houses became 

post-reinforced pit houses and villages were built around common courtyards. More cotton 

textiles and jewelry made from shell, stone, and bone were produced. Carved stone figures 

and acid etching were introduced and craftsmanship improved. An elite class emerged, 

suggesting increased social stratification. Platform mounds similar to those in central Mexico 

appeared (Doyel 1981; Gumerman and Haury 1979).

 The Classic Period (AD 1150-1400/1450): This period is separated into two cultural phases. 

The Soho Phase (AD 1150-1300) saw a decline in population, the number of canals and 

rancherias, and trade with Mexico. An outside threat resulted in more centralized villages 

with dense structures and perimeter walls. Great House structures, made of stone or adobe, 

had up to four stories. These were probably associated with the managerial or religious class. 

Trade with Pueblo peoples to the north and east increased (Doyel 1981; Gumerman and 

Haury 1979). During the Civano Phase (AD 1300-1400/1450), many villages were 

abandoned. Several years of major river flooding followed by long periods of low water 

resulted in lack of dependable irrigation water and the ability to produce food for large 

numbers of people. By AD 1355, the central authority had collapsed and large villages and 

the centralized irrigation systems were abandoned. Small groups moved to the desert or areas 

with more dependable water sources. Some Hohokam may have reorganized into smaller 

villages and stayed along the Gila River. Some scholars suggest the remnant Hohokam may 

have been the Piman-speaking people that the Spanish encountered there at the end of the 

seventeenth century (e.g., Ezell 1963). Others suggest that the Pima-speakers moved into the 

area after the Hohokam collapse (Di Peso 1956). Pima oral tradition suggests they moved 

into the area from the east and drove out the remnant Hohokam, who fled to the west (Doyel 

1981).

E. HISTORIC 

In 1540, Hernando de Alarcón and his crew rowed up the Colorado River to the Yuma area. 

Melchior Diaz, as part of the Coronado Expedition, visited the area on horseback. Oñate, the 

governor of New Mexico, explored Yuma and environs in 1605 and the famous Italian Jesuit, 

Eusebio Francisco Kino, visited in 1701. Franciscan missionaries, Francisco Garces Juan Diaz 

and others established two small missions and settlements in the Yuma vicinity in 1779. In 

1781, there was a small mining boom in the Spanish settlement of Potholes, north of the Yuma 

area; however, the Spanish were ultimately driven from the Yuma area by the successful 

Quechan Revolt of 1782. Few Spanish, Mexican and Americans used the Yuma Crossing until 

the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 (Forbes 1965). 

Page 3-56 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

The California Gold Rush of 1849 brought thousands of emigrants to the Yuma Crossing, and 

Fort Yuma was established in 1852 despite stiff armed resistance by the Quechan (Forbes 1965; 

Woznicki 1968). From the 1850s until 1877, steamboats plied the Colorado River transporting 

passengers and goods to mines, ranches and military outposts all along the river from Port Isabel 

on the Gulf of California up to Hardyville, now known as Bullhead City. In 1877, the Southern 

Pacific Railroad bridged the river, ending riverboat transportation. Yuma remained a 

transportation hub, however, as extensive railway yards and maintenance operations were 

developed (Woznicki 1968). Agriculture, based on small scale irrigation systems, was an 

important part of the economy in the late 19th century. After the construction of the Laguna Dam 

in 1909 and the associated siphon and delivery canals in 1912, agriculture expanded dramatically 

(Woznicki 1968). 

MCAS-Yuma began with a primitive airfield in 1928. In World War II, it became one of the 

busiest flying schools in the country. In 1943 through May 1944, the Desert Training Center, 

later renamed the California – Arizona Maneuver Area, was established. Here General George S. 

Patton trained soldiers in World War II for desert campaigns in North Africa. This training 

facility then became the Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), which continues to test various Army 

gear and equipment. 

3.7.2 CULTURAL AFFILIATION 

Yuman (Cocopah, CRIT, Fort Mojave, Hualapai, Quechan, Yavapai), Maricopa (Ak-Chin, Gila 

River, and Salt River Pima-Maricopa), Southern Paiute (Chemehuevi) and Hopi have ties to the 

planning area. The lower Colorado River tribes typically practiced floodplain horticulture and 

grew the classic southwestern crops of corn, beans, squash, melons, pumpkins, and gourds. A 

major staple of their diet was the pods of the mesquite tree. Their primary source of protein was 

fish and small game. Most of the tribes followed a bi-polar settlement system. In late summer 

and fall they lived in the floodplain near where they planted their crops; in late winter, spring, 

and early summer they lived in more substantial houses in upland settings to avoid the seasonal 

floods (Castetter and Bell 1951). The Tohono O’odham and Hia C’ed O’odham also have 

important ties to the planning area, with the Tohono O’odham traditionally occupying the arid 

desert south of the Gila River and the Hia C’ed O’odham occupying the lands from the Gulf of 

California to the Tinajas Altas Mountains. 

3.7.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND IDENTIFIED 

SITES 

YFO follows the guidance provided by the BLM – SHPO Cultural Resources Data Sharing 

Partnership for management of its cultural resources data. This partnership developed a central 

cultural resources database for each state with BLM-administered lands. YFO enters information 

on cultural sites and surveys for the entire planning area into AZSITE, Arizona's statewide 

database for cultural resource information that is administered by the Arizona SHPO and the 

Arizona State Museum. In addition, YFO contributes data to the California Historical Resources 

Information System by sharing information on its cultural sites and surveys that are located in 

California with the California Office of Historic Preservation Information Centers for Imperial 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-57 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

and Riverside Counties, which are hosted at the Imperial Valley College Desert Museum and the 

University of California at Riverside, respectively. 

As of June 2006, the statewide AZSITE database lists about 700 previous cultural resource 

surveys in the planning area covering approximately 215,000 acres. These areas have been 

inventoried for cultural resources at either a Class II (sample survey) or a Class III (100 percentcoverage survey) level. This represents about 16 percent of the planning area’s surface acreage. 

Locations that have undergone inventory have been dictated primarily by proposed construction 

projects, with the inventory conducted for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. However, 

some inventory has been conducted in response to Section 110 of that same law, which requires 

Federal agencies to identify, evaluate, and nominate to the NRHP historic properties under their 

jurisdiction. 

In total, over 4,300 archaeological sites have been documented in AZSITE for the planning area. 

Given the relatively low level of survey coverage in the planning area, one could reasonably 

expect that several thousand prehistoric and historic sites remain undiscovered on BLMadministered lands managed by the YFO. 

Prehistoric site types recorded include habitation sites, temporary camps, petroglyphs and 

pictographs, intaglios and geoglyphs, trails, hearths, and artifact scatters with chipped stone and 

ceramics. Prehistoric sites are distributed over all ecological zones within the region. Miles of 

trails and numerous cleared areas, rock rings, and hearths scattered across the desert lowlands 

attest to a constant presence and movement across the desert landscape. Upland zones provided 

more variety in biotic resources and were a great resource for raw lithic materials. These upland 

and lowland sites are components of a larger interconnected system established prehistorically 

for the exploitation of the area’s resources. 

Historic sites include railroads, roads, trails, irrigation facilities, mining sites, telegraph lines, 

homesteads, and cemeteries. Some historic trails in the area include the Anza Trail, Butterfield 

Overland Mail Route, Mormon Battalion Trail, and Gila Trail. Economic enterprises such as 

mining and agriculture populated the region, and southern Arizona became the focus of a 

transportation route to California and the coast. Mail routes and the railroad continued the 

populating of the region. Thus, the historic sites tend to occupy transportation corridors along 

river valleys, between mountain ranges, and over mountain passes. Historic sites are often 

located at or near the same locations as prehistoric sites, indicating similar needs for access to 

water and other resources. 

Determining the age of prehistoric sites is particularly difficult in this region of the southwest. 

Most sites located along the terraces above the river floodplains are surface manifestations with 

little or no stratigraphic depth and few diagnostic artifacts, so that the sites cannot be dated to a 

specific prehistoric period. Depending on the site, a combination of the geomorphology at these 

locations and the length of occupation result in a lack of subsurface archaeological materials. 

Long-term habitation sites would provide the best opportunity for site dating, because they 

would contain substantial subsurface cultural deposits. However, these sites are likely to be 

located on the river floodplains and have been either severely disturbed by water flows, 

destroyed by agricultural activities, or deeply buried beneath floodplain deposits. Thus, these site 

types are extremely rare and immensely valuable. 

Page 3-58 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

3.7.4 PLACES OF TRADITIONAL CULTURAL IMPORTANCE 

Places of traditional cultural importance provide a sense of spiritual and social continuity to 

Native Americans and other cultural groups. Some places may have religious significance. 

Others may be used for the observance of traditional ceremonial activities, or for hunting or 

gathering plants for food or medicinal use. Because they are not usually recognizable to an 

outsider through archeological or historical investigations, the existence and locations of 

traditional cultural importance may often only be identified through consultation with members 

of the groups who ascribe value to those places. 

YFO is consulting specifically with Native American tribes to provide an opportunity for tribes 

to identify any places of traditional religious or cultural importance relevant to the proposed 

RMP alternatives. Many Native American belief systems require that the identity and location of 

traditional religious and cultural properties not be divulged. BLM has a commitment to keep 

specific information regarding such resources confidential to the fullest extent allowed by law. 

3.7.5 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

In general, sites are considered significant if they are associated with an important prehistoric or 

historic event, person, architectural style or engineering style, or have the potential to yield 

important information about prehistory or history. Currently, approximately 25 percent of known 

sites in the planning area are considered or determined eligible for listing on the NRHP, 12 

percent are considered or determined not eligible for the NRHP, and the remaining sites have not 

been formally evaluated. Sites, districts, and thematic resources listed on the NRHP for the 

planning area include: 

 Blythe Intaglios Complex, listed on August 22, 1975; 

 Ripley Intaglios Complex, listed on November 20, 1975; 

 Eagletails Petroglyph Site, listed on September 28, 1988; 

 Sears Point Archaeological District, listed on October 16, 1985; 

 Martinez Lake Site, listed on September 10, 1987; and 

 Earth Figures of California–Arizona Colorado River Basin Thematic Resource. 

The Sears Point Archaeological District is part of the existing Gila River Cultural Area ACEC, 

and the Blythe Intaglios Complex is within the Big Marias ACEC. 

3.7.6 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES 

BLM evaluates cultural resources according to their current and potential uses. Cultural 

resources can be managed under one or more of the following six use categories: Scientific Use, 

Public Use, Traditional Use, Conservation for Future Use, Experimental Use, and Discharged 

from Management. Definitions for these categories are found in Section 2.15.3 Allocation to Use 

Categories. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-59 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

All cultural sites that are known and projected to occur in the planning area are managed under 

one or more of the six use categories, following the guidelines described in BLM Manual

8110.4. The BLM determines suitable uses for cultural resources based on a site’s characteristics, 

condition, setting, location, accessibility, perceived values and potential uses. Management 

categories are used to determine appropriate mitigation and treatment options for cultural sites 

that are presently known and for those discovered in the future. The BLM reevaluates and revises 

management categories, as appropriate, when circumstances change or new data become 

available. See Section 2.15 in Chapter 2 for a more detailed description of how cultural sites 

within the planning area would be managed under the six use categories. 

Cultural properties currently managed for Public Use in the planning area are the Blythe 

Intaglios Complex in the Big Marias ACEC, the Fisherman Intaglio, the Sears Point ACEC 

interpretive area, and historic trails such as the Anza Trail, the Butterfield Overland Mail Route, 

the Gila Trail, and the Mormon Battalion Trail. 

3.7.7 AREAS OF HIGH CULTURAL RESOURCE 

SENSITIVITY 

A. COLORADO RIVER CORRIDOR 

The lower Colorado River corridor stands in stark contrast to the surrounding dry desert. 

Prehistorically along the river, one would find tall cottonwood and willow gallery woodlands 

(Minckley and Brown 1994). In upper floodplain areas were extensive mesquite bosques. The 

pods of the mesquite were a major dietary staple during the Late Prehistoric Period and the 

Historic Period (Castetter and Bell 1951). Indigenous peoples planted their crops in the river’s 

floodplain. The river also provided fish, the major source of protein, as well as habitat to rabbits 

and other small game, which also contributed to the diet (Forde 1931). The adjacent desert 

provided small game and plant foods, as well as lithic resources and ceremonial sites. 

The tribes who lived along the river were inveterate visitor travelers. They were in more or less 

constant contact with other river tribes for visiting and trading by means of an extensive trail 

network along both banks. In addition to their role as transportation routes, the trails have a great 

deal of spiritual significance. Travel along the lower Colorado River corridor figures 

prominently in their origin stories, oral traditions, and song cycles (Kroeber 1925). Also in the 

adjacent desert pavement terraces are many intaglio features and other important geoglyphs. 

These designs in the desert pavement are highly significant and irreplaceable resources that have 

a great deal of spiritual significance for the river tribes. Very few archaeological deposits have 

been discovered within the river floodplain, presumably because the river either scoured away or 

deeply buried archaeological deposits during flooding episodes. However, the adjacent desert is 

archaeologically very rich (e.g., Altschul and Ezzo 1994; Cleland et al. 2003). The Blythe 

Intaglios NRHP site, Martinez Lake NRHP site, and Ripley Intaglios NRHP site are located 

along this corridor, and the Big Marias ACEC was designated to help preserve and manage 

sensitive cultural resources along the river. 

Page 3-60 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

B. GILA RIVER CORRIDOR 

Like the lower Colorado River corridor (see above), the Gila River also functioned as a source of 

sustenance for inhabitants and travelers in prehistoric and historic times. Indigenous peoples 

along the lower Gila River had very similar languages, cultures, and subsistence strategies to the 

lower Colorado River tribes. In the planning area along the lower Gila River corridor, one also 

finds geoglyphs and intaglios on delicate desert pavement formations, and an extensive system of 

prehistoric trails, extensive rock art sites, and other important cultural features. These sites along 

the Gila River have substantial spiritual significance to contemporary Native Americans of the 

region. This river corridor also has importance as a travel route in historic times, with the Anza 

Trail, Butterfield Overland Mail Route, Mormon Battalion Trail, and Gila Trail all following the 

course of the Gila River floodplain. In order to effectively manage the important cultural 

resources that are situated along the Gila River, the BLM designated the Sears Point ACEC, 

which contains the Sears Point NRHP archaeological district and a portion of the Anza Trail 

route. 

C. SPRINGS, TINAJAS, AND WASHES 

Ethnographic and archaeological studies suggest that in desert areas, access to water was a prime 

consideration in prehistoric and historic settlement location decisions and travel routes (e.g., 

Taylor 1961). Most undisturbed water sources in the planning area, including springs, tinajas, 

and washes, have some type of prehistoric and/or historic sites in association. These include 

trails and associated features, petroglyph and pictograph sites, and habitation sites. The 

Eagletails Petroglyph NRHP site (inside the Eagletails Wilderness Area), the Dripping Springs 

archaeological site, and the Tyson Wash petroglyphs are all examples of important 

archaeological sites that are situated around isolated water features on the desert landscape. 

3.8 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Paleontologic resources are the fossilized evidence of past life found in the geologic record. 

Despite the tremendous volume of sedimentary rock deposits preserved worldwide and the 

enormous number of organisms that have lived through time, preservation of plant or animal 

remains as fossils is an extremely rare occurrence. 

Because of their rarity and because of the scientific information they can provide, fossils are 

highly significant records of ancient life. They can provide information about the 

interrelationships of living organisms, their ancestry, development, and change through time, and 

their former distribution. Progressive morphologic changes observed in fossil lineages may 

provide critical information on the evolutionary process itself—that is, the ways in which new 

species arise and adapt to changing environmental circumstances. Fossils can also serve as 

important guides to the ages of the rocks and sediments in which they are contained and may 

prove useful in determining the temporal relationships of rock deposits from one area to another 

and the timing of geologic events. Time scales established by fossils provide chronologic 

frameworks for geologic studies of all kinds (Table 3-13). 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-61 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Within the planning area, several rock units have potential to contain significant paleontologic 

resources. These rock units are present at the surface as well as in the subsurface and were 

originally deposited as fluvial (river or stream) and/or lacustrine (lake) sediments, in most cases 

over broad geographic areas. Sediments deposited under these conditions are generally favorable 

for the preservation of fossil resources. 

Table 3-13 

Geologic Time Scale 

Eon Era Period Epoch Age1

Holocene 0.01 – present Quaternary Pleistocene 0.01 – 1.6 

Pliocene 1.6 – 5.3 Neogene Miocene 5.3 – 23.7 

Oligocene 23.7 – 36.6 

Eocene 36.6 – 57.8 

Cenozoic 

Tertiary 

Paleogene 

Paleocene 57.8 – 66.4 

Cretaceous 66.4 – 144 

Mesozoic Jurassic 144 – 208 

Triassic 208 – 245 

Permian 245 – 286 

Pennsylvanian 286 – 320 Carboniferous Mississippian 320 – 360 

Devonian 360 – 408 

Silurian 408 – 438 

Ordovician 438 – 505 

Phanerozoic 

Paleozoic 

Cambrian 505 – 570 

Proterozoic 570 – 2500 

Precambrian Archean 2500 – 3800 

Hadean 3800 – 4550 

Source: Palmer 1983; 1

Age in millions of years before the present 

3.8.1 GEOLOGY IN THE PLANNING AREA 

The following composite list of geologic formations having potential to contain paleontologic 

resources is presented in order by geologic age, from oldest to youngest. Similar rock units 

located in other areas of the southwestern U.S. have been demonstrated to have high 

paleontologic sensitivity (Tedford et al. 2004; Bell et al. 2004). Geographic locations where 

these rock units are present at the surface are mentioned, but it is possible that these rock units 

also have limited, smaller-scale exposures elsewhere. Formational abbreviations for each unit are 

presented in parentheses below to facilitate comparison of these data with Map 3-16. 

A. PALEOZOIC SEDIMENTARY ROCKS (Pz) 

Sedimentary rocks deposited during the Paleozoic Era crop out primarily in the New Water 

Mountains, the Dome Rock Mountains, the Plomosa Mountains, and the northern Gila 

Mountains. If present, scientifically significant fossils from these rocks would include marine 

invertebrates and vertebrates, depending upon the age of the strata. 

Page 3-62 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

B. TRIASSIC AND JURASSIC SEDIMENTARY AND VOLCANIC 

ROCKS (JTR) 

Sedimentary rocks deposited during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods of the Mesozoic Era, 

approximately 240 million years ago to 144 million years ago, crop out primarily in the Dome 

Rock Mountains. Mapping by Richards et al. (2000) does not distinguish sedimentary rocks from 

volcanic rocks in these units; however, volcanic rocks do not typically contain fossils. Some 

Triassic and Jurassic rocks in the southwestern U.S. have yielded fossil remains of animals 

(including bones, teeth, and fossilized trackways) and plants from the beginning of the Mesozoic 

Era—the “Age of Dinosaurs.” 

C. JURASSIC SEDIMENTARY AND VOLCANIC ROCKS (Jsv) 

Sedimentary rocks deposited during the Jurassic Period of the Mesozoic Era crop out primarily 

in the Castle Dome Mountains, the Kofa Mountains, the Little Horn Mountains, and the Tank 

Mountains. Mapping by Richards et al. (2000) does not distinguish Jurassic sedimentary rocks 

from Jurassic volcanic rocks; however, the volcanics do not have potential to contain fossil 

resources. Bones, teeth, and trackways of extinct animals have been found in some Jurassic rocks 

in the southwestern U.S. 

D. UPPER JURASSIC TO CRETACEOUS SEDIMENTARY ROCKS 

(KJs) 

Sedimentary rocks deposited during the Late Jurassic Period through the Cretaceous Period, 

from approximately 160 million years ago to around 65 million years ago, crop out primarily in 

the Dome Rock Mountains and the Plomosa Mountains. Fossil remains of plants and animals 

from the end of the Mesozoic Era have been reported in similar rock units in the southwestern 

U.S. 

E. OLIGOCENE TO MIDDLE MIOCENE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS 

(Tsm) 

Sediments and sedimentary rocks deposited during the Oligocene Epoch through to the middle 

Miocene Epoch, between approximately 34 million years ago and 11 million years ago, occur 

primarily in the Dome Rock Mountains, the Gila Bend Mountains, the Laguna Mountains, the 

Muggins Mountains, the Plomosa Mountains, and the northern Mohawk Mountains. Vertebrate 

fossils from these rocks can include early, primitive ancestors of horses and camels, as well as 

extinct forms such as oreodonts, titanotheres, and amphicyonids (“bear dogs”), as well as 

abundant small mammals. 

F. MIDDLE MIOCENE TO PLIOCENE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS 

(Tsy) 

Sediments and sedimentary rocks deposited during the middle Miocene Epoch through to the 

later Pliocene Epoch, between approximately 16 million years ago and two million years ago, 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-63 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

occur primarily in the Palomas Plain and King Valley, as well as in the Dome Rock Mountains, 

the Eagletail Mountains, the Gila Mountains, the Clanton Hills, and portions of the Kofa 

Mountains. Vertebrate fossils from these rock units can include three-toed and later one-toed 

horses, numerous diverse species of camels, and gomphotheres (primitive elephant ancestors), as 

well as early saber-toothed cats and bone-crushing dogs, as well as abundant small mammals.

G. LATE MIOCENE TO EARLY PLEISTOCENE SEDIMENTARY 

ROCKS (QTs) 

Sediments deposited during the Late Miocene Epoch through Early Pliocene Epoch, from 

approximately 11 million years ago to 750,000 years ago, occur in the Cibola Plain. 

H. LATE PLIOCENE TO EARLY PLEISTOCENE SEDIMENTARY 

ROCKS (Qo) 

Sediments and sedimentary rocks deposited during the late Pliocene Epoch through the early part 

of the Pleistocene Epoch, between approximately three million years ago and 750,000 years ago, 

are found along the flanks of the junction of the Kofa Mountains and the Little Horn Mountains, 

along the flanks of the southwestern Eagletail Mountains, in the Cibola Valley, in King Valley, 

in the Castle Dome Plain, and in the New Water Mountains. Vertebrate fossils from sediments 

deposited during this time can include zebras, giant camels and llamas, mastodons, early 

mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, dire wolves, and abundant small mammals. 

I. EARLY TO LATE PLEISTOCENE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS (Qm) 

Sediments and sedimentary rocks deposited during the middle to late Pleistocene Epoch, from 

approximately 750,000 years ago to about 10,000 years ago, occur in the Clanton Hills, on the 

flanks of the Castle Dome Mountains, in the Ranegras Plain, along the flanks of the Bear Hills, 

in the New Water Mountains, and in the Little Horn Mountains. Vertebrate fossils from 

sediments deposited during this time can include large and small horses, giant camels and llamas, 

mastodons, mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, short-faced bears, and giant bison, as well as 

abundant small mammals.

Page 3-64 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

J. UNDIVIDED QUATERNARY SEDIMENTS (Q) 

Undivided sediments and sedimentary rocks deposited during the Quaternary Period, between 

approximately 1.8 million years ago and the present, are located primarily in the flat-lying 

Palomas Plain, the Ranegras Plain, the southern La Posa Plain, the Castle Dome Plain, and the 

floor of the Yuma Desert. If these sediments are determined to be of Pleistocene age and exhibit 

a lithology conducive to the preservation of fossil resources, they would have high paleontologic 

sensitivity. In contrast, sediments of Holocene Age (less than 10,000 years old) are likely too 

young to have potential to contain significant fossil resources, and would therefore be assigned 

low paleontologic sensitivity. However, Holocene sediments may overlie older fossil-bearing 

rock units. If this is so, these subsurface rock units would have undetermined paleontologic 

sensitivity. 

3.8.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PALEONTOLOGIC 

RESOURCES 

There have been very few known previous paleontology surveys in the planning area, which is 

why the majority of the field office has unknown paleontological sensitivity. Between Fiscal 

Year 2005 and the publication date of this PRMP/FEIS, BLM has partnered with Arizona 

Western College to survey and document paleontological resources in the YFO planning area. 

Surface specimens collected during this project are currently curated at Arizona Western 

College, and reports of survey results are on file at the YFO. The central goal of this partnership 

project is to identify significant fossil localities in the field office, and to assist the BLM with 

developing a paleontological sensitivity map in accordance with BLM Manual 8270 and BLM 

Handbook H-8270-1. This partnership between the BLM and Arizona Western College is 

expected to continue into future fiscal years. 

Other sources of information on known paleontology localities in the planning area include the 

Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory at the San Bernardino County Museum; the Mesa 

Southwest Museum; Northern Arizona University; the University of Arizona; the University of 

California, Berkeley Museum of Paleontology; and the Florida Museum of Natural History. The 

review of the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory indicated that as of 2005 the San 

Bernardino County Museum has no records of paleontologic resource localities from within the 

planning area. 

There is documented paleontological research in the vicinity of Wellton and Ligurta, Arizona 

(see Bryan 1925, Croxen 2004, Lance and Wood 1958; Lindsay and Tessman 1974, Meade 

1983, Moodie 1930, and Wood 1956). See Table 3-14 for a list of fossils identified in late 

Pleistocene deposits and also Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene packrat middens in this portion 

of the planning area. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-65 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-14 

Identified Fossils in the Vicinity of Wellton and Ligurta 

Taxa Common Name 

Class Amphibia, Order Anura, Family Pelobatidae, Scaphiopus spadefoot toad 

Class Aves unidentified aquatic birds 

Class Mammalia, Order Artiodactyla, Family Bovidae, Bison antiquus short-horned bison 

Class Mammalia, Order Artiodactyla, Family Bovidae, Bison cf. B. alleni long-horned bison 

Class Mammalia, Order Artiodactyla, Family Camelidae, Camelops hesternus western camel 

Class Mammalia, Order Artiodactyla, Family Camelidae, Hemiauchenia sp. long-legged camel 

Class Mammalia, Order Artiodactyla, Family Camelidae, Palaeolama sp. stout-legged camel 

Class Mammalia, Order Artiodactyla, Family Cervidae, Odocoileus sp. deer 

Class Mammalia, Order Lagomorpha, Family Leporidae, Silvilagus sp. cottontail rabbit 

Class Mammalia, Order Perissodactyla, Family Equidae, Equus sp. large horse 

Class Mammalia, Order Perissodactyla, Family Equidae, Equus sp. burro-sized horse 

Class Mammalia, Order Proboscidea, Family Elephantidae, Mammuthus columbi columbian mammoth 

Class Mammalia, Order Rodentia, Family Castoridae, Castor canadensis beaver 

Class Mammalia, Order Rodentia, Family Cricetidae, Neotoma pack rat 

Class Mammalia, Order Rodentia, Family Geomyidae, Thomomys sp. pocket gopher 

Class Mammalia, Order Rodentia, Family Heteromyidae, Dipodomys kangaroo rat 

Class Mammalia, Order Rodentia, Family Heteromyidae, Perognathus pocket mouse 

Class Mammalia, Order Rodentia, Family Sciuridae, Spermophilus squirrel 

Class Mammalia, Order Xenarthra, Family Megatheriidae, Nothrotheriops shastensis shasta ground sloth 

Class Mammalia, Order Xenarthra, Family Mylodontidae, Paramylodon? sp. ground sloth 

Class Reptilia, Order Chelonia, Family Testudinidae, Gopherus sp. land tortoise 

Class Reptilia, Order Squamata, Family Colubridae, Arizona glossy snake 

Class Reptilia, Order Squamata, Family Colubridae, Masticophis whipsnake 

Class Reptilia, Order Squamata, Family Gekkonidae Coleonyx gecko 

Source: Croxen 2004 

3.9 VISUAL RESOURCES 

One component of the BLM’s multiple-use mission includes ensuring that the scenic values of 

the public lands are considered before authorizing uses that may have adverse impacts to the 

landscape. The VRM system involves inventorying scenic values and establishing management 

objectives for those values through the RMP process, and then evaluating proposed activities to 

determine whether they conform to the established management objectives. The VRM system is 

the BLM’s tool to document a proposed activity’s potential impacts to the landscape, develop 

mitigation measures to minimize those impacts, and maintain the scenic values of the public 

lands for the future. The BLM’s VRM system is implemented according to guidelines in BLM 

Manual 8400, Information Bulletin No. 98-135, and IM No. 98-164. 

The various RMPs, RMP amendments, and Management Framework Plans that are currently 

being implemented within the planning area allocated all public lands as VRM Classes I through 

IV. However, none of these various planning documents published maps of the different classes; 

instead, geographical locations and landscape types were designated to certain VRM classes. The 

absence of VRM class maps has left many areas of VRM designations up to differing 

interpretations and has been problematic in the management of the planning area’s landscapes. 

Page 3-66 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Currently, the planning area maintains 167,800 acres of VRM Class I lands, 15,200 acres of 

VRM Class II, 1,135,000 acres of VRM Class III, and zero acres of VRM Class IV lands. 

In 2005, the YFO completed a new Visual Resource Inventory specifically for this RMP effort. 

The inventory was accomplished through a multi-agency, interdisciplinary team process 

according to the systematic inventory procedures described in BLM Handbook H-8410-1—

Visual Resource Inventory. The four classes within the VRM Inventory were based on 

professional determinations of scenic quality, visual appeal, distance zones from which the 

landscape is viewed, and public sensitivity to changes in the landscape character. The results of 

the 2005 VRM Inventory are represented on Map 3-17. 

3.10 WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Wilderness characteristics do not currently exist under the 1987 Yuma District RMP, as 

amended, but these characteristics may be considered for any new land use plans or amendments. 

BLM IM No. 2003-275-Change 1 provides guidance regarding the consideration of wilderness 

characteristics in the land use planning process. The IM states that BLM may consider 

information on wilderness characteristics along with information on other uses and values when 

preparing LUPs. 

Through the planning process, the best mix of resource use and protection will be determined 

consistent with the multiple-use and other criteria established in FLPMA 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. A variety of LUP decisions can be made to 

protect wilderness characteristics, such as establishing 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 OHVs to achieve a desired visitor experience. 

Public land use proposals, including the protection of lands with wilderness characteristics may 

be considered during the preparation of a LUP amendment or revision. The BLM completed an 

assessment of wilderness characteristics on approximately 301,200 acres of public lands through 

a multi-agency, interdisciplinary team process. The BLM Arizona State Office provided the 

protocol for the assessment process, which was completed in 2005. The assessment teams 

identified lands that exhibit a high degree of naturalness, provide outstanding opportunities for 

solitude, and provide outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of recreation. 

The results of the assessments are represented on Table 3-15 and on Map 3-18. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-67 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-15 

Wilderness Characteristics Assessment Results 

Components of Wilderness Characteristics Identified BLM Acres 

Naturalness 40,800 

Naturalness and Solitude 41,000 

Naturalness, Solitude, and Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 111,400 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 66,100 

Naturalness and Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 23,900 

Solitude and Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 6,100 

No Wilderness Characteristics Identified 11,900 

Total Acreage of Lands Assessed for Wilderness Characteristics 301,200 

The YFO then considered BLM policy, other resource allocation proposals, and the practicality 

of management to develop the Chapter 2 alternatives to manage for wilderness characteristics. 

3.11 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

3.11.1 GRAZING RESOURCES 

Grazing in the planning area is administered through permits held on specific parcels of land 

known as allotments. Some of these allotments cross the planning area boundary, and one 

allotment (Calhoun, 3,012 acres) falls entirely outside the northern boundary (Map 3-19). 

However, since these allotments are managed by BLM, the allotment management will be 

addressed. 

Approximately 1,184,464 acres of BLM-administered lands are managed as part of grazing 

allotments ranging in size from 523 to 234,645 acres (USDOI BLM 2003b; 2003c; 2003d). All 

authorized use in the planning area is specific to cattle. Resource management within an 

allotment is based on AUMs where one AUM is equal to the forage required to sustain one cowcalf pair for a month (approximately 800 pounds dry forage). Annual and seasonably available 

species are considered when determining the AUMs available and the season of use authorized. 

3.11.2 GRAZING ADMINISTRATION 

A. GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES 

Grazing use on an allotment is authorized through the issuance of a grazing permit or lease. The 

permit or lease describes the class of livestock, number of livestock, and season of use. BLM 

analyzes effects of proposed grazing according to the NEPA process and conducts an 

Environmental Assessment prior to permit issuance or renewal. Historically, permits and leases 

were authorized for a period of 10 years. However, the most recent assessments (2003) 

authorized use for only five years to allow for review through this planning process. Leases of 

duration less than 10 years were found to be in the best interest of sound land management 

(USDOI BLM 2003b; 2003c; 2003d). 

Page 3-68 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Grazing use may be authorized through either Section 3 or Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act 

(P.L 73-482). Grazing use under Section 15 of the Act is authorized through leases, for lands 

outside of an established Grazing District. Leases are perennial with forage production generally 

adequate to support grazing on a regular (annual) basis. The class of livestock, AUMs, season of 

use, and other prescriptions or limitations are specified in the approved lease (USDOI BLM 

2003b; 2003c; 2003d). Grazing permits apply to lands within Grazing Districts, under Section 3 

of the Taylor Grazing Act, and include allotments classified as either perennial, perennialephemeral, or ephemeral. There are six perennial leases within the planning area. For perennialephemeral allotments, the stocking rate is determined from the year-long grazing capacity of the 

available perennial forage. Additional livestock grazing use can be authorized for ephemeral 

forage, when sufficient annual forage is present and such use does not conflict with other 

resource uses and needs or damage the perennial vegetation resource (USDOI BLM 1987a). 

Allotments with unreliable forage production or infrequent or sporadic use capabilities are 

classified as ephemeral and use is authorized only when annual forage is available and applied 

for by the permittee (USDOI BLM 2003b; 2003c; 2003d). 

B. ALLOTMENTS 

Allotments are located within three general regions in the planning area: Dateland area, 

Quartzsite area, and Vicksburg area. General description of allotments in the vicinity of these 

communities is provided below and in Table 3-16 (see next page) and Map 3-19. 

1. Dateland Area 

Grazing use in the Dateland area has been extremely limited due to lack of facilities, small, 

widely scattered tracts of public land, and intermingled private and State lands not controlled by 

the lessees. Non-use is common and range improvements are generally in poor condition. 

Recommendations made during standard and guide assessments include retiring grazing on 

several allotments and reviewing the perennial classification on others (USDOI BLM 2003b; 2003c; 

2003d). 

2. Quartzsite Area 

The Ehrenberg, Martinez, Scott, and Weisser Allotments are classified as ephemeral allotments. 

There has been no use on the Ehrenberg, Martinez, and Scott Allotments for the last 20 years. 

For the most part, livestock handling facilities no longer function. Some limited grazing use has 

been authorized on the Weisser Allotment over the last 10 years, but use is being heavily 

restricted by increasing recreational use and the growth of the Town of Quartzsite. The Bishop 

Allotment is a Section 15 allotment and has been consistently utilized by livestock for 20 years. 

Recommendations made during standard and guide assessments include retiring grazing on 

several allotments and reviewing the perennial classification on others (USDOI BLM 2003b; 2003c; 

2003d). 

3. Vicksburg Area 

Grazing use has been year-long on the Crowder-Weisser and K Lazy B Allotments for many 

years. The Calhoun Allotment is used as pasture of the Crowder-Weisser Allotment, as the 

grazing privileges are controlled by the same permittee, and has been utilized annually. Grazing 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-69 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

use on the Eagletail Allotment has been primarily seasonal. However, year-long use has 

occurred. Livestock management facilities are in place and well maintained. These developments 

are used to attain proper livestock distribution throughout the allotment. With the exception of 

the Vicksburg Area, grazing use in the planning area is a very minor use of the public lands. 

Recommendations made during standard and guide assessments include retiring grazing on 

several allotments and reviewing the perennial classification on others (USDOI BLM 2003b; 2003c; 

2003d). 

Table 3-16 

Allotments’ Administered and Authorized Use by BLM in the Planning Area 

Allotment Name, 

Number, and Location 

Management 

Category Section 3/15 

Perennial/ 

Ephemeral 

Authorized 

Use (AUMs) 

BLM 

Acres 

05001 – Bishop (Q) C 15 P 516 26,100 

03012 – Calhoun (V) C 3 P/E 1,728 40,800* 

05044 – Calient Farms (D) C 15 P 180 2,400 

03022 – Crowder-Weisser (V) M 3 P/E 15,758 237,900† 

05053 – Dateland Ranch (D) C 15 P 900 16,600 

03028 – Eagletail Ranch (V) M 3 P/E 1,400 202,200 

03028 – Eagletail Ranch (V) C 3 E 0 107,800 

03088 – Ehrenberg (Q) C 3 E 0 54,500 

05000 – Hyder Ranch (D) C 15 P 960 4,100 

03047 – K Lazy B (V) M 3 P/E 1,861 130,300‡ 

03097 – Martinez (Q) C 3 E 0 60,200 

03056 – Morton (Q) C 3 E 0 24,900 

03064 – Palomas (D) C 3 E 0 109,900 

05036 – Palomas Ranch (D) C 15 P 424 4,500 

03075 – Scott (Q) C 3 E 0 123,800 

05003 – Trust #1347 (D) C 15 P 144 6,700 

03096 – Weisser (Q) C 3 E 0 67,200 

05006 – Whitewing (D) C 15 E 36 500 

Total 23,907 1,363,700 

AUM = Animal Unit Month, D = Dateland area, Q = Quartzsite area, V = Vicksberg area 

Maintain (M) allotments are allotments where current conditions are at or near the goals and objectives for the allotment and 

management is not an issue. Custodial (C) allotments are those allotments where it would not be cost beneficial to attempt to 

improve current conditions on an allotment. 

*This allotment is completely in the LHFO but is managed by the YFO. Grazing Decisions would be made in this revision of the 

RMP. 

** Approximately 5,800 acres of public land are within the LHFO but is managed by the YFO. 

†Approximately 116,600 acres of public land are within the LHFO but is managed by the YFO. 

‡Approximately 52,000 acres of public land are within the LHFO but is managed by the YFO. 

C. RANGE HEALTH ASSESSMENTS 

The condition of the resources on allotments and the potential impacts of grazing are evaluated 

during the permit and lease renewal processes. A BLM interdisciplinary team evaluates 

allotments in accordance with the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Administration (Standards and Guidelines) (USDOI BLM 1997a). Standards are 

descriptions of the desired condition of the biological and physical components and 

characteristics of rangeland. Guidelines are management approaches, methods, and practices 

related to grazing management that will lead to achieving those standards. 

Page 3-70 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Rangeland Health is analyzed through allotment specific goals and objectives. All allotments in 

the planning area fall within the Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub Land Resource Unit. Within this 

Land Resource Unit are 26 different ecological sites characterized by unique soil conditions, 

precipitation regimes, and plant communities. Each Land Resource Unit has unique potential 

plant composition and production, precipitation, and soil conditions. 

Ecological status is determined by comparing current vegetative composition to the potential 

described in the ecological site description. Other resource needs and outside influences on the 

site are also considered in determining the role of grazing in meeting desired conditions. 

Allotment evaluations include identification of factors influencing the condition of the resources. 

Where grazing is a significant factor in failure to achieve rangeland health standards, BLM has 

until the next grazing season to implement corrective actions. Such actions may include adjustment to grazing duration, timing, intensity, forage utilization, or installation or implementation of 

range improvement projects. Climax or potential natural communities are not always the most 

desirable communities depending on the other goals and objectives for a specific area. The 

community targeted is dependant on the site specific uses proposed and other use and resource 

goals and objectives. 

In 2002 and 2003, all allotments managed by the YFO were assessed in accordance with the 

Standards and Guidelines (USDOI BLM 1997a). Vegetation communities are noted to be 

producing at or near potential, and no specific trend was noted for any allotment. All permits and 

leases were reauthorized with terms and conditions of use (i.e., implemented guidelines) (USDOI 

BLM 2003b; 2003c; 2003d). 

D. RANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

Range improvements are installed and projects are implemented to improve condition or 

facilitate management of resources. In the planning area, most range improvements consist of 

such structures as fences, wells, and livestock handling facilities, many of which are in disrepair 

or non-functioning. Fences make it possible to control the season of use, and exclude grazing 

from selected areas. Water developments improve distribution of livestock as well as provide 

accessibility for some species of wildlife. 

New range improvements can be authorized on public land under a Cooperative Range 

Improvement Agreement or Range Improvement Permit. All improvements are constructed 

according to BLM standards and specifications. Range improvements are infrequently 

constructed in the planning area due to the low intensity of livestock use. 

3.11.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING GRAZING 

A variety of environmental, economic, and social factors weigh heavily in planning decisions 

related to livestock grazing in the planning area. Grazing management is adjusted during renewal 

of permits and leases and at other times as appropriate in response to these factors. Site-specific 

factors, such as those listed below, have an influence on grazing management. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-71 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Due to the ephemeral nature of annual grass and forb production and the otherwise low 

productivity of upland sites in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion, it is difficult to make long-term use 

plans that adapt to the resource available in any given year. 

Noxious/invasive non-native plant species effectively compete with native vegetation for 

resources and continue to expand in the planning area. These species are unpalatable to most 

classes of domestic livestock, and their expansion reduces the amount of available forage. 

Livestock use must be adjusted in response to reduced forage availability to ensure other portions 

of the allotment are not overutilized and that other resource conflicts do not occur. 

Recreational use in the planning area (e.g., camping, long-term visitors, OHV use, etc.) continues 

to grow. Where conflicts with grazing use occur, decisions must be made regarding which use is 

most compatible with resources available. Grazing is managed to eliminate or minimize such 

conflicts as appropriate. 

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES 

This section assesses the mineral resource occurrence and development potential for all mineral 

resources owned by the Federal government and managed by BLM, including those on lands 

with split estate. Areas within the planning area that are withdrawn from mineral location entry 

are presented below. 

Military 

 BMGR, West managed by U.S. Marine Corps; East managed by the U.S. Air Force 

 YPG, managed by the U.S. Army 

BLM 

 Gila River Cultural Area ACEC 

 Big Maria Mountains Wilderness 

 Eagletail Mountains Wilderness 

 Little Picacho Wilderness 

 Muggins Mountains Wilderness 

 New Water Mountains Wilderness 

 Palo Verde Mountains Wilderness 

 Riverside Mountains Wilderness 

 Trigo Mountains Wilderness 

Page 3-72 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

USFWS 

 Cabeza Prieta NWR 

 Cibola NWR 

 Imperial NWR 

 Kofa NWR 

Reclamation 

 First Form Withdrawal 

3.12.1 DESCRIPTION OF MINERAL RESOURCES 

There are three basic types of Federal energy and mineral resources: leasable, locatable, and 

salable as defined by Federal laws, regulations, and legal decisions. The following sections 

discuss the known occurrences, activity, and potential of mineral resources in the planning area. 

Appendix 3-A provides a summary of the exploration history, current lease status, and 20-year 

projections for reasonable foreseeable development of leasable, locatable, and salable minerals in 

the planning area. 

A. LEASABLE MINERALS 

Federal leasable minerals are fluid or solid minerals that can be developed after obtaining a lease 

from BLM. Leasable fluid minerals include oil, gas, geothermal energy, and CO2. Leasable solid 

minerals include coal, potash, sulfur, and sodium. Leasing for mineral development may be 

accomplished by competitive bid, as typically is the case for oil and gas. A lease sale may be 

initiated by an Expression of Interest nomination, wherein an interested party nominates a parcel 

for exploration and development. If there is no competitive interest in the lease of a parcel, the 

interested party may obtain a non-competitive lease. 

A successful applicant for an oil and gas lease is required to pay rent on the leased parcel. Rental 

costs range from $1.50 per acre per year for the first five years to $2.00 per acre per year for the 

last five years of a standard 10-year lease. Competitive bonus bids are determined by oral auction 

on a per-acre basis and range from approximately $1.00 per acre for a parcel having little or no 

competitive interest up to $10.00 per acre for a parcel having high competitive interest. The 

lessee also is required to pay royalties on the sale of mineral resources produced from the leased 

parcel. For example, oil and gas royalties are 12.5 percent of sales. Royalty payments are paid to 

the U.S. General Revenue Fund. 

The leasable fluid minerals addressed in this report are oil, natural gas, and CO2. There are no 

known coal, potash, sulfur, or sodium resources in the planning area. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-73 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

1. Oil and Gas 

Oil and gas are non-renewable energy fluid mineral resources that typically are discovered and 

exploited by drilling exploratory and development wells into oil- and/or gas-bearing sedimentary 

rocks. Such sedimentary rocks have reservoir-quality porosity, are proximal to petroleum source 

rocks such as organic-rich shale or coal, and contain an accumulation of oil and/or gas that has 

been confined by a structural or stratigraphic trap. 

BLM-administered land in the planning area identified as having moderate oil and gas potential 

is 50,200 acres (Tetra Tech 2005a). There are no documented proven reserves in the planning 

area and currently only minor leasing interest. No drilling activity has occurred since 1987. 

Exploration for oil and gas in the planning area has taken place primarily in the Yuma Basin 

(Map 3-20). The Yuma Basin is located in the southwestern corner of Arizona and includes the 

entire area south of Yuma to Mexico. The Yuma Basin is part of the Salton Trough, a tectonic 

structure related to the opening of the Gulf of California and the San Andreas fault system. The 

Yuma Basin contains an exceptionally thick sequence of marine, estuarine, and non-marine 

sediments of Tertiary Age that thickens toward the south in the northern part of the Gulf of 

California (Rauzi 2001). Butler (1995) describes the area as part of Province 025 (Yuma Desert), 

the Altar Basin (proto-Gulf of California), and states that the area contains a hypothetical oil and 

non-associated gas play that includes source rocks, reservoir rocks, and traps. He also notes that 

possibly commercial Miocene gas was reported as discovered in 1981, 14 miles offshore in the 

Gulf of California in deltaic sediments of the Colorado River. Further, Butler (1995) records the 

Exxon #1 Yuma-Federal well, drilled in 1973, which had a vitrinite reflectance measurement at 

total depth (11,444 feet) of Ro 1.1 percent. 

Guzman (1981) suggested that the hydrocarbon-rich Los Angeles and Ventura marine basins in 

southern California may have been in proximity to the Yuma Basin before the California basins 

moved northward along the San Andreas Fault system. Under this scenario, oil and gas generated 

in the deep waters of the Los Angeles Basin migrated up-dip into folds that were generated by 

movement within the San Andreas Fault system. These hydrocarbon traps could still be present 

in the southern part of the Yuma Basin. Brennan (1989) concluded that these strata have high 

hydrocarbon potential in the eastern half of the Yuma Basin within the BMGR. 

In addition to the Yuma Basin, the Mohawk Basin and the Harquahala Basin are Tertiary Basins 

identified by Rauzi (2001) that may be similar to productive Tertiary basins in Nevada. These 

contain strata that could include petroliferous limestone buried deeply beneath thick evaporate 

deposits (Rauzi 2001). 

a. Known Oil and Gas Occurrences and Prospects 

From 1925 to 1987 there were 26 exploratory wells drilled in or near the planning area 

(Brennan 1989; Rauzi 2001) (Map 3-16). In 1973, Exxon drilled the #1 Yuma-Federal well 

to a depth of 11,444 feet. There were no reported oil or gas shows in this well. A surface 

occurrence of an oil seep and early Miocene to late Oligocene petroliferous thinly bedded 

limestone is reported in the northwest portion of the Gila Bend Mountains (Rauzi 2001). 

Seven oil shows and two gas shows are recorded in the Yuma Valley Gas and Oil #1 

Musgrove test well, drilled to 4,870 feet in June of 1940 (Brennan 1989). Dowling Petroleum 

#1 State was drilled in 1983 to a total depth of 2,925 feet and recorded an oil and gas show, 

while the An-Son #1-23 State well, drilled to 2,883 feet in 1980, recorded an oil show. 

Page 3-74 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Central Oil Company’s #1 Aman well was drilled to 2,850 feet and recorded one oil show 

(date is unknown). 

b. Oil and Gas Leasing Activity 

Regulations applicable to Federal oil and gas leasing in the planning area include the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1947, Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 

1970; Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987; and 43 CFR 3100—Oil 

and Gas Leasing. Policy/guidance specific to BLM include Manual 1601—Land Use 

Planning; BLM Manual Section 1624-2—Supplemental Program Guidance for Fluid 

Minerals; and BLM Manual Series 3100—Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing. 

Leasing of Federal minerals for exploration and development of oil and gas begins by the 

submittal of an Expression of Interest to the Arizona State Office of the BLM. The 

Expression of Interest is an informal nomination by an interested entity, such as an energy 

company, to request that certain lands be included in a competitive lease sale. BLM 

administers competitive lease sales, which are held on a quarterly schedule following public 

notification of the sale. Permitting for oil and gas exploration and drilling within the State is 

administered by the Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 

Currently there are no active petroleum leases in the planning area. Numerous closed leases 

are present south of Yuma in seven townships west of the BMGR. A sampling of lease 

information from those areas indicates that much of the activity took place during the 1980s 

through the BLM. Most of the leases were on land that is now administered by Reclamation 

or on State land. However, these former leases are adjacent to BLM-administered land. A 

database containing this information is available on the following website:

http://www.geocommunicator.gov 

2. CO2 and Helium 

CO2 and helium are non-renewable non-energy fluid mineral resources typically discovered by 

exploratory oil and gas wells that encounter natural gas or non-flammable gas. Helium is 

typically associated with CO2 gas and, for the purposes of this PRMP/FEIS, the two gases are 

considered one resource. If CO2/helium can be economically separated, collected, and delivered 

to a market, then a CO2/helium gas field can be potentially developed. 

a. CO2/Helium Known Occurrences and Prospects 

There are no known occurrences or prospects for CO2/helium in the planning area. However, 

there are known occurrences of CO2/helium in volcanic terrain comparable to the planning 

area where volcanic outgassing is the proposed source for CO2/helium (Studacher 1987). 

Although CO2/helium may not be primary targets for future exploration, gas analyses may 

confirm the presence of CO2/helium in test wells. 

3. Geothermal Resources 

BLM has established that geothermal resources are renewable, leasable minerals. The evaluation 

of geothermal resources follows the guidelines for mineral resources. Geothermal energy is 

natural heat from the interior of the earth. Sources of geothermal energy include artesian hot 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-75 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

springs and wells that tap into groundwater or dry rock at elevated temperatures resulting from 

high heat flow gradients in the subsurface. 

No high or moderate temperature geothermal resources exist in the planning area. There is no 

reported leasing or development activity for geothermal energy resources in the planning area. 

Known geothermal resources are present in the Imperial Valley–Salton Sea area, which may 

expedite the maturation of the shallower source rocks nearest the California border. There are 

four low-temperature geothermal resource regions identified in the planning area: two in Yuma 

County, one in La Paz County, and one in Maricopa County (Witcher et al. 1982; AGR MAP 

2005). There has been development of these energy resources only for aquaculture. Information 

on the known occurrences of geothermal energy resources in the planning area is reported by the 

Arizona Geological Survey (formerly the State of Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral 

Technology) (Witcher et al. 1982). Most of the wells in the planning area are used for 

agricultural purposes with any thermal properties of the waters not being utilized. Well 

temperatures ranging from 30 to 40o Celsius have been recorded (USDOE 1979). Deeper wells 

could tap higher temperatures. Three of the known geothermal regions reported are thermal wells 

or loose clusters of thermal wells that have low-temperature geothermal resources. The Hyder 

region is associated with a cluster of wells and the hot spring at Agua Caliente (102o F [39o C]) 

in Hyder Valley. Geothermal water (105o F [41o C]) at Hyder has been developed for direct use 

for aquaculture, raising fish (Oregon Institute of Technology 2004). Another hot springs is at an 

isolated location at Radium Springs (140o F [60o C]) just north of the Gila River northeast of 

Wellton (Hot Springs Enthusiast 2005). 

Geothermal resources are classified according to temperature. High temperature resources are 

above 302° Fahrenheit (150° C). Moderate temperature resources are between 194° F and 302° F 

(90° C and 150° C). Low temperature resources are below 194° F (90° C). Only those resources 

with high enough temperatures to produce steam have been developed commercially for power 

generation. Low temperature and moderate temperature geothermal water can be used for 

ground-source heat pumps and without the use of a heat pump for applications such as heating of 

buildings and use in industrial processes, greenhouses, aquaculture, and resorts. Potential uses of 

the known resources include residential and commercial space heating, greenhousing, 

aquaculture, crop and food processing, and heated swimming pools and spas. 

Regulations applicable to geothermal leasing of Federal minerals include the Mineral Leasing 

Act of 1920, Mineral Leasing Act of 1947, Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Geothermal 

Steam Act of 1970, and 43 CFR 3200. 

B. LOCATABLE MINERALS 

Locatable minerals are defined as those minerals that make the land more valuable because of 

their existence, are recognized as a mineral by the standard experts, and are not subject to 

disposal under some other law. Many solid minerals are locatable, but due to complexities in the 

law there are exceptions (such as leasable coal, potash, sulfur, and sodium). Locatable minerals 

include both metallic minerals (e.g., gold, silver, copper, lead, uranium) and non-metallic 

minerals (e.g., gemstones, kaolin, fluorspar, perlite). Rights to locatable minerals are obtained by 

filing a mining claim. 

Page 3-76 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

1. Metallic Locatable Minerals 

The planning area has many designated mineral districts (Keith et al. 1983; Welty et al. 1985). A 

list of mines and prospects located on BLM-administered land that are open to mineral entry is 

presented in Table 3-17 according to the commodity type (gold, silver, copper, etc.). This list is 

based on the Arizona Lands Resource Information System Minerals Available System (Arizona 

State Land Department 2005). A number of the districts are excluded from consideration in this 

report, because they are within areas that have been withdrawn from mineral location. 

There are seven gold districts within the planning area in Arizona and one in California along the 

Colorado River. Four of these (Moon Mountains, Middle Camp, La Paz, and Southern Plomosa) 

are located to the north, west, and east of the Town of Quartzsite in the northern portion of the 

planning area. Two gold districts are located to the east of the Kofa NWR. These are the Sheep 

Tanks and the Gila Bend Mountains Districts. A gold district is also located in California in the 

far southeastern extent of the Chocolate Mountains adjacent to the Colorado River. Silver has 

been produced from some of the historic gold mines, as well as lead and zinc, although they are 

not likely targets in their own right. 

Base metals within the districts include copper, lead, and zinc. Most of the base metal districts 

are located within areas excluded from mineral entry such as the Kofa NWR, YPG, Wilderness 

areas, and other withdrawals. For example, the Castle Dome District lead-zinc-silver district is 

entirely enclosed by the Kofa NWR. 

There are several uranium prospects in the Muggins Mountains mining district. No uranium has 

been produced from this area, and the resource potential is not well defined. However, the 

prospects are significant enough to have generated interest among major mining companies, 

especially during the period of elevated uranium prices during the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

Known Occurrences and Prospects of Metallic Locatable Minerals 

Below is a summary of information on specific mines, historical mines, prospects, and areas of 

mining interest. Map 3-21 shows the locations of metallic mineral occurrences and prospects. 

There are 22 mineral districts in the planning area, most of which have production data (Keith et 

al. 1983; Welty et al. 1985). 

Gold. There are two gold mines in the planning area: the Verdstone Mine, located in the 

Sheep Tanks District, which is a former gold mine that includes an open pit as well as 

underground workings, and the Copperstone Gold Mine, located northeast of the Moon 

Mountains District, which was operational between 1987 and 1992. 

Placer mining for gold has taken place since pre-Spanish times. Recreational placer mining is 

popular in the districts surrounding the Town of Quartzsite, such as the La Paz and Middle 

Camp districts. The Southern Plomosa district has also produced placer gold. Terrace gravels 

on the north slope of the Gila Mountains have intermittently produced placer gold. Placer 

gold also has been mined historically in the Potholes area of the southeastern Chocolate 

Mountains in California, along the Colorado River. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-77 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-17 

Mining District, Commodities, and Production Locations in Areas for Mineral Entry 

Mining 

Areas in 

District Name 

Deposit 

Type1

Township Range Sections 

Production 

Base or 

Precious (tons)

Gold 

(ounces) 

Silver 

(ounces)

Copper

(lbs) 

Lead 

(lbs) 

Z

(

5N 18W 1 1 Plomosa Pass 1a 6N 18W 36 

1 La Cholla 2 3N 20W 2, 3, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 300 300 2,600 36,000 

3N 18W 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 

12, 15, 16, 17, 33, 34, 

35, 36 

3,500 1,000 26,000 457,000 5,000 

2 

Southern 

Plomosa 

(part) 

2 

4N 18W 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35 

5N 20W 5, 7, 18 300 800 100 5N 21W 2, 3, 12, 13 1 Moon Mtns. 3 6N 20W 31, 32, 12 (includes Copperstone Mine) 3N 20W 4, 5 800 200 200 200 116,000 

2 Middle Camp 3 4N 20W 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33 3 La Paz 3 4N 21W 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36 11,000 1,600 700 16,000 3,000 4 Grand Central 3 1S 23W 25, 35, 36 50 60 

1N 14W 31 17,000 6,000 34,000 2,000 

5 Sheep Tanks (part) 3 1S 14W 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 (includes Verdstone 

Mine) 

3 1S 11W 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30 400 50 200 27,000 6 Gila Bend Mtns/Webb 2S 11W 11, 12, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24 

7 Yuma 3 8S 23W 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36 500 100 

Page 3-78 
Table 3-17 

Mining District, Commodities, and Production Locations in Areas for Mineral Entry (cont.) 

Mining 

Areas in 

District Name 

Deposit 

Type1

Township Range Sections 

Production 

Base or 

Precious (tons)

Gold 

(ounces) 

Silver 

(ounces)

Copper

(lbs) 

Lead 

(lbs) 

Z

(

So. 

Chocolate 

Mtns, CA 

Potholes 

Senator 

Three Cs 

8 

Golden 

Dream 

3 15S 24E 

1 Mohawk (part) 4 8S 15W 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 4,700 800 4,000 2 New Water (part) 4 3N 17W 1, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, 24 10,000 200 314,000 58,000 499,000 47

3S 23W 25, 34, 35, 36 103,000 100 or less 1,311,000 2,000 2,456,000 3 Silver (part) 4 4S 23W 1, 2, 12, 25, 36 2S 23W 

1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 

24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 

35 

1 Trigo Mtns. 6a 

3S 23W 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 

1N 12W 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 

2 Eagle Tail 6a 

1S 12W 1, 2 

3 Metate 6a 3N 21W 

1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 

14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 

26 

1 Cinnabar (part) 7 3N 20W 30, 31 100 10 or less 200 6,000 1 Tungsten Hill 8 5N 20W 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36 No recorded production 

8S 20W 8, 18 

2 Dome 8 8S 21W 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-17 

Mining District, Commodities, and Production Locations in Areas for Mineral Entry (cont.) 

Mining 

Areas in 

District Name 

Deposit 

Type1

Township Range Sections 

Production 

Base or 

Precious (tons)

Gold 

(ounces) 

Silver 

(ounces)

Copper

(lbs) 

Lead 

(lbs) 

Z

(

7S 18W 31 Uranium prospects 7S 19W 34, 35, 36 8S 18W 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 1 Muggins 10b 

8S 19W 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24 

2 Big Chimney 10c 9S 20W 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17 

1Deposit Type: 1 Copper: (a) porphyry and (b) stratabound 3 Gold with or without copper or lead 6 Manganese 8 Tungs

 2 Copper with or without gold or lead; veins 4 Lead-zinc-silver veins and replacements 7 Mercury deposits 10 Urani

Page 3-80 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Uranium. The Red Knob prospect is located in the Muggins Mountains, approximately 30 

miles east of Yuma. Uranium minerals occur in the lower member of the Kinter Formation, 

associated with a northwest-trending normal fault near an intrusive rhyolite dome. A 1.5-

foot-thick silicified mudstone bed is exposed along a 15-foot-long trench at the portal of a 

collapsed and partly filled adit at least 35 feet long. Weeksite, a rare uranium silicate, calcite, 

chalcedony, mimetite, and vanadinite occur in a silicified mudstone bed. Mineralized rock 

with a geochemical signature similar to that in the Red Knob prospect may also occur 

elsewhere in the Muggins Mountains District (Smith et al. 1989). 

2. Non-metallic Locatable Minerals 

Known Occurrences and Prospects of Non-metallic Locatable Minerals 

Occurrences and prospects of non-metallic locatable minerals within areas of BLM-administered 

land open for mineral entry are presented on Map 3-22, based on the Arizona State Mineral 

Resources Data System (Mason and Arndt 1996). The information provided below is based on 

Phillips (1987); Keith et al. (1983); U.S. Geological Survey (USDOI USGS 1999); and BLM 

(USDOI BLM 2004d). 

Alunite. Alunite, a hydrous sulfate of aluminum and potassium, is used as an alternative to 

bauxite for alumina in aluminum production. As of 1987, alunite had not been mined in 

Arizona. There is one deposit in La Paz County, near the Town of Quartzsite, although this 

deposit is not identified in the Mineral Resources Data System minerals database. 

Asbestos. Asbestos is the generic name for a group of fibrous mineral silicates found in 

nature. There are two deposits of asbestos identified in the planning area, one in La Paz 

County, and one in Yuma County, although these are not identified on the Mineral Resources 

Data System. According to Phillips, there has been no asbestos production in Arizona since 

1982, and there is no known asbestos production in the planning area as of the date of this 

report. 

Barite. Barite is produced for many applications but use in oil well drilling mud is the most 

common, due to the high specific gravity of 4.5 grams/cubic centimeter. Barite occurs in 

numerous locations within the planning area in veins associated with faults, breccias, and 

fracture zones. It is often a gangue mineral or byproduct in precious and base metal mines 

and prospects. There are approximately 20 barite deposits identified by Phillips (1987) within 

the planning area, but these do not fall within areas of BLM-administered land open for 

mineral entry. 

Gypsum. Gypsum is a hydrous calcium sulfate that occurs in evaporite basin deposits in 

most Arizona counties. It is used in making plaster and as an agricultural amendment. There 

are approximately eight deposits identified by Phillips (1987) within the planning area, with 

only one of these in Yuma County, known as the Castle Dome occurrence. These are not 

located within areas open for mineral entry. 

Mica. Mica is the general name for a group of complex hydrous potassium aluminum silicate 

minerals which share the common physical property of a perfect basal cleavage. Sheet mica 

is used in the electronics industry, where the material’s excellent electrical insulation 

properties and resistance to heat are put to use. Six mica deposits occur within the planning 

area, although they are in areas that are closed to mineral entry. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-81 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

C. SALABLE MINERALS 

BLM defines common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, pumicite, cinders, and clay as 

salable, not locatable (USDOI BLM 1997d). Salable minerals include materials used for building 

and construction, both commercially and privately. Sand, gravel, aggregate, cinders, decorative 

rock, and building stone are the more common salable minerals. Extraction of salable minerals 

from public land requires either a sales contract or a free-use permit. Sales are at the appraised 

fair-market value. Under a free-use permit, salable minerals may be provided at no cost to 

government agencies for use in public projects. Sand and gravel resources are the focus of the 

information presented below due to their current and future economic importance to Yuma and 

the planning area. The locations of known salable mineral deposits are shown in Map 3-23. 

Salable Mineral Known Occurrences and Prospects 

The locations of known occurrences and prospects for salable minerals are too numerous to 

discuss on an individual basis. In general, aggregate resources are associated with major river 

channels of the Colorado and Gila rivers (including the reaches of the Colorado River on tribal 

land) major wash systems, and foothill terraces flanking the Gila Mountains. 

3.12.2 POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE OF MINERAL 

RESOURCES 

The potential for occurrence of mineral resources is determined using guidance provided in BLM 

Manual 3031—Energy and Mineral Resource Assessment. The manual sets standards for 

assessing, classifying, and reporting the potential for occurrence of mineral resources on lands 

managed by BLM. 

A. DEFINITION OF MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL 

The potential occurrence of a mineral resource is a prediction of the likelihood that the mineral 

resource will occur in a given area. The potential occurrence of a mineral resource includes both 

exploitable and potentially exploitable occurrences, and does not evaluate whether the mineral 

resource can be developed economically. The four categories of mineral potential, as defined in 

BLM Manual 3031, are as follows: 

 No potential. The geologic environment, inferred geologic processes, and lack of mineral 

occurrences do not indicate potential for accumulation of mineral resources; 

 Low potential (L). The geologic environment and inferred geologic processes indicate low 

potential for accumulation of mineral resources; 

 Moderate potential (M). The geologic environment, inferred geologic processes, and 

reported mineral occurrences or valid geochemical/geophysical anomalies indicate moderate 

potential for accumulation of mineral resources; and 

Page 3-82 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

 High potential (H). The geologic environment, inferred geologic processes, and reported 

mineral occurrences or valid geochemical/geophysical anomaly, and known mines or 

deposits (within the same type of geologic environment) indicate high potential for 

accumulation of mineral resources. 

In addition to these four categories, within each mineral potential category the potential must be 

supported according to a level of certainty regarding the available data. The level of certainty is a 

measure of the confidence in the data that was assessed. The four mineral potential categories are 

displayed on the mineral resource potential maps (Maps 3-21 through 3-23). The levels of 

certainty are annotated in the narrative of mineral resource potential using the letter designations 

described below. 

A The available data are insufficient and/or cannot be considered as direct or indirect 

evidence to support or refute the possible existence of mineral resources within the 

respective area. 

B The available data provide indirect evidence to support or refute the possible existence of 

mineral resources. 

C The available data provide direct evidence, but are quantitatively minimal to support or 

refute the possible existence of mineral resources. 

D The available data provide abundant direct and indirect evidence to support or refute the 

possible existence of mineral resources. 

The following text sections describe the level of potential for occurrence of the various 

commodities. Clusters of known mines and prospects (or hydrocarbon exploration holes) are 

rated as having high potential. Areas adjacent to these clusters are rated as moderate, because of 

geologic similarities to the areas of high potential. For non-metallic locatable and salable 

minerals, all areas not interpreted as having high potential are interpreted as having moderate 

potential because these types of minerals may be present in many areas, even though they have 

not been identified to date. For the metallic locatable minerals, areas lacking known occurrences 

and lacking similar geologic characteristics are rated as having low or no potential and 

encompass all the areas outside the moderate potential boundaries. The boundaries are 

interpretive based on the available data and best professional judgment. 

B. LEASABLE MINERALS—OIL AND GAS POTENTIAL 

Oil and gas potential is allocated to areas that have the following characteristics: 

 Source for hydrocarbons: for example, an organic-rich shale or coalbed that has attained a 

level of thermal maturity through burial or other heating mechanism such that oil and/or gas 

could be generated. These data generally are obtained by testing core or drill cuttings 

samples in a laboratory. 

 Reservoir-quality rock: sandstone, limestone, or fractured rock having interconnected 

porosity and permeability into which oil and/or gas may migrate from the source rock and be 

trapped. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-83 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

 Trapping mechanism that prevents oil and/or gas from migrating out of the reservoir-quality 

rock. Structural traps, stratigraphic traps, and faults are some common trapping mechanisms. 

 Known deposits of oil and/or gas. 

The Yuma Basin and the Tertiary Basins below were evaluated based on the above criteria. 

1. Yuma Basin 

According to Rauzi (2001), the hydrocarbon potential in the Yuma Basin is considered fair to 

good, especially in the deeper, sparsely tested southern parts of the basin and the completely 

untested eastern part of the basin beneath the BMGR. The latter, however, is currently withheld 

from leasing and exploration. 

Butler (1995) defines the Altar-San Luis Basin Play as a hypothetical oil and non-associated gas 

play in the Basin and Range Physiographic Province of southwestern most Arizona (Yuma 

Desert). The play is defined by very significant onshore and offshore petroleum shows and 

possible discoveries in Cenozoic sand-shale sequences just to the south (of the planning area) in 

northwestern Sonora, Mexico. 

The oil and gas level of potential is moderate (M) and the level of certainty is C. The locations 

with moderate potential hydrocarbon occurrence are in the Yuma Basin/Salton Trough. All other 

areas are interpreted as having low or no hydrocarbon potential. 

2. Tertiary Basins (Mohawk and Harquahala) 

The Mohawk Basin and the Harquahala Basin are Tertiary Basins identified by Rauzi (2001) that 

may be similar to productive Tertiary basins in Nevada. These contain strata that could include 

petroliferous limestone buried deeply beneath thick evaporate deposits. No exploratory holes 

have been drilled in either of these basins and the only indication of hydrocarbon potential is by 

analogy with productive similar geologic settings in Nevada. Therefore, the level of potential is 

low (L) and the level of certainty is A (uncertain), due to insufficient data. 

C. CO2 AND HELIUM POTENTIAL 

CO2/helium potential is allocated to areas that have the following characteristics: 

 A source for CO2/helium such as thick volcanic sequences that may have locally charged 

reservoir-quality sediments with CO2. Volcanic rocks are prominent throughout the planning 

area but may not have the thickness and areal extent necessary to provide abundant CO2 to 

reservoir-quality rocks. 

 Reservoir-quality rock: sandstone, limestone, or fractured rock having interconnected 

porosity and permeability into which CO2/helium may migrate from the source area and be 

trapped. 

 Trapping mechanism that prevents CO2/helium from migrating out of the reservoir-quality 

rock. 

Page 3-84 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

 Structural traps, stratigraphic traps, and faults are some common trapping mechanisms. 

 Known production of CO2/helium. 

Areas having CO2/helium potential are generally correlative with areas having oil and gas 

potential because those areas are known to have the necessary reservoir-quality rock and 

geologic structures. However, since there is no known production and no known shows of 

CO2/helium in the planning area, and the extent of a volcanic source for CO2/helium is uncertain, 

those areas have low potential (L). The level of certainty is B for those areas because no 

CO2/helium has been reported. 

D. LOCATABLE METALLIC MINERALS 

There is moderate potential for metallic minerals immediately outside the mineral districts. 

Mineral occurrences are inferred in those areas because the geological environment for mineral 

occurrence in the mountains surrounding the mineral district is comparable to the known 

mineralized areas in the district. Moderate potential also is attributed to mountainous areas 

having rock types and geologic histories comparable to the established mineral districts. The 

level of certainty is B because available data provide indirect evidence that the metallic minerals 

occur in those districts. 

E. LOCATABLE NON-METALLIC MINERALS 

Areas with high potential for non-metallic mineral resources are in mineral districts with known 

occurrences of the non-metallic minerals. The Mineral Resources Data System identified only 

two non-metallic mineral locations on BLM-administered land within the planning area, 

although many other prospects are known to occur in the areas withdrawn from mineral entry 

(such as the YPG, etc.). The level of certainty is D (most certain) because available data provide 

direct evidence that the non-metallic minerals occur in these locations. 

There is moderate potential for non-metallic minerals outside the mineral districts. Mineral 

occurrences are inferred in those areas because the geological environment for mineral 

occurrence in the mountains surrounding the mineral district is comparable to the known 

mineralized areas in the district. Moderate potential also is attributed to areas having rock types 

and geologic histories comparable to the recognized mineral districts. The level of certainty is B, 

because available data provide indirect evidence that the non-metallic minerals occur in those 

districts. 

F. SALABLE MINERALS 

1. Sand, Gravel, and Stone 

Sand and gravel (aggregate) deposits, as well as decorative stone and stone for riprap, are being 

actively mined on or adjacent to BLM-administered land, particularly near Yuma. Two notable 

examples of aggregate mines are the Rinker Plant 801 and the BLT operations. These mines, as 

well as additional areas, have strong potential for near-term development, as the market for 

aggregate keeps pace with economic growth in the vicinity of Yuma. In addition to the Yuma 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-85 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

area mines, aggregate and riprap are mined near the Town of Quartzsite and Ehrenberg along the 

I-10 corridor in La Paz County. 

The level of potential for the aggregate market is H (high potential), because the deposits are 

being actively mined and there are additional known resources of similar type and size in the 

surrounding area. The level of certainty is C, because available data (current mineral sales and 

direct observation of active mining) provides evidence to support the existence of the mineral 

resource. 

3.13 RECREATION 

The resources of the BLM-administered lands in the planning area provide a wide range of 

recreational opportunities that significantly contribute to the quality of life and eco-tourism 

industry in the region. Camping, hiking, OHV riding, boating, swimming, fishing, hunting, 

shooting, wildlife viewing, photography, mountain biking, horse back riding, cultural resource 

viewing, rock hounding, and geocaching are currently the most common recreational activities 

that take place within the planning area. Existing recreation sites are shown on Map 3-24 and 

Table 3-18. 

Table 3-18 

YFO Recreation Site Descriptions 

Recreation Site Descriptions 

Fee Restrooms Trash Collection Volunteer Host Dump Station Water Telephone Boat Launch 

Long Term Visitor Area 

Imperial Dam X X X X X X X 

La Posa X X X X X X X 

14-day Camping Area 

A-10 Backwaters X 

Dome Rock X 

Ehrenberg Sandbowl Open OHV Management 

Area 

X X X 

Fortuna Pond 

Hi Jolly X 

Oxbow Recreation and Wildlife Area X X X X X 

Plomosa Road X 

Road Runner X 

Scaddan Wash X 

Senator Wash North Shore Campground X X 

Senator Wash South Shore Campground X X 

Squaw Lake Campground and Boat Launch X X X X X X X 

VFW Highway 95 X 

10-day Camping Area 

Mittry Lake Wildlife Area 

Page 3-86 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-18 

YFO Recreation Site Descriptions (cont.) 

Recreation Site Descriptions 

Fee Restrooms Trash Collection Volunteer Host Dump Station Water Telephone Boat Launch 

Day Use Only 

A-7 Backwater Day Use Area X 

Betty’s Kitchen National Recreation Trail and 

Watchable Wildlife Viewing Area 

X X X 

Bill Kerekes Boat Launch and Day Use Area X X X 

Laguna Dam Primitive Boat Launch X 

Senator Wash Boat Launch and Day Use Area X X X X X X 

Concession 

Hidden Shores RV Village X X X X X X 

Walters Camp X X X X X X 

Three distinct groups of visitors recreate on BLM-administered lands within the planning area: 

(1) winter visitors who migrate to Arizona from the northern states from October to March; these 

visitors are generally retirees who camp in self-contained RV units, (2) families and groups from 

metropolitan centers in southern California and Phoenix; these visitors primarily come for waterbased recreation activities on the lower Colorado River from May to September, and (3) local 

residents who regularly visit the public lands on weekday evenings and weekends; these visitors 

primarily come for hunting, fishing, camping, and trail-based recreation activities (USDOI BLM 

1987b).

Visitor use patterns within the planning area are mainly seasonal. During the summer months, 

water-based weekend recreation on the Colorado River is the most common activity, and very 

few visitors recreate in the upland desert ecosystems for a significant period of time due to 

extreme summer heat. However, a considerable amount of OHV use occurs on lands adjacent to 

the river during the summer months. During the winter months, the river is relatively quiet and 

most recreation occurs within the upland desert ecosystems as visitors participate in camping, 

cultural resource viewing, hunting, rock hounding, and a wide variety of trail-based activities due 

to the favorable weather in this region.

Recreation management in the planning area comprises the following components: the 

Recreation Fee Programs, Recreation Concession Leases, Free Recreation Opportunities, and 

ROS. For additional information regarding routes (trails, roads, and driveable washes), see 

Section 3.14 Travel Management. 

3.13.1 RECREATION FEE PROGRAMS 

The BLM is authorized to collect two types of recreation-related revenues from the public, SRP 

fees and amenity recreation fees. Changes in the costs of fees and the locations where fees are 

collected are based on publicly reviewed YFO Recreation and Visitor Services Business Plans. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-87 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

These plans are also reviewed by the Arizona Resource Advisory Council. The BLM is 

permitted to retain 100 percent of the collected recreation fees, and use them for the operation, 

maintenance, and improvement of recreation fee collection sites. 

A. SPECIAL RECREATION PERMIT PROGRAM 

The YFO SRP program manages use of the public lands for commercial activities, organized 

group events, and individual use of special areas by the discretionary issuance of permits. The 

BLM SRP program also includes permitting competitive uses on the public lands; however, the 

public has not approached the YFO to permit such a use in several years. SRPs are issued with 

stipulations YFO specialists have determined appropriate to mitigate the potential impacts these 

uses may have on the other resources included in the BLM’s multiple-use mission. Revenues 

generated from SRPs for commercial activities and organized group events are used to cover the 

costs to the Recreation and Visitor Services program for administrative and regulatory 

compliance documentation procedures necessary prior to authorization. Revenues generated 

from SRPs for individual use of special areas are used to cover standard operational costs and 

address identified capital improvement needs. 

1. Commercial Activities 

The BLM considers any activity on the public lands where a person, group, or organization 

attempts to make a profit, receive money, or where there is paid public advertising to seek 

participation a commercial activity. Commercial operators are required to pay a $90.00 annual 

fee and provide proof of insurance prior to conducting business on the public lands. Commonly 

permitted commercial activities within the YFO include RV supplies, services, and repairs and 

food concessionaires at popular river recreation areas. 

2. Organized Group Events 

The BLM issues SRPs for any activities on the public lands that are part of a structured, ordered, 

consolidated, or scheduled event for recreational purposes. If the purpose of an event is to 

generate revenue, then the YFO would issue a SRP for commercial activities on the public lands. 

In most cases, organized group events enable community groups to recreate together on their 

public lands and are not commercial in nature. Commonly permitted organized group events 

within the YFO include horseback rides for local equestrian clubs and Boy Scout campouts. 

3. Individual Use of Special Areas 

The BLM LTVA program was established in the YFO in 1983 to fulfill the needs of winter 

visitors and to protect local desert ecosystems from degradation due to intensive use. The YFO’s 

two LTVAs are special areas established for management by the SRP program. Although many 

services and facilities are located in these areas, they primarily provide for resource protection, 

visitor safety, and regulatory compliance measures. The areas are not BLM campgrounds nor 

designed as developed recreation facilities. 

SRPs purchased for the use of the LTVAs are honored throughout the BLM’s LTVA program 

for the length of the permit’s validity. The BLM El Centro and Palm Springs/South Coast Field 

Offices also maintain LTVAs. Between April 16 and September 14, the LTVAs become 14-day 

Page 3-88 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

camping areas. One contact station at each of the YFO’s two LTVAs remains open year round to 

provide the public with information and assistance. 

a. Imperial Dam LTVA 

The 3,300-acre Imperial Dam LTVA is situated approximately 21 miles north of Yuma in 

Imperial County, California. The LTVA is located adjacent to the Senator Wash Reservoir. 

The Imperial Dam LTVA provides two universally accessible rest rooms, a water distribution 

site, a three-lane dump station with water, a dry dump station, a grey water dump site, trash 

disposal services, shade ramadas, three full hook-up sites for volunteer hosts and contractors, 

post and cable fencing, extensive signage, numerous unpaved roads, and pay phones. The 

increasing use of the LTVA creates a heavy demand on the existing facilities. The waste 

treatment facilities that serve this general area need to be upgraded to address environmental 

concerns and for legally mandated regulatory compliance. 

b. La Posa LTVA 

The 10,700-acre La Posa LTVA is located approximately two miles south of the Town of 

Quartzsite in La Paz County, Arizona. Facilities at the La Posa LTVA include a well water 

system, a water distribution site, a two-lane dump station with leach fields, a dry dump 

station, trash receptacles, 10 vault toilets, approximately three miles of post and cable 

fencing, shade ramadas, a concrete dance floor, and extensive signage. Other improvements 

include four block contact stations with power, four electrical hook-up sites for hosts, several 

pay phones, business phones located within each contact station, one major paved road, and 

numerous improved and unimproved roads which require routine maintenance. 

B. AMENITY RECREATION FEE PROGRAM 

The FLREA, P.L. 108-447, authorizes the BLM to collect amenity recreation fees for the use of 

recreation areas that meet specified levels of development and facilities. If permitted, overnight 

camping at amenity recreation fee sites within the YFO are limited to 14 days within any 28-day 

period. The YFO collects amenity recreation fees at the seven following recreation areas: 

1. Senator Wash Boat Ramp Day Use Area 

The Senator Wash Boat Ramp Day Use Area provides the public with recreational access to 

Senator Wash Reservoir, located approximately 25 miles north of Yuma. The area offers the 

public with day use parking, a paved boat launch, a restroom with flush toilets and showers, 

garbage collection, pay phones, and a buoyed swimming area. Picnicking, swimming, fishing, 

boating, jet and water skiing, and wildlife viewing are the most common activities within the 

reservoir. The boat ramp also provides boat-in camping access to the Senator Wash North Shore 

and South Shore Campgrounds (USDOI BLM 2007a). Water levels within Senator Wash are 

controlled by Reclamation as part of the water control and delivery system of the lower Colorado 

River. 

2. Senator Wash North Shore Campground 

The winding northern shoreline along Senator Wash Reservoir provides access to several private 

campsites. The campground can be accessed by land from Ferguson Lake Road or by water from 

the Senator Wash Boat Ramp. Five universally accessible vault restrooms are maintained in the 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-89 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

campground. OHV use is also a common recreational activity on the public lands adjacent to the 

campground. The amenity recreation fee at North Shore also includes the use of the trash 

disposal facilities at the nearby Imperial Dam LTVA (USDOI BLM 2007a). 

3. Senator Wash South Shore Campground 

The wide, flat beach along Senator Wash Reservoir’s southern shore provides ideal family 

camping opportunities. The campground can be accessed by land from the adjacent Imperial 

Dam LTVA or by water from the Senator Wash Boat Ramp. The amenity recreation fee at South 

Shore also includes the use of the trash disposal and restroom facilities within the LTVA 

(USDOI BLM 2007a). 

4. Squaw Lake Campground and Day Use Area 

The Squaw Lake Campground and Day Use Area is located on the southern side of Senator 

Wash Dam, and provides camping opportunities and boating access to the lower Colorado River. 

The area includes over 100 RV campsites and numerous areas for tent camping, four universally 

accessible restrooms with flush toilets, garbage collection, picnic areas with grills, two boat 

launches, boat trailer parking, two buoyed swimming areas, and pay phones. Hot water showers 

are also available within the restrooms for an additional fee. The most common recreational 

activities at Squaw Lake include camping, hiking, swimming, fishing, boating, and picnicking. A 

no wake zone encompasses Squaw Lake until it reaches the Colorado River (USDOI BLM 

2007a). 

5. Betty’s Kitchen Watchable Wildlife Viewing Area and National Recreation Trail 

This 10-acre day use area is located along the lower Colorado River approximately 15 miles 

north of Yuma. The area is situated just upstream of the Reclamation-operated Laguna Dam, 

which was the first dam on the Colorado River. Betty’s Kitchen maintains dense assemblages of 

riparian vegetation, and past restoration projects have increased the vegetative diversity. The 

universally accessible trail was designated a NRT in 1993, and interpretive panels along the walk 

familiarize the visitor with the natural and cultural features of the area. Facilities at Betty’s 

Kitchen include a day use parking area, shade ramada, picnic tables, grills, and a small outdoor 

classroom. Fishing, hiking, and wildlife viewing are the most common recreational activities 

(USDOI BLM 2007a). 

6. Oxbow Recreation and Wildlife Area 

The 420 acre Oxbow Recreation and Wildlife Area is located approximately 25 miles south of 

Blythe, California along the lower Colorado River and Oxbow Lake, an abandoned meander of 

the original river channel. The area was formally designated in 2005 with the finalization of the 

BLM’s Oxbow Recreation and Wildlife Area Management Plan. The plan has earmarked 

approximately 150 acres for campground and day use development to meet the growing 

recreational demands along this stretch of the Colorado River. The other 270 acres of the area 

have been identified for a variety of riparian habitat restoration projects. The facilities at Oxbow 

include RV and tent campsites, two universally accessible vault restrooms, garbage collection, 

grills, picnic tables, one paved and one unpaved boat launch, and boat trailer parking. Camping, 

boating, fishing, and wildlife viewing are the most common recreational activities. Jet skiing, 

water skiing, and other fast paced boating activities occur within the Colorado River. Slower 

Page 3-90 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

paced boating activities, such as fishing, kayaking, and canoeing are more common within 

Oxbow Lake. 

7. Ehrenberg Sandbowl Open OHV Management Area 

Located approximately three miles south of Ehrenberg, Arizona, this 400 acre designated Open 

OHV Management Area provides exceptional OHV riding opportunities throughout its hilly and 

sandy terrain. The entrance to the Sandbowl area provides day use parking, a universally 

accessible vault restroom, OHV loading/unloading ramps, two shade ramadas, and picnic tables 

(USDOI BLM 2007a). 

3.13.2 RECREATION CONCESSION LEASES 

The BLM currently administers two recreation concession leases along the lower Colorado 

River. Concessions are generally authorized so that private enterprises can provide the public 

with a wider range of recreational opportunities that the BLM is not capable of managing. The 

maximum length of stay within concessions is limited to 150 days per year. Recreation 

concession leases within the planning area are authorized by FLPMA. 

A. HIDDEN SHORES RV VILLAGE 

Hidden Shores RV Village is located on the eastern side of Imperial Dam in Yuma County, 

Arizona. Managed by the private sector, Hidden Shores RV Village primarily caters to visitors 

interested in water-based recreation activities on the lower Colorado River. Amenities provided 

by Hidden Shores RV Village include water and electric RV hookups, boat ramps, universally 

accessible showers and restrooms, carry-out and fuel sales, recreation center, golf course, and 

laundry facilities. Hidden Shores RV Village visitors also commonly ride OHVs on the BLMadministered lands adjacent to the concession. 

B. WALTERS CAMP 

Walters Camp is located on the original Colorado River channel between the Cibola and Imperial 

NWRs in Imperial County, California. The 18-acre concession provides a boat ramp, carry-out, 

RV hookups, flush restrooms and showers, fuel sales, and tent camping sites. 

3.13.3 OTHER RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES 

A vast majority of the recreational opportunities within the planning area are available to the 

public for no cost. Several areas throughout the planning area have historically received high 

amounts of recreational use. Most of these free areas provide no type of recreational facilities, 

and visitors are expected to pack out what they pack in. 

The YFO continuously monitors visitor use patterns and resource degradation in free 14-day 

campgrounds and other sites of high public use identified on Map 3-24. Monitoring data is used 

to determine if the installation of recreation facilities, such as restrooms, trash receptacles, and 

designated parking areas, are needed to address any existing public health and safety and 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-91 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

resource protection concerns. If recreation facilities are needed to address these types of 

concerns, the YFO would then consider if the area should be included in the BLM recreation fee 

program to cover the cost of facility maintenance. Potential changes in the recreation fee 

program are contingent upon the outcome of publicly reviewed NEPA documents and the YFO 

Recreation and Visitor Services Business Plan. 

A. 14-DAY CAMPING AREAS 

Outside of recreation fee areas, designated day use only areas, and other areas closed to 

overnight camping, visitors may camp on the public lands free of charge for 14 days within any 

28-day period, after which they must move to another location at least 25 miles away. There are 

several areas throughout the planning area that have historically received high amounts of winter 

visitor camping use and have been designated as free 14-day camping areas. No recreational 

facilities are provided within designated 14-day camping areas. BLM Volunteer Hosts are 

normally stationed within these areas during the winter visitor season to ensure that visitors 

comply with BLM camping regulations. 

1. A-10 Backwaters 

The A-10 Backwaters are located between Colorado River Miles 113.7 and 115.1 in La Paz 

County, Arizona just south of Ehrenberg. The backwaters provide camping, kayaking, and onshore fishing opportunities. The site does not provide a maintained boat launch, however, limited 

backwater boating access is available through the site’s gradual slopes into the water. 

2. Fortuna Pond 

Fortuna Pond is located in Yuma County, Arizona, approximately one mile north of Highway 95 

and three miles east of Avenue 7E. Fortuna Pond is cooperatively managed with the AGFD and 

Reclamation, who stock the pond with fish and control the pond’s water level, respectively. 

Further information on Fortuna Pond can be found in the Coordinated Management Area 

sections of this document. 

3. Quartzsite 14-day Camping Areas 

The 1997 La Posa Interdisciplinary Management Plan designated five 14-day camping areas on 

the public lands surrounding the Town of Quartzsite, Arizona. The Dome Rock, Road Runner, 

Hi Jolly, Plomosa Road, and Scaddan Wash camping areas collectively provide over 5,500 acres 

of free overnight camping opportunities in the area. Due to the large numbers of winter visitors 

who annually visit the Town of Quartzsite, approximately 106,000 acres of public land outside of 

the La Posa LTVA and the 14-day camping areas have been closed to overnight camping for 

resource protection purposes. 

4. VFW Highway 95 Camping Area 

This 14-day camping area is located approximately 13 miles northeast of Yuma, directly adjacent 

to both Highway 95 and the Veterans of Foreign War (VFW) post. The flat topography of the 

area is conducive to RV camping, and the camping area’s proximity to both Highway 95 and the 

VFW make it particularly popular with winter visitors. 

Page 3-92 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

B. 10-DAY CAMPING AREA 

The Mittry Lake Wildlife Area includes over 600 acres of surface water and over 2,400 acres of 

marsh and upland habitat. Camping regulations within this area are unique to the planning area, 

in that overnight camping is limited to 10 days per calendar year for wildlife protection purposes. 

While much of the land is available for camping, overnight use is normally concentrated along 

the fishing jetties located on the lake’s southwestern shore, and along the Gila Gravity Main 

Canal to the south. The Mittry Lake Wildlife Area is cooperatively managed with the AGFD and 

Reclamation, and further information on these lands can be found in Section 3.17 Coordinated 

Management Areas. 

C. DAY USE ONLY AREAS 

There are several heavily used free areas where the YFO has prohibited overnight camping. 

These free day use only areas are presented below. 

1. A-7 Backwater 

The A-7 Backwaters are located between Colorado River Miles 118.7 and 120.6 in La Paz 

County, Arizona just south of Ehrenberg. The BLM designated approximately 200 acres of land 

surrounding the waters as day use only in 1989 to reduce potential impacts to riparian vegetation 

and wildlife. The site is accessed from the Ehrenberg-Cibola Levee Road, and provides 

backwater and river boating access through an unpaved boat launch. 

2. Bill Kerekes Day Use Area and Boat Launch 

The Bill Kerekes Day Use Area and Boat Launch are located within the Mittry Lake Wildlife 

Area in Yuma County, Arizona. This area provides the public with a paved boat launch, 

designated boat trailer parking, restrooms, barbeque grills, and a universally accessible fishing 

dock and shade ramada. These facilities, which are available for public use free of charge, have 

been installed through substantial donations from local community residents and are 

cooperatively managed with the AGFD. 

3. Laguna Dam Primitive Boat Launch 

Located approximately 15 miles north of Yuma, this unpaved launch provides boating access to 

the original Colorado River channel just upstream from Laguna Dam. The site is popular with 

local fishermen and provides limited boat trailer parking with no developed facilities. 

D. OTHER FREE RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES 

There is no cost associated with a wide variety of recreational trail use opportunities, such as 

hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and OHV riding on BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area. The YFO also does not collect fees for other dispersed recreation activities, such 

as rock hounding, geocaching, and cultural resource viewing. 

Hunting and fishing permits within the planning area are regulated by the AGFD and the CDFG, 

accordingly. The BLM does not generally charge fees associated with hunting and fishing on the 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-93 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

public lands, unless the visitors are using commercial guides for these activities. 

3.13.4 RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM 

INVENTORY 

The purpose of the ROS Inventory is to catalog the different types of recreation opportunities 

currently available within the planning area, and categorize them into six types of ROS Classes 

ranging from Urban to Primitive. A YFO-specific ROS Inventory was completed in 2005 

through a multi-agency, interdisciplinary team process. ROS Inventory Classes were based on 

professional determinations of nine different physical, social, and administrative attributes of the 

public lands. The results of the ROS Inventory are shown on Map 3-25. The ROS Inventory also 

provides the basis for the prescribed recreation settings proposed in Chapter 2. The six types of 

ROS Classes are defined as follows: 

A. URBAN RECREATION SETTING 

The urban recreation setting provides very limited opportunities to see, hear, and smell the 

natural resources because of the extensive level of development, human activity, and natural 

resource modification. Watching and meeting other visitors is expected and desired; large group 

activities are popular; opportunity to briefly relieve stress and to alter everyday routines is 

important; socializing with family and friends is important; large groups and families are 

common; a high sense of safety, security, comfort, and convenience is central and dominant; the 

mix of recreation activities may be diverse, ranging from those of relaxation and contemplation 

to those of physical exertion, thrills, excitement and challenge. The setting is often attractive to 

short-term visitors, tours, and school groups; it may serve as a staging area for visitors traveling 

on to areas with non-urban recreation settings. 

B. SUBURBAN RECREATION SETTING 

The suburban recreation setting provides limited or little opportunity to see, hear, or smell the 

natural resources because of the widespread and very prevalent level of development, human 

activity, or natural resource modification; watching and meeting other visitors is expected and 

desired; opportunity to briefly relieve stress and to alter everyday routine is important; families 

are common; a high sense of safety, security, comfort, and convenience is central and dominant; 

the mix of recreation activities may be diverse, ranging from relaxation and contemplation to 

physical exertion, thrills, excitement, and challenge; learning about the natural and cultural 

history of the area is important to some; area is popular with local residents or long-term winter 

visitors. 

C. RURAL DEVELOPED RECREATION SETTING 

The rural developed recreation setting provides occasional or periodic opportunities to see, hear, 

or smell the natural resources because of the common and frequent level of development, human 

activity, or natural resource modification; opportunity to experience brief periods of solitude and 

change from everyday sights and sounds is important; socialization within and outside one’s 

Page 3-94 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

group is typical and the presence of other visitors is expected; opportunity to relieve stress and to 

alter everyday routines is important; a moderate level of comfort and convenience is important; a 

sense of safety and security is important; the array of recreation activities may be diverse, 

ranging from relaxation and contemplation to physical exertion and challenge; area is typically 

attractive for day-use and weekend visits from regional metropolitan areas and smaller nearby 

communities. 

D. RURAL NATURAL RECREATION SETTING

The rural natural recreation setting provides prevalent opportunities to see, hear, or smell the 

natural resources because development, human activity, and natural resource modifications are 

occasional and infrequent; socialization with others is expected and tolerated; opportunity to 

relieve stress and to get away from built environment is important; a high sense of safety, 

security, comfort and convenience is not important nor expected; a sense of independence and 

freedom with a moderate level of management presence is important; moments of solitude, 

tranquility, and nature appreciation are important; experiences tend to be more resourcedependent, although may be diverse, ranging from relaxation and contemplation to socialization, 

to physical exertion and challenge; area is typically attractive to extended weekend visitors using 

recreation vehicles, tents, or rustic cabins. 

E. SEMI-PRIMITIVE RECREATION SETTING 

The semi-primitive recreation setting provides widespread and very prevalent opportunities to 

see, hear, or smell the natural resources because development, human activity, and natural 

resource modifications are seldom encountered; opportunity to experience a natural ecosystem 

with little human imprint is important; a sense of challenge, adventure, risk, and self-reliance is 

important; solitude and lack of contact with other visitors, managers, and facilities is important; 

the recreation experiences tend to be more resource-based; a sense of independence, freedom, 

tranquility, relaxation, nature appreciation and wonderment, testing skills, and stewardship is 

typical; area provides opportunities for the more adventure-based enthusiasts. Overnight visits 

are typically car and tent camping far from modern conveniences and facilities. Knowledge of 

desert survival skills is critical to visitor safety. Topography, an absence of existing roads, or 

resource protection measures may limit motorized access. 

F. PRIMITIVE RECREATION SETTING 

The primitive recreation setting provides extensive opportunities to see, hear, or smell the natural 

resources because development, human activity, and natural resource modifications are rare; 

opportunity to experience natural ecosystems with very little and no apparent human imprint is 

paramount; natural views, sounds, and smells dominate; a sense of solitude, tranquility, 

challenge, adventure, risk, orienteering, and self-reliance is important; a sense of freedom, 

tranquility, humility, relaxation, nature appreciation, wonderment, and stewardship is central and 

dominant; overnight visitors tent camp with no modern facilities; adventure travelers are often 

attracted to the undisturbed wild settings. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-95 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

3.14 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

BLM-administered lands are adjacent to several rapidly growing communities within the 

planning area. As the demand for multiple-resource uses continues to grow, the YFO is 

challenged to provide a comprehensive transportation system that meets user needs and remains 

sustainable with the resource base. 

3.14.1 ROADS 

Roads within the planning area provide essential access to private property, mining activities, 

agricultural fields, and recreational opportunities. These roads can be broadly categorized into 

two types, primary transportation routes and recreational routes. 

A. PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION ROUTES 

Components of the National Highway System pass through the planning area. Interstate 10 and 

Interstate 8 both cross in an east–west direction, and Highway 95 runs north–south. Various 

other Arizona and California State highways and county roads provide a comprehensive 

transportation system linking the communities within the planning area. The YFO also 

authorizes the construction and maintenance of roads across BLM lands by issuing ROWs. 

ROWs are typically issued when roads are needed to provide access to private property, mining 

and mineral materials activities, and utilities. 

B. RECREATIONAL ROUTES 

The recreational routes on BLM-administered lands are primarily low-standard, unpaved roads. 

The conditions of recreational routes are dependent upon the levels of use, weathering, 

susceptibility of erosion, and age. The YFO does not actively maintain a vast majority of these 

routes, and public use normally requires the use of high clearance and/or four-wheel drive 

vehicles. The YFO maintains many of the routes which provide access into the recreation fee 

areas. These routes are maintained with improved surfaces that can withstand the heavier 

amounts of vehicle traffic. The BLM inventories route maintenance needs in a database called 

the Facility Assessment Management System. 

The YFO has used a variety of data sources to compile the inventory of recreational routes on 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area. The Proposed Route Inventory includes 

approximately 4,600 miles of recreational routes (including drivable washes) and linear features 

miles, and is represented on Map 3-26. A closer examination of these routes and linear features 

miles can be found in large format on Maps TMA-1, TMA-2, TMA-3, TMA-4, and TMA-5. 

3.14.2 OHV MANAGEMENT AREA DESIGNATIONS 

The CFR and the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook require that all BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area are designated as Open, Closed, or Limited to OHV use. The existing 

designations for OHV use are described below (see Map 2-9c). 

Page 3-96 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

A. OPEN OHV MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Visitors may operate any type of motorized vehicles at all times, anywhere within Open OHV 

Management Areas. The YFO currently maintains one Open OHV Management Area at the 

Ehrenberg Sandbowl, which is approximately 400 acres. 

B. CLOSED OHV MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Motorized vehicle travel is prohibited within Closed OHV Management Areas. Only the YFO 

Field Manager can authorize motorized travel within these designated areas for administrative 

and emergency purposes. The YFO currently maintains approximately 169,000 acres of Closed 

OHV Management Areas, 167,800 acres of which are statutorily closed through their designation 

as Wilderness. Approximately 1,000 acres in the La Paz Valley near the Town of Quartzsite and 

100 acres east of Yuma (Fortuna Wash) have been closed to motorized travel for several years to 

reduce impacts from OHV use to adjacent community residents. In addition, 100 acres have 

been temporarily closed to OHV use in the North Bank Milipitas Wash area (see additional 

information below in Section 3.14.3 A.3). 

C. LIMITED OHV MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Motorized travel is currently limited to existing roads, trails, and drivable washes within 

approximately 1,148,600 acres of BLM-administered lands within the planning area. 

3.14.3 PUBLIC ACCESS 

Public access within the planning area is managed by the BLM, Federal, other State, Tribal 

agencies, and private property owners. 

A. BLM ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS 

The BLM has placed administrative restrictions for public health and safety and resource 

protection purposes, which limit the type of public access and uses allowed on specific public 

lands. 

1. Fortuna Pond Restriction 

The YFO has prohibited overnight camping and parking within a 50-foot wide zone along the 

southern shore of Fortuna Pond in Yuma County, Arizona. These restrictions were implemented 

to reduce shoreline erosion and impacts to riparian vegetation. 

2. Quartzsite Area Restrictions 

The 1997 La Posa Interdisciplinary Management Plan prohibited overnight camping and 

firewood collection within 115,200 acres of BLM-administered lands surrounding the Town of 

Quartzsite, Arizona. The overnight camping restriction was implemented in order to consolidate 

impacts from winter visitor camping use into the La Posa LTVA and five free 14-day 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-97 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

campgrounds. The firewood collection restriction was implemented because such use of the 

public lands was not sustainable when such large numbers of visitors were coming to the area 

each winter. 

3. North Bank Milpitas Wash Restriction 

The YFO has temporarily restricted OHV use within 100 acres of public land in Imperial 

County, California. This restriction was implemented so that the YFO can assess the resource 

values of these lands that were recently transferred to the BLM’s jurisdiction from the Cibola 

NWR under P.L. 109-127. The OHV Management Area designation proposed in this RMP 

would supersede the restriction for this area. 

B. PUBLIC ACCESS ON NON-BLM LANDS WITHIN THE 

PLANNING AREA 

1. Military Lands 

Two large military installations limit public access to a significant amount of land within the 

planning area. YPG restricts public access to main traveled roads, and the BMGR Air Force 

Range provides public access by permit only. 

2. USFWS Lands 

The USFWS manages public access within the planning area’s three NWRs independent of BLM 

transportation management decisions. Motorized travel within the Imperial, Cibola, and Kofa 

NWRs are limited to designated roads and trails. BLM-administered lands in the planning area 

also provide access into the Cabeza Prieta NWR, which allows public access by permit only. 

3. Reclamation Lands 

The BLM co-manages Reclamation acquired and withdrawn lands along the lower Colorado 

River. Reclamation is responsible for managing public access on the river levee roads. Use of 

these levee roads is prohibited unless specifically designated as open to the public by 

Reclamation. Reclamation also manages public access within identified Security Zones 

surrounding the various dams on the lower Colorado River. 

4. Arizona State Trust Lands 

State Trust Lands are dispersed throughout the planning area. The Arizona State Land 

Department provides a State Land Recreational Permit for individuals or families or groups for 

visitors wishing to recreate on these lands. The permit is designed to allow use of State Trust 

Lands for non-consumptive and environmentally compatible recreational activities. 

5. Tribal Lands 

Public access into the Native American Tribal reservations within the planning area is managed 

by the individual tribes, which generally require a permit prior to entry for recreational purposes. 

Page 3-98 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

6. Private Property 

The BLM does not authorize public access to private property for recreational purposes. 

Individuals seeking access to their private property may apply for a ROW grant to obtain legal 

access. 

3.15 LANDS AND REALTY 

3.15.1 LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT 

YFO maintains an active lands program that oversees ROW authorizations for major ROW 

Corridors connecting energy-rich states (Texas and New Mexico) through Arizona to California. 

The planning area has no lands and realty management responsibility over Tribal lands. 

Land use designations are ROW Corridors and communication sites. Land use designations may 

overlap the same area. In such situations, potential conflicts between uses and desired resource 

conditions are resolved through management decisions or prescriptions. 

Examples of land use authorizations include leases, permits, easements, and ROWs. Land use 

authorizations are evaluated by analyzing current and desired future resource conditions and 

designations on a case-by-case basis. Land for lease or patent according to the R&PP Act would 

be considered to meet the needs of local communities and government entities. All land use 

authorizations are discretionary actions and may be subject to rent and bonding as determined by 

BLM using sound business management principles in accordance with existing regulations. 

Land tenure adjustments are discretionary and may involve surface and/or subsurface estates to 

obtain an optimum land ownership pattern. BLM would consider resolving split-estate issues 

where practicable. Public lands would be retained in Federal ownership, unless specifically 

identified for disposal in the RMP or by a subsequent amendment. Additional lands may be 

identified for disposal to accommodate such actions as land exchanges with the State, or special 

legislation that calls for the disposal of Federal lands, but would not be limited to these specific 

actions. Land to be considered for disposal and/or acquisition would be evaluated on a case-bycase basis according to appropriate laws and regulations. Public lands that are within priority 

wildlife habitat and special management areas, designated as Wilderness, or otherwise classified 

or withdrawn from disposal would be retained in Federal ownership (USDOI BLM 1987a). 

Lands would be considered for acquisition to meet BLM’s mission. Lands may be acquired 

through purchase, donation, exchange, or eminent domain. The land exchange program both 

disposes and acquires lands and/or interests in lands. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-99 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

3.15.2 LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS 

A. WITHDRAWAL 

Federal agency withdrawals within the planning area include but are not limited to Reclamation, 

USFWS, Department of the Navy, Department of the Air Force, and Department of the Army 

(see Appendix 2-G for complete list). 

In the 1992 Yuma District RMP Amendment, the La Posa LTVA was proposed to be withdrawn 

from entry under the mining laws for recreational purposes (long-term camping). Approximately 

11,400 acres would be withdrawn. This proposed withdrawal has not been completed and would 

require congressional approval because it exceeds 5,000 acres. 

The Gila River Cultural Area ACEC, known as Sears Point (3,600 acres), and all the Wilderness 

Areas (167,800 acres) have been withdrawn from the general land laws and entry under the 

mining laws (Map 2-12a). 

B. LEASES/PERMITS/EASEMENTS

Under the 43 CFR 2900 regulations, the three primary types of authorizations are leases, permits, 

and easements. Leases are generally for longer term and substantial development, and can 

convey possessory interest. Permits are normally for a maximum of three years and involve 

minimal development. Easements are non-possessory, non-exclusive interest in lands and are 

rarely authorized. 

Leases, permits, or easements may be offered on a competitive basis if a competitive basis exists. 

These types of authorizations may be offered on a negotiated non-competitive basis where 

determined by the authorized officer. In the planning area, the primary types of leases authorized 

are agricultural, residential, and concession. 

1. Agricultural Leases 

BLM authorizes agricultural uses under the authority of FLPMA on certain public lands within 

the planning area. Currently, all agricultural leases are along or near the Colorado River. On 

Reclamation withdrawn lands, the lease allows for termination, cancellation, or revocation of the 

lease if the lands are needed for the use by Reclamation for reclamation purposes.

2. Residential Leases 

The existing residential leases were issued to resolve unauthorized occupancy on public land. 

3. Concession Leases 

Concession leases entail the investment of large amounts of capital which would be amortized 

over time. Proposals for concession leases are driven by recreational needs. For additional 

information on concession leases, see Section 3.13.3 Recreation Concession Leases. 

Page 3-100 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

4. R&PP Leases 

BLM considers R&PP lease applications for community expansion proposals from government 

agencies or nonprofit corporations and associations for such uses as airports, parks, hospitals, 

government facilities, etc. Authorization of an R&PP lease requires development in accordance 

with the approved lease and plan of development. Upon completion of substantial development 

of existing R&PP leases, the lessee may apply for patent to the public lands. In cases where an 

R&PP application is for the purpose of solid waste disposal or for any other purpose that may 

include the disposal, placement, or release of any hazardous substance, such as shooting ranges 

and wastewater treatment facilities, the lands go directly to patent if approved. The primary types 

of permits authorized in the planning area are as follows: 

5. Film/Still Photography Permit 

Commercial filming activity on Federal lands requires authorization and collection of 

appropriate fees based on days of filming, size of film crew, and type of equipment. Film 

permits are not issued if there is a likelihood of resource damage. 

6. Apiary Permit 

An apiary permit is a bee colony use site primarily for assisting in the pollination of agricultural 

crops. An additional benefit is the production of honey. All apiary permits must be located at a 

safe distance from residential areas and within close proximity to water. All permittees must 

monitor for Africanized bees. 

7. Mineral Material Processing Plant Permit 

These permits are associated with mineral material contracts which only allow for the extraction 

of mineral materials. Contractors often need land adjacent to their contracts for the processing 

and storage of mineral material. 

8. Easements 

In accordance with 43 CFR 2900, easements may be issued if determined to be the appropriate 

authorization. No easements have been issued for access across public lands within the planning 

area. 

C. RIGHTS-OF-WAY 

User-initiated proposals or applications generate most of the present ROW activity. Inquiries and 

proposals are received from Federal, State and local governments, and from private individuals 

and companies interested in acquiring access across or locating facilities on public land. BLM 

considers proposals on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with decisions established in the 

existing RMP (USDOI BLM 1987a). 

ROWs are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Public lands would generally be available for 

ROWs subject to NEPA evaluation, except where specifically prohibited by law or regulation or 

in areas specifically identified for avoidance and/or exclusion to protect significant resource 

values. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-101 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

1. Right-of-Way Corridors 

There are four existing major ROW Corridors with one-mile widths in the current planning area 

boundaries (Map 2-13a), which are designed and located to facilitate linear ROWs (primarily 

natural gas pipelines and transmission lines). These ROW Corridors are: 

 Interstate 10, 

 El Paso Natural Gas, 

 Palo Verde-Devers, and 

 San Diego Gas & Electric Interconnection. 

New major ROWs are located in designated corridors, unless an evaluation for the proposed 

project shows the location outside of the corridor is the most practicable alternative and/or causes 

the least impacts to the environment (USDOI BLM 1987a). All existing or proposed new 

corridors are required to be designated in the RMP or through an RMP amendment. ROW 

Corridor designations in the YFO need to meet the needs identified in the Draft West-wide 

Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS and be consistent with the 1992 Western Utility Group’s 

Western Regional Corridor Study. Established corridors in the planning area are required to align 

with adjacent BLM field office corridors. 

2. Communications Sites 

Communications sites are generally limited by BLM to designated areas, usually mountain 

peaks, with existing facilities. Emphasis is placed on consolidating single facility sites into more 

efficient communications facilities through site management plans. There are 11 existing 

communications sites in the planning area, six designated (Airway Beacon, Big Maria, 

Cunningham, Mohawk, Stone Cabin, and Telegraph) and five undesignated (Block Rock Hill, 

Guadalupe, Palo Verde Gap, Qwest, and Salome) (Map 3-27). YFO does not currently have a 

designated high-power communications site. 

3. Renewable Energy (Solar and Wind) 

Federal energy resources in the planning area are currently managed by YFO according to 

existing RMPs and Management Framework Plans. Since the existing Management Framework 

Plans and RMPs were developed, numerous changes in the environment, regulations, and 

policies have occurred that require reconsideration of certain management decisions. The 

potential for renewable energy in the planning area is based on environmental, physical, and 

economic criteria, in conjunction with policy directives. 

Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, are evaluated and discussed in terms 

of the ROW authorization that may be obtained to construct collection facilities on public land. 

There is the associated recognition of ROW authorizations needed for transmission lines as part 

of renewable energy development. 

 a. Solar Energy

Currently, there are no existing solar energy authorizations in the planning area. A solar 

energy prospective area refers to a solar energy resource area characterized by the amount of 

Page 3-102 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

solar radiation collectable by the types of collectors used. The entire planning area is 

considered a solar energy resource area (USDOE 2001, 2003). 

A recent report prepared by the USDOE (USDOE 2003), in cooperation with the BLM, 

identified the planning area as having a large total land area with a high-potential for 

concentrating solar power and/or photovoltaic sites. Solar energy is a renewable energy 

resource that has excellent potential for generating electricity in Yuma and La Paz counties. 

Installation of solar energy facilities on public lands requires a ROW grant. Commercial 

electric generating facilities must comply with BLM’s planning, environmental, and current 

ROW application requirements. If sufficient interest is recognized for a specific area, then 

competitive bidding is required for a ROW. BLM’s general policy is to facilitate 

environmentally responsible commercial development of solar energy projects on public 

lands and use solar energy systems on BLM facilities where feasible. Laws and regulations 

applicable to solar arrays on public lands in the planning area include, but are not limited to, 

FLPMA and 43 CFR 2800.

Some types of solar energy facilities would require relatively flat land with slopes not 

exceeding three percent to accommodate the solar collectors, access to available water, and 

proximity to electric transmission facilities. The area of land required would depend on the 

type of plant, but is about five acres per produced megawatt. It is anticipated that a 

commercial scale concentrating solar power facility may be in the range of 100 megawatt or 

larger and may require in excess of 500 acres. 

The annual average solar insolation throughout the planning area is relatively uniform at 

6,100 to 7,000 Wh/m2/day (Energy Atlas 2005). Commercial solar generating stations have 

been constructed and operated in Arizona and other states, particularly in desert locations. 

Existing solar array technology can place approximately 125 to 150 kilowatts of photovoltaic 

cells per acre. Such an array would generate 250 to 300 megawatt-hours of electricity per 

year (Arizona Public Service 2002). 

 b. Wind 

Wind energy is a renewable energy resource that has excellent potential for generating 

electricity. The BLM Wind Energy Programmatic EIS (USDOI BLM 2005b) determined 

which areas have high, medium, or low potential for wind energy development based on the 

typical wind speed measured at a location or area. The wind power classification used in the 

EIS had seven wind classes based on the wind power density at a height of 50 meters, 

measured in watts per square meter (W/m2

) (Table 3-19). Wind power is considered 

economic for large turbines (commercial utilities-scale) at Class 3 and higher, although a 

small non-commercial turbine can be used at Class 1.

Currently, there are no commercial wind generating facilities operating in Arizona. Identified 

prospects are north of the planning area and in northeastern Arizona (AZCENTRAL 2005). 

No potential commercial developments have been identified for the planning area. Small 

non-commercial wind projects where the power is used locally may be located anywhere. 

Wind power is often used to pump water for farming or grazing. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-103 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-19 

Wind Power Classification/Energy Development Potential 

Wind 

Power Class 

Energy Development 

Potential 

Wind Power Density (W/m2) at 

164 ft (50 m) above Ground Level 

Wind Speed* (mph) at 

164 ft (50 m) above 

Ground Level 

1 Poor 0–200 0.0–12.5 

2 Marginal 200–300 12.5–14.3 

3 Moderate 300–400 14.3–15.7 

4 Good 400–500 15.7–16.8 

5 Excellent 500–600 16.8–17.9 

6 Excellent 600–800 17.9–19.7 

7 Excellent >800 >19.7 

*Mean wind speed is estimated by assuming a sea level elevation and a Weibull distribution of wind speeds with a 

shape factor (k) of 2.0. The actual mean wind speed may differ from the estimated values shown here by as much as 

20%, depending on the actual wind speed distribution (or Weibull k value) and elevation above sea level. 

There are four small areas of high potential for wind energy development in the planning 

area: 

 Dome Rock Mountains southwest of the Town of Quartzsite just north of YPG, 

 Red Cloud Mine area between the Trigo Mountains Wilderness Area and YPG, 

 Telegraph Pass in the Gila Mountains east of Yuma, and 

 Little Horn Mountains in northeastern Yuma County. 

These areas are surrounded by slightly larger areas of medium potential for wind energy 

development. In addition, there are numerous isolated spots of medium potential for 

development along Highway 95 from Yuma to the northern border of the planning area and 

near the paths of the east-west high voltage transmission lines. 

A wind energy prospective area refers to a wind energy resource area as characterized by the 

wind power energy resource levels described above. Areas of medium or high potential are 

considered usable for generating wind power with large turbines (USDOI BLM 2005b). 

Based on the non-industrial use of small turbines to generate electricity, the entire planning 

area is considered a wind resource area. Based on the industrial use of large turbines to 

generate electricity, there are two wind energy resource areas in the planning area close to 

existing transmission lines: 

 Dome Rock Mountains southwest of the Town of Quartzsite just north of YPG, and 

 Telegraph Pass in the Gila Mountains east of Yuma. 

Laws and regulations applicable to wind farms on public lands in the planning area include 

FLPMA and 43 CFR 2800. Wind energy site testing, monitoring, and development on BLMadministered public land is authorized by application for a ROW authorization at the 

appropriate BLM Field Office. If sufficient interest is recognized for a specific area, then 

competitive bidding may be required for a ROW authorization. At this time, there are no 

monitoring sites, commercial operations, or permitting activity authorized in the planning 

area. 

Page 3-104 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

D. TRESPASS 

The primary type of trespass within the planning area is illegal dumping. Other types of trespass 

present are activities which could potentially be approved by land use authorizations (e.g., roads, 

utility lines, agricultural). Trespass resolution includes, but is not limited to, termination, 

issuance of the appropriate authorization for the unauthorized activity, or litigation. There are 

several pending trespass cases and resolution would be subject to availability of resources, 

including personnel and funding. Trespass cases are resolved in accordance with BLM’s laws, 

regulations, and policies. 

3.15.3 LAND TENURE 

A. CLASSIFICATION 

All public lands within the planning area were classified under the Taylor Grazing Act and 

continue to be classified unless reclassified for specific purposes including but not limited to 

R&PP lease/patent and FLPMA Sec. 203 sales.B. DisposalAll land disposal actions are 

discretionary with emphasis on serving the public interest. Disposal of Reclamationwithdrawn/acquired lands requires Reclamation approval. Sales are currently considered more 

efficient. Sales are primarily competitive or modified-competitive. Disposal of lands are made on 

a case-by-case basis and are accomplished by the most appropriate disposal authority (Map 2-

13a). Approximately 3,300 acres have been disposed of through actions implemented under the 

existing RMP. 

BLM policy is to not dispose of lands occupied by listed or proposed threatened or endangered 

species. When public uses outweigh the value of a parcel as federally owned threatened or 

endangered species habitat, disposal is considered on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, 

consultation or conferencing with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA is required. Exchange for 

other parcels of habitat is encouraged. Compensation for loss of habitat value is required where a 

compensation policy exists. Their mitigation measures may also be required (USDOI BLM 

1987a). 

BLM determines the presence or absence of lands available for Desert Land Entries in the 

planning area, including Native American allotments. There are none present at this time, 

although requests have been received from individuals to establish them. They are generally not 

viable because of lack of adequate water sources. 

C. ACQUISITION 

Land acquisitions are considered on a case-by-case basis through exchange, purchase, donation, 

or eminent domain (USDOI BLM 1996a). Acquisition of easements, for purposes such as access 

or conservation, is also considered on a case-by-case basis. Since implementation of the current 

RMP, the YFO has acquired approximately 15,600 acres consisting of approximately 4,100 acres 

of subsurface estate only and 11,500 acres of both surface and subsurface estate. Decisions to 

acquire lands would be based on public benefits, management considerations, and public access 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-105 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

needs. Specific actions to implement RMP land acquisition decisions consider public 

participation as deemed necessary. Acquisition of in-holdings from willing sellers within ACECs 

and Wilderness has been a priority. Currently, there are pending acquisition projects using Land 

and Water Conservation Funds within the Gila River Cultural Area ACEC. 

D. EXCHANGE 

Land exchanges include both the disposal of public lands and acquisition of non-Federal lands. 

Exchange is the preferred method of land tenure adjustment. The Federal and non-Federal lands 

involved in an exchange must be of equal value or an equalization payment of not more than 25 

percent may be required. 

3.16 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Existing special designations within the planning area include one NRT and eight 

congressionally designated Wilderness Areas, two ACECs, and one NHT. Other BLM-supported 

special designations which currently do not exist within the planning area include Wilderness 

Study Areas, National Scenic Byways, National Back Country Byways, National Scenic Trails, 

and Wild and Scenic Rivers (Map 2-1a). 

3.16.1 NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM 

In June 2000, the BLM responded to growing concern over the loss of open space by creating the 

NLCS. The NLCS brings into a single system some of the BLM's premier designations. By 

putting these lands into an organized system, the BLM hopes to increase public awareness of 

these areas' scientific, cultural, educational, ecological, and other values. Inclusion in the NLCS 

does not create any new legal protections for these lands, but it does provide field offices with 

overall guidance and direction for management of the system. Components of the NLCS include 

National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Historic and Scenic Trails. Wilderness Areas and a 

National Historic Trail are the only components of the NLCS present within the YFO planning 

area. 

A. WILDERNESS 

The BLM manages four Wilderness Areas in Arizona, and portions of four Wilderness Areas in 

California (Table 3-20). Wilderness is designated by Congress and is managed according to the 

Wilderness Act of 1964, the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990, the California Desert 

Protection Act of 1994, regulations for wilderness management at 43 CFR 6300, BLM Manuals 

8560 and 8561, BLM Handbook H-8560-1, and Wilderness management plans. 

Management plans have been written for Wilderness within Arizona; these are the Eagletail 

Mountains, Muggins Mountains, and New Water Mountains (jointly developed with Kofa 

Page 3-106 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

NWR). Decisions are currently being implemented in the three Wilderness Areas with finalized 

management plans. Management plans have not yet been completed for the Trigo Mountains 

Wilderness or the four California Wilderness Areas, which are currently managed according to 

43 CFR 6300, BLM Manual 8560, BLM Handbook H-8560-1, and other applicable guidance. 

For the four California Wildernesses, management plans will be developed in coordination with 

the BLM California Desert District. 

Table 3-20 

Wilderness Areas Managed by YFO in the Planning Area 

Wilderness Area YFO Managed Acres 

Total 

Wilderness 

Acres 

Arizona 

Eagletail Mountains 98,600 98,600 

Muggins Mountains 7,700 7,700 

New Water Mountains 24,700 24,700 

Trigo Mountains 30,400 30,400 

California 

Big Maria Mountains 1,600 47,600 

Little Picacho 2,900 33,600 

Palo Verde Mountains 800 32,300 

Riverside Mountains 1,100 22,400 

Total Wilderness 167,800 295,300 

1. Eagletail Mountains Wilderness 

The Eagletail Mountains Wilderness is about 65 miles west of Phoenix in Maricopa, Yuma, and 

La Paz counties and is 98,600 acres. The Wilderness includes 15 miles of the Eagletail 

Mountains ridgeline and Courthouse Rock to the north, Cemetery Ridge to the south, and a large 

desert plain area between the two ridgelines. Several different rock strata are visible in most 

places, with natural arches, high spires, monoliths, jagged sawtooth ridges, and numerous washes 

six to eight miles long. Recreation such as extended horseback riding and backpacking trips, 

sightseeing, photography, rock climbing, and day hiking are enhanced by the topographic 

diversity, scenic character, size, as well as the botanical, wildlife, and cultural values of the area. 

This Wilderness is managed according to the 1995 Eagletail Mountains Wilderness Management 

Plan. 

2. Muggins Mountains Wilderness 

The Muggins Mountains Wilderness is located approximately 25 miles east of Yuma and is 

7,700 acres. The Wilderness includes a cluster of rugged peaks at the western end of the 

Muggins Mountains, the most prominent being Muggins Peak, Klothos Temple, and Long 

Mountain. Twin Tanks Wash, Long Mountain Wash, Morgan Wash, and other deeply cut 

drainages dissect the peaks. The rugged landform and colorful geologic strata of the Muggins 

Mountains are considered exceptionally scenic for the region. Recreation such as backpacking, 

day hiking, sightseeing, photography, and rock climbing are enhanced by the topography and 

scenic character, as well as botanical, wildlife, and cultural values. This Wilderness is managed 

according to the 1994 Muggins Mountains Wilderness Management Plan. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-107 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

3. New Water Mountains Wilderness 

The rugged New Water Mountains Wilderness, 24,700 acres, is 10 miles east of the Town of 

Quartzsite, Arizona and approximately four miles south of I-10. This area is characterized by 

strings of craggy spires, sheer rock outcrops, natural arches, slickrock canyons, and deep sandy 

washes. Vegetation is sparse with saguaro, creosote, ocotillo, and cholla dotting the hills and 

paloverde and ironwood lining the washes. The Wilderness is important desert bighorn sheep 

habitat. The Wilderness offers many types of primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities, 

such as extended backpacking and hiking trips, day hikes, wildlife viewing, hunting, rock 

hounding, and landscape photography. This Wilderness is located adjacent to the Kofa NWR, 

and both are managed according to the 1997 Kofa NWR and Wilderness and New Water 

Mountains Wilderness Interagency Management Plan. 

4. Trigo Mountains Wilderness 

The Trigo Mountains Wilderness is located about 25 miles north of Yuma, in La Paz County and 

is 30,400-acres. The Wilderness is characterized by sawtooth ridges and steep-sided canyons and 

is heavily dissected by washes. Recreation such as extended horseback riding and backpacking 

trips, sightseeing, hiking, and rock climbing are enhanced by the topographic diversity, scenic 

character, as well as botanical, wildlife, and cultural values. The Trigo Mountains Wilderness 

Management Plan is still being developed, and the Wilderness is currently managed under 43 

CFR 6300, BLM Manual 8560, BLM Handbook H-8560-1, and other applicable guidance. 

Interim operations plans are currently in effect for range, wildlife, and fire management in this 

Wilderness (USDOI BLM 1992c and 1993b). 

5. California Wilderness 

The YFO jointly manages four Wilderness Areas in California with the BLM California Desert 

District. The total acreage managed by YFO is approximately 6,400 acres. The Little Picacho 

and Palo Verde Mountains Wildernesses are located in Imperial County and co-managed with 

the BLM El Centro Field Office. The Riverside Mountains and Big Maria Mountains 

Wildernesses are located in Riverside County and co-managed with the BLM Palm 

Springs/South Coast Field Office. None of the California Wilderness Areas have management 

plans, and all are currently managed through interim operation plans for range, wildlife, and fire 

management in wilderness according 43 CFR 6300, BLM Manual 8560, BLM Handbook H8560-1, and other applicable guidance. 

B. JUAN BAUTISTA DE ANZA NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL 

(ANZA TRAIL) 

In 1774 and 1776, the Spanish crown commissioned the captain of the small Presidio of Tubac 

(promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel after the first expedition) Juan Bautista de Anza to lead two 

expeditions to establish a settlement on San Francisco Bay. Congress designated the route 

followed by Juan Bautista de Anza (Anza) as a NHT in 1990. Within the U.S., the Anza Trail 

is approximately 1,200 miles long, extending from Tubac, Arizona to San Francisco, 

California. In 1996, the NPS finalized a Comprehensive Management and Use Plan and EIS 

for the Anza Trail, which provides the BLM with trail management guidance. Local agencies 

have been tasked to develop a recreational Anza Trail inside of a one-mile wide corridor 

Page 3-108 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

established by the NPS management plan and EIS. Within the planning area, approximately 21 

miles of BLM-administered lands along the Gila River are located within this trail corridor. 

There is currently no operational Anza Trail in the YFO planning area. The de Anza Auto 

Route has already been established along I-8. 

In 1999, the Anza Trail was selected by the White House Millennium Council and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation as a National Millennium Trail. Millennium Trails "are the 

roads, rivers and routes that best illustrate the American story," according to the White House 

proclamation. There is a plan for the Mexican government to develop 600 miles of the trail 

through Mexico from Culiacan to Nogales, which would create the first international historic 

trail in the world. 

C. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

A Final Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative EIS was prepared in December 

1994. At that time, a determination was made that the BLM would support the development of 

an interagency EIS addressing the potential eligibility and suitability of the Colorado River’s 

inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System (USDOI BLM 1994b). To date, an 

interagency effort for this task has not been coordinated. BLM, USFWS, and NPS manage 

Federal lands along the lower Colorado River and are responsible for implementing the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. 

For the Gila River, a field assessment was conducted by staff specialists from both the Lower 

Sonoran and Yuma field offices on June 28, 2005. The entire length of the Gila River within the 

planning area was determined to be non-eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 

River System. The primary reason for the Gila’s non-eligibility was that it did not meet the 

National Wild and Scenic River System “free-flowing” criteria. Naturally appearing flows only 

occur within the Gila River during years of heavy precipitation which necessitate water releases 

from the upstream Painted Rock Dam. Water is otherwise absent or rare within the Gila River 

floodplain, with most of the water present originating from agricultural runoff. 

3.16.2 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

The guidance for ACECs is included in FLPMA where Federal agencies are directed to protect 

and conserve ecosystems in need of “special management attention” by designating them as 

“areas of critical environmental concern” in their land use planning process (FLPMA § 1702 

[a]). Existing ACECs in the planning area are summarized in the Table 3-21. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-109 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-21 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in Planning Area 

ACEC Total Acres 

Big Marias 4,500 

Gila River Cultural Area (Sears Point) 3,600 

Source: GIS 

A. BIG MARIAS ACEC 

The approximately 4,500-acre Big Marias ACEC was designated in the 1987 Yuma District 

RMP. The ACEC is located entirely within Riverside County, California, and contains nationally 

significant cultural resources such as the Blythe Intaglios and at least 30 other geoglyph sites. 

The Blythe Intaglios Complex, which was listed on the NRHP in 1975, consists primarily of six 

giant human and animal images formed on the desert pavement. These unique cultural resources 

in the Big Marias are recognized by the BLM as the single greatest concentration of geoglyphs in 

North America. The Big Marias ACEC also contains other features such as rock alignments, 

cleared areas, trails, and lithic and ceramic scatters. 

Two unusual plant species are known to grow in the Big Marias ACEC – Alverson’s foxtail 

cactus (Coryphantha vivipara var. alversonii) and barrel cactus (Ferocactus acanthodes var. 

acanthodes). They are both candidate species for Federal listing as either endangered or 

threatened, Category 2 (Federal Register, December 15, 1980 and as amended Federal Register, 

November 28, 1983). Desert bighorn sheep also inhabit the Big Maria Mountains range. 

B. GILA RIVER CULTURAL AREA ACEC 

The Gila River Cultural Area ACEC encompasses the Sears Point Archaeological District, which 

was listed on the NRHP in 1985, an important mesquite bosque composed of mature mesquite 

trees, and a portion of the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt. The ACEC has been designated since June 

1988 when the Lower Gila South RMP Amendment was approved. Currently, the BLM manages 

approximately 75 percent of the lands contained within the approximately 3,600 acre ACEC 

boundary. 

The prehistoric cultures which are believed to have utilized this archaeological district between 

around 10,000 B.C. and A.D. 1450 include the Desert Archaic, Patayan, and Hohokam cultures. 

These cultures left behind a rich assortment of cultural resources, including several thousand 

petroglyph images etched into the area’s basalt mesas, plus other archaeological features like 

intaglios, trails, rock alignments, rock shelters, shrines/cairns, and lithic and ceramic scatters. 

The area contains evidence which suggests an unusual association between Patayan and 

Hohokam features, and is hypothesized to have been a boundary between these two cultures. 

The ACEC is situated along an important historic travel corridor that follows the course of the 

Gila River. Trails that travel across the ACEC include the Anza Trail, Butterfield Overland Mail 

Route, Mormon Battalion Trail, and the Gila Trail. Historic petroglyphs recording the names and 

dates of people traveling through the area at various times are also preserved in the basalt rock 

faces. 

Page 3-110 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

3.16.3 NATIONAL RECREATION TRAIL 

The YFO currently manages one NRT, which is located within the Betty’s Kitchen Watchable 

Wildlife Viewing Area. Betty’s Kitchen is near the Laguna Diversion Dam, which was the first 

dam on the Colorado River. The dam was completed by Reclamation in 1924 and diverted river 

water into irrigation canals, enabling the Yuman agricultural industry to thrive. The Betty’s 

Kitchen NRT winds through dense riparian vegetation past a fishing pier and over a rugged 

metal bridge, and interpretive panels along the walk familiarize the visitor with the natural and 

cultural features of the area. The NRT also provides public access to fishing and bird watching 

opportunities. The trail was designated as a NRT in 1993. 

3.17 COORDINATED MANAGEMENT AREAS 

There are two CMAs within the planning area: Fortuna Pond and Mittry Lake Wildlife 

Management Area (Maps 2-2a and 2-2c). Both of these areas are managed cooperatively by 

BLM, AGFD, and Reclamation under agreements between these agencies. AGFD focuses on the 

management of fish and wildlife resources, including migratory birds; while the BLM focus is on 

recreation and visitor use, and the protection of natural and cultural resources. Reclamation’s 

role is tied to their authorities associated with the Colorado River water resources development. 

3.17.1 FORTUNA POND 

Fortuna Pond is located near the confluence of Fortuna Wash and the Gila River, approximately 

three miles east of County Road 7 E, Yuma County. The site was excavated as a borrow pit 

during construction of the main outlet drain (i.e., the Wellton Mohawk salinity canal). The pond 

is inside the south Gila River levee on public land withdrawn by Reclamation. 

In July, 1981, Arizona Game and Fish Commission, USFWS, and Reclamation signed a contract 

stipulating mitigation requirements for impacts from Reclamation’s Colorado River Salinity 

Control Project. Fortuna Pond, identified as Borrow Pit No. 2, was designated by these agencies 

as mitigation for lost recreational fishing opportunities on the Colorado River (AGFD 2001). The 

Fortuna Pond area is popular for recreation, especially fishing and camping. Since 1997, BLM, 

Reclamation, and AGFD have worked cooperatively to improve the site for visitors. 

3.17.2 MITTRY LAKE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA 

Mittry Lake is located in Yuma County, about 18 miles northeast of Yuma, Arizona, on the east 

side of the Colorado River between Laguna and Imperial dams. The Mittry Lake Wildlife Area 

offers a wide variety of habitat types from open lakes to cattail marshes and streamside 

woodlands, providing an equally wide opportunity for wildlife-based recreation. This 

combination of habitat types provides abundant opportunities for fishing, wildlife watching, 

hiking, boating, and hunting. 

In accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-111 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

amended; 16 USC. 661 et seq.), the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and the Secretary of 

the Interior (acting through the USFWS and Reclamation) entered into a lease and cooperative 

agreement in 1951 to develop and manage a portion of the Mittry Lake area. In 1971, USDOI 

gave AGFD administrative authority over 3,800 acres of land and water at the lake for the 

management of fish and wildlife, including migratory birds. In 1972 (amended 1982), USDOI 

(acting through Reclamation and BLM) authorized AGFD (through contract agreement) to 

manage the Mittry Lake Wildlife Area for the purpose of developing, maintaining, and managing 

fish and wildlife through July 14, 2031. Current management of the area is pursuant to the 

mandates of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the above-referenced documents, and 

AGFD’s Mittry Lake Wildlife Area Management Plan (AGFD 1997). 

3.18 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

3.18.1 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, 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. Over the past several years, the number of transient individuals has increased, 

particularly in the Lake Havasu City, Needles, and Bullhead City areas. Some of these 

individuals have criminal histories and may present a threat to any public land users who might 

encounter them. 

3.18.2 ABANDONED MINES 

Arizona has a long and distinguished mining history and a legacy of abandoned mines. The State 

of Arizona Mine Inspector conducts inventories of abandoned and inactive mines throughout 

Arizona via a program known as the Abandoned and Inactive Mine Survey. This program was 

funded by a contract through the BLM, although that contract ended in 1999. 

Page 3-112 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Currently, the Abandoned and Inactive Mine program estimates that there are at least 125,000 

abandoned or inactive mine openings in Arizona. According to the State of Arizona Mine 

Inspector, there are 378 abandoned mine sites in the planning area. Fifty-eight of these have been 

field tested by the Mine Inspector’s office. The majority of these sites are located in the vicinity 

of the Town of Quartzsite, Yuma, and northeast of the Kofa NWR. Inventory and field checking 

of these sites would resume as funding becomes available. 

A GIS database of abandoned mine sites is available through the Mine Inspector’s office and 

through the Arizona Bureau of Mines AZMILS database. 

The Mine Inspector’s office has published several informational brochures regarding abandoned 

mines. These publications emphasize the safety hazards associated with abandoned and inactive 

mines and the precautions that should be utilized around these sites. Abandoned mine hazards 

include, but are not limited to, open shafts and adits, open pits and quarries, high and steep walls 

of pits and trenches, potential for the presence of explosives, the presence of contaminated air or 

gas in underground workings and the presence of unstable buildings or structures. 

Recommended precautions include, but are not limited to, never working alone around 

abandoned mines, never entering underground workings or unstable structures, and being aware 

of snakes and other animals that may live in mine workings. 

3.18.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

Hazardous materials within the planning area consist of military ordnance, downed aircraft and 

related materials, materials within municipal and informal dumping sites, and mining-related 

hazardous materials. Each is described in more detail below. 

A. MILITARY ORDNANCE 

UXO and munitions constituents on military bases on land in proximity to military bases in the 

U.S. are causing increasing concern. While civilian fatalities from UXO explosions in the U.S. 

have been rare, the risk of such accidents could increase substantially as more closed military 

bases are transferred from military to other government agencies or to civilian control. UXO may 

include but is not limited to bombs, mortars, artillery shells, rockets, submunitions, and mines. 

UXO or munitions and explosives of concern consist of military materials used in test and 

training ranges. Two sources of risk at UXO sites must be considered: (1) risks from UXO 

explosions and (2) risks from munitions constituents (materials originating from UXO or other 

munitions, including the chemical constituents that result from their breakdown) that have 

leached into soil and water. These two hazards differ substantially in the nature of the threats 

they pose. For example, the consequence of a human accidentally detonating UXO is immediate 

and typically results in serious injury or death. In contrast, the consequence of human exposure 

to munitions constituents is most likely chronic and increases the risk of illness after prolonged 

exposure. 

Within the planning area the YPG and the BMGR are potential sources of UXO. The YPG is 

largely surrounded by BLM-administered land, while the BMGR is bordered intermittently by 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-113 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

State, private, and BLM-administered lands. It is notable that the lands along the margins of the 

YPG are labeled “No Public Access Danger Live Fire Training Area” on the BLM map (USDOI 

BLM 1998). All BLM-administered lands bordering the YPG could potentially contain UXO 

according to BLM sources, although BLM has not documented any specific UXO locations 

(USDOI BLM 2005d). The realty officer for the U.S. Army Garrison at Yuma was contacted 

regarding the location of UXO, but did not provide any information. 

In addition to UXO, formerly used defense sites located on BLM-administered land may contain 

hazardous materials. These materials may include, but are not limited to, asbestos-containing 

materials, lead paint, and petroleum products. The following military radar sites were identified 

by BLM (USDOI BLM 2005d) as potentially containing hazardous materials: 

 Texas Hill, 

 Radar Hill, and 

 Palo Verde Gap Site (Milpitas Wash). 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for investigating and mitigating environmental 

impacts related to past military use at these types of facilities. Given the amount of aircraft that is 

used on the various military facilities in the planning area, it is possible that a downed military 

aircraft could crash and cause environmental impacts. Impacts would likely be from aircraft fuel, 

burned materials, and possibly ordnance or munitions on the aircraft. 

B. LANDFILLS AND ILLEGAL DUMPING 

Authorized landfills (operating, closed, and informal) and illegal dumping have a potential to 

cause environmental impacts to BLM-administered land. Chemical leachate from these sites has 

the potential to contaminate soil and reach surface and/or ground water. 

Closed or covered landfills that are on or near BLM-administered lands are located near 

Dateland, the Town of Quartzsite, and Ehrenberg. The type of dumping that took place in these 

landfills is not known. However, chemical leachate from these landfills has the potential to 

contaminate soil and reach surface water or groundwater. Informal dumping grounds are known 

as the Dateland Dump, the Cibola Dump, and informal dumping grounds at Harvey’s Fishing 

Hole near Cibola (USDOI BLM 2005e). 

Illegal dumping continues to be a problem throughout the planning area. Concentrations of 

illegal dumping are greatest at the urban interface. Local law enforcement is responsible for 

enforcing laws and regulations that prohibit illegal dumping. 

C. MINING AND MILLING WASTE 

Hazardous mining waste consists of mineralized waste rock, ore stockpiles, and mill tailings. 

Metallic minerals that occur in the rock have the potential to contaminate soil and water down 

gradient of the mining waste. Mill tailings may contain traces of metals as well as other chemical 

constituents, such as acids. Further, mine workings and mine dumps containing sulfide 

Page 3-114 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

mineralization can create acid mine drainage when exposed to oxygen and water. The potential 

for this type of hazardous material occurs at abandoned mines on and adjacent to BLMadministered land. The extent to which these problems exist within the planning area is unknown 

as a survey has not been conducted. 

3.18.4 BORDER ISSUES 

The planning area has extensive International Border issues. Undocumented immigrant traffic, 

smuggling, transient populations, illegal dumping, rampant litter, abandoned vehicles, and 

diversionary fires are just a few of the issues that are currently impacting the resources of the 

public lands along the border. Undocumented immigrant and smuggling traffic is known to occur 

throughout the entire planning area. These International Border issues create challenging 

management issues for the BLM and cooperating agencies. Law enforcement and YFO resource 

personnel coordinate with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other agencies on a 

regular basis to address issues associated with these actions. 

A 20 mile stretch of the planning area, named the Limitrophe Division by Reclamation, is 

situated along the International Border with Mexico along the lower Colorado River. 

“Limitrophe” means a river that forms a boundary between two nations. This densely vegetated 

riparian area is a public health and safety hazard due to the presence of smugglers and illegal 

dumping. 

3.18.5 MILITARY TRAINING ROUTES 

Military training routes are low level military routes that allow Department of Defense aircraft to 

conduct flights that may be as low as 100 feet above the ground at speeds in excess of 250 knots 

indicated air speed. Several military training routes cross portions of the planning area (Map 3-

28). YFO considers the affects of military training routes when making decisions related to 

windmills, transportation routes, and recreation areas within the planning area. 

3.19 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

There are important relationships between BLM-administered lands and the communities in and 

near the planning area. Social science and economic information important for the planning 

process in the planning area were identified as: 

 Demography and Social Indicators; 

 Social Organization and Institutions; 

 Attitudes and Values; 

 Human Geography; 

 Economic Value; 

 Employment, Income, and Subsistence; and 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-115 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

 Public Finance and Government Services. 

Information from these categories was used to provide an understanding of the relationship 

between BLM-administered lands and the social and economic situation in the planning area. 

Economic activities closely connected to BLM management decisions in the planning area 

include livestock grazing management, recreation management, lands and realty management, 

and mineral resource management. BLM management decisions with regard to economic 

programs may also affect social conditions, lifestyle, and quality of life. The communities in the 

planning area may also affect the management of BLM-administered lands because the residents 

demand various uses of public lands. The demand for recreational use comprises a particularly 

large number of residents. The mix of demands is related to the demographic and economic 

profile of area residents, and the perceived value of opportunities provided by the BLMadministered lands. 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area are distributed across five contiguous counties in 

two states (Table 3-1). Potential social and economic effects associated with the proposed RMP 

revision include changes in employment and income, as well as potential quality of life effects. 

These effects are likely to occur primarily in La Paz and Yuma counties where the majority of 

the planning area lands are located. Although the effects are likely to be relatively small in 

Maricopa, Imperial, and Riverside counties, these counties are also included in the following 

discussion, as appropriate. 

3.19.1 SOCIAL CONDITIONS 

Social conditions concern the human communities in the planning area, including towns, cities, 

and rural areas, and the custom, culture, and history of the area as it relates to human settlement, 

as well as current social values. BLM management actions can affect social conditions in the 

planning area and in nearby communities. This section provides a summary of demographic 

information, and custom and culture, including trends and current conditions. Social conditions 

often are based on a wide range of community and demographic characteristics and involve 

broad topics of community interests. Other discussions related to social conditions are provided 

in Economic Conditions presented later in this section. 

A. DEMOGRAPHY AND SOCIAL INDICATORS 

Demography and social indicators include population trends; migration; distribution by age and 

gender; income distribution; percent of households in poverty and percent poverty by race; 

unemployment; and education. 

1. Population Trends 

The five-county planning area had a total population of 5.46 million in 2003, with the majority of 

this population residing in Maricopa (62 percent) and Riverside (31 percent) counties. More than 

half of the population of Arizona resides in Maricopa County, which includes the cities of 

Phoenix, Mesa, Glendale, Scottsdale, and Tempe (Arizona Department of Commerce 2004). The 

Page 3-116 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Phoenix Metropolitan area is less than 60 miles east of the planning area. Riverside County also 

includes a number of large population centers, including Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Corona, 

none of which are located in close proximity to the planning area (California Demographic 

Research Unit 2003a). In addition, the lands managed by the BLM in Maricopa and Riverside 

counties comprise a small share of total land in these counties, as well as a small share of total 

BLM-administered lands. 

County population densities ranged from 4.4 persons per square mile in La Paz County to 333.8 

persons per square mile in Maricopa County in 2000 compared to a statewide average of 45.2 

persons per square mile. Yuma County had a population density of 29 persons per square mile in 

2000. The statewide population density in California was 217.2 persons per square mile in 2000. 

Imperial and Riverside counties had population densities in 2000 of 34.1 and 214.4 persons per 

square mile, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

Arizona is presently the second fastest growing state in the country. Total population increased 

by 40 percent in the 1990s and has continued to increase in this decade, increasing by an 

estimated 9.7 percent between 2000 and 2003 (Table 3-22). Population in the State of California 

increased slightly faster than the national average in the 1990s, 13.8 percent compared to 13.1 

percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). Population has continued to grow in California, increasing 

by an estimated 5.1 percent between 2000 and 2003 (Table 3-22). 

Table 3-22 

Population by County and Incorporated Place in 1990, 2000, and 2003 

1990 to 2000 2000 to 2003 

State, County 1990 2000 2003 

Absolute 

Change 

Percent 

Change 

Absolute 

Change 

Percent 

Change 

Arizona 3,665,339 5,130,632 5,629,870 1,465,293 40.0 499,238 9.7 

La Paz* 13,844 19,715 20,715 5,871 42.4 1,000 5.1 

 Quartzsite 1,876 3,354 3,425 1,478 78.8 71 2.1 

Maricopa 2,122,101 3,072,149 3,396,875 950,048 44.8 324,726 10.6 

Yuma* 106,895 160,026 175,045 53,131 49.7 15,019 9.4 

 San Luis 4,212 15,322 19,745 11,110 263.8 4,423 28.9 

 Somerton 5,282 7,266 8,180 1,984 37.6 914 12.6 

 Wellton 1,066 1,829 1,880 763 71.6 51 2.8 

 Yuma 56,966 77,515 83,330 20,549 36.1 5,815 7.5 

California 29,758,213 33,873,086 35,612,000 4,114,873 13.8 1,738,914 5.1 

Imperial 109,303 142,361 152,600 33,058 30.2 10,239 7.2 

Riverside 1,170,413 1,545,387 1,719,000 374,974 32.0 173,613 11.2 

 Blythe 8,448 20,465 21,300 12,017 142.2 835 4.1 

Source: Arizona Workforce 2003, 2004; California Demographic Research Unit 2003b, 2003c 

*Note: RMP related effects are more likely to occur in these counties where the majority of the planning area lands 

are located. 

Population increased in all five planning area counties during the 1990s with increases ranging 

from 30.2 percent in Imperial County to 49.7 percent in Yuma County (Table 3-21). Net inmigration was the main source of growth in the five planning area counties, ranging from 

approximately 53 percent of population growth in Imperial County to about 93 percent in La Paz 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-117 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

County (U.S. Census Bureau 1999a and 1999b). Net in-migration accounted for approximately 

57 percent of population growth in Yuma County over this period. 

Population projections generated by the states of Arizona and California, respectively, anticipate 

continued population growth in all five planning area counties through 2020 (Arizona Workforce 

2005a; California Demographic Research Unit 2003b). 

2. Retirement Migration 

The percent of total population 65 years or older was 13 percent in Arizona in 2000 and 10.6 

percent in California. Persons 65 years or older comprise a relatively large share of the 

population in La Paz and Yuma counties, accounting for 25.8 percent and 16.5 percent of total 

population in 2000, respectively. These percentages of persons 65 years or older were much 

closer to their respective State averages in Maricopa, Imperial, and Riverside counties (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2005). 

Arizona is one of a limited number of states that might be considered a national retirement 

destination based on inflows of retirees from non-contiguous states. Other retirement destination 

states include California, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina (Rex 2002). The winter climate is 

the main factor that attracts retirees to Arizona, with the majority of the net in-migration of 

retirees occurring in the warmer desert areas including La Paz, Maricopa, and Yuma counties. 

Many retirees moving to Arizona are attracted to areas with scenic beauty and recreational 

opportunities, and nearly all of the popular retirement destinations in the State have average to 

below average living costs (Rex 2002). 

Arizona experienced a net gain in older population, defined as those aged 65 and over, of 

approximately 53,000 between 1995 and 2000. This represented a net migration rate of 87.4, the 

second highest in the country. This net migration rate means that Arizona gained 87.4 older 

people for every 1,000 in 1995. Migrants from California and Washington accounted for onequarter of older movers to Arizona over this period. Other major sources of older migrants 

included Colorado and Illinois (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). 

The percent of housing for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use was 15.7 in Yuma County 

and 34.6 in La Paz County in 2000. 

The large number of people in the baby-boom generation, those born between 1946 and 1964, 

indicate that much higher levels of retirement migration are likely over the next 20 years. This 

could increase retirement migration flows to Arizona, but it is also possible this generation may 

not behave as their parents did when they reached retirement age (Rex 2002). 

3. General Demographics of Yuma and La Paz Counties 

Yuma County has a somewhat younger population than La Paz County and is larger overall 

(Table 3-23). Race other than “White” makes up a significant portion of the Yuma County 

population, which is consistent with the portion of foreign born population. In addition, almost 

half of the households indicate a language other then English is spoken at home. The proportion 

of unoccupied housing units is fairly high in both counties. 

Page 3-118 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-23 

General Demographic Characteristics 

of Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona (2000) 

Demographic Characteristic 

La Paz 

County Yuma County 

Population 19,715 160,026 

Sex 

 Male 51.3% 50.5% 

 Female 48.7% 49.5% 

Median Age (years) 46.8 33.9 

 Male 46.5 32.7 

 Female 47.2 35.1 

Race 

 White 74.2% 68.3% 

 Black or African American .8% 2.2% 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 12.5% 1.6% 

 Asian 0.4% 0.9% 

 Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% 

 Some Other Race 9.4% 23.6% 

 Two or More Races 2.7% 3.3% 

Housing Units 15,133 74,140 

 Percent Unoccupied 44.7% 27.3% 

 Owner Occupied 43.1% 52.5% 

 Renter Occupied 12.2% 20.2% 

Percent Housing Units for Seasonal, 

Recreational, or Occasional Use 34.6% 15.7% 

Place of Birth 

 Native 90.3% 76.0% 

 Foreign Born 9.7% 24.0% 

Language Spoken at Home 

 English Only 78.4% 54.5% 

 Language Other than English 21.6% 45.5% 

Employment Status 16 Years and Over 

 In Labor Force 44.3% 50.3% 

 Not in Labor Force 55.7% 49.7% 

Class of Worker 

 Private Wage and Salary 61.8% 70.8% 

 Government Worker 29.3% 22.4% 

 Self-employed 8.8% 6.2% 

 Unpaid Family Workers 0.2% 0.6% 

Median Household Income $25,839 $32,182 

Per Capita Income $14,916 $14,802 

Average Number in Household 2.35 2.97 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2003 

La Paz County exhibits a housing stock where roughly one-third of the units are used for 

seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Roughly one-half of individuals 16 years of age or 

older participate in the labor force with a significant percentage working for government 

agencies. While median household income is higher in Yuma County, the per capita income is 

quite similar due to Yuma’s larger average household size. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-119 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

4. Distribution by Age and Gender for Yuma and La Paz Counties 

The populations of both Yuma and La Paz counties became older from 1990 to 2000 (Table 3-

24) (U.S. Census Bureau 2005).

The largest age category for Yuma County in 2000 was five to nine years old (13,338 people or 

8.3 percent of the total in 2000). For La Paz County, the largest age category was 65 to 69 years 

old (1,690 people or 8.6 percent of the total in 2000) (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). The population 

in Yuma County increased by 50 percent and in La Paz County increased by 42 percent from 

1990 to 2000 (Table 3-24) (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). The age group that experienced the 

fastest growth was 45 to 49 in Yuma County and 70 to 74 in La Paz County (U.S. Census Bureau 

2005). 

Table 3-24 

Population by Age and Gender in 1990 to 2000 

Under 20 years 

40 - 54 (Baby 

Total Boom in 2000) 65 years and over 

Number Number Share Number Share Number Share 

Median 

Age 

Density 

(Pop. per 

sq. mi.) 

Yuma County Population by Age and Gender 

Total Population 

2000 160,026 51,023 32% 25,904 16% 26,456 17% 33.9 29 

1990 106,895 34,976 33% 14,827 14% 14,849 14% 30.4 19 

10 Yr. Change 53,131 16,047 -1% 11,077 2% 11,607 3% 3.5 10 

10 Yr. % Change 50% 46% 75% 78% 12% 50% 

Distribution by Gender 

Male 80,799 26,092 32% 12,763 16% 13,016 16% 32.7 

Female 79,227 24,931 31% 13,141 17% 13,440 17% 35.1 

Male/Female Split 50% / 50% 51% / 49% 49% / 51% 49% / 51% 

La Paz County Population by Age and Gender 

Total Population 

2000 19,715 4,539 23% 3,645 18% 5,088 26% 46.8 4 

1990 13,844 3,987 29% 2,229 16% 2,646 19% 37.2 3 

10 Yr. Change 5,871 552 -6% 1,416 2% 2,442 7% 9.6 1 

10 Yr. % Change 42% 14% 64% 92% 26% 42% 

Distribution by Gender 

Male 10,123 2,351 23% 1,833 18% 2,668 26% 46.5 

Female 9,592 2,188 23% 1,812 19% 2,420 25% 47.2 

Male/Female Split 51% / 49% 52% / 48% 50% / 50% 52% / 48% 

5. Income Distribution for Yuma and La Paz Counties 

In 1999 in Yuma County, for every household that made over $100,000, there were 7.7 households 

that made under $30,000. In 1989, for every household that made over $100,000, there were 33.9 

households that made under $30,000 (Table 3-25) (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

In 1999 in La Paz County, for every household that made over $100,000, there were 15.7 

households that made under $30,000. In 1989, for every household that made over $100,000, there 

were 51.3 households that made under $30,000 (Table 3-25) (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

Page 3-120 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-25 

Household Income Distribution for 1989 and 1999 

Yuma County La Paz County 

Income 1989 1999 1989 1999 

Less than $10,000 6,369 5,273 1,646 1,329 

$10,000 to $14,999 4,282 4,847 871 876 

$15,000 to $19,999 4,339 4,985 632 922 

$20,000 to $24,999 3,888 4,917 513 917 

$25,000 to $29,999 3,448 4,633 390 759 

$30,000 to $34,999 2,673 4,630 322 567 

$35,000 to $39,999 2,046 3,649 233 634 

$40,000 to $44,999 1,722 2,989 208 459 

$45,000 to $49,999 1,439 2,729 137 282 

$50,000 to $59,999 2,438 4,301 173 533 

$60,000 to $74,999 1,579 4,234 142 464 

$75,000 to $99,999 945 3,507 81 345 

$100,000 to $124,000 359 1,483 29 140 

$125,000 to $149,999 109 581 22 65 

$150,000 or more 191 1,146 28 100 

6. Percent of Households in Poverty and Percent Poverty by Race for Yuma and La 

Paz Counties 

The family type with the highest poverty rate is “Female-no husband-under five years and five to 

17 years” (61 percent were under the poverty line in 1999) (Table 3-26) (U.S. Census Bureau 

2005). The race with the highest poverty rate is “Black” (38 percent were under the poverty line 

in 1999) (Table 3-27) (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

7. Unemployment for Yuma and La Paz Counties 

In 2004, the unemployment rate in Yuma County was 15.4 percent, compared to five percent in 

the State and 5.5 percent in the nation (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). Unemployment in Yuma 

County shows a significant seasonal variation. For Yuma County, the unemployment rate varied 

from a low of 9.7 percent in February 2005 to a high of 21.2 percent in July 2005 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2005). 

In 2004, the unemployment rate in La Paz County was 6.7 percent, compared to five percent in 

the State and 5.5 percent in the nation (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). For La Paz County, the 

unemployment rate varied from a low of 6.1 percent in May 2005 to a high of 7.6 percent in 

September 2005 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-121 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-26 

Families under the Poverty Line by Household Type (1999) 

Married Male – No Wife Female – No Husband 

Household Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Yuma County 

With related children under 

18 years 2,982 19 393 29 1,903 45 

Under 5 years only 545 18 82 25 325 50 

Under 5 years and 5 to 17 

years 1,081 24 98 49 503 54 

5 to 17 years 1,356 16 213 26 1,075 41 

No related children under 

18 years 924 5 70 13 218 14 

Total 3,906 11 463 25 2,121 37 

La Paz County

With related children under 

18 years 193 15 40 19 230 44 

Under 5 years only 37 19 2 8 25 41 

Under 5 years and 5 to 17 

years 

52 18 8 29 54 61 

5 to 17 years 104 12 30 19 151 49 

No related children under 

18 years 259 8 21 17 21 12 

Total 452 10 61 18 251 36 

Note: The percentages above represent the number of families under the poverty line divided by the total number of 

families in that category. 

Table 3-27 

Poverty by Race (Individual) Percent of Total (1999) 

Race Number Percent 

Yuma County 

White 15,762 15 

Black 556 20 

American Indian and Alaska Native 760 30 

Asia 119 9 

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 9 6 

Other Race 11,385 30 

2 or more Races 1,079 24 

Hispanic or Latino 22,818 29 

White not Hispanic 5,524 8 

La Paz County 

White 2,374 16 

Black 49 38 

American Indian and Alaska Native 790 32 

Asia 2 3 

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 0 0 

Other Race 481 29 

2 or more Races 102 22 

Hispanic or Latino 1,261 30 

White not Hispanic 1,731 14 

Note: Population for whom poverty status is determined. Race and ethnicity are broken out 

separately. The ethnicity breakout is separate because Hispanics can be of any race. 

Page 3-122 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

8. Education Attainment for Yuma and La Paz Counties 

In Yuma County, 34 percent of residents 25 and over have less than a high school degree (Table 

3-28) (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). In La Paz County, 31 percent of residents 25 and over have 

less than a high school degree (Table 3-28) (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

Table 3-28 

Education Attainment for Yuma and La Paz Counties (2000) 

Education Level Number Percent 

Yuma County

Less than high school 33,397 34 

High school 25,134 26 

Some college 22,800 23 

Associate degree 4,780 5 

Bachelor’s degree 7,017 7 

Master’s degree 3,063 3 

Professional school degree 1,117 1 

Doctoral degree 372 0 

Total 97,680 

La Paz County 

Less than high school 4,421 31 

High school 4,880 34 

Some college 3,211 22 

Associate degree 627 4 

Bachelor’s degree 785 5 

Master’s degree 307 2 

Professional school degree 100 1 

Doctoral degree 58 0 

Total 14,389 

Note: Table is based on the population 25 years and over. 

B. SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND INSTITUTIONS 

Social organization and institutions include government (local, county, and Tribal governments 

in and near the planning area that may be cooperating agencies); communities of place (gateway 

communities and natural resources dependent communities); and occupational and interest 

groups. 

1. Governments 

a. County: Imperial and Riverside counties in California, and La Paz, Maricopa, Yuma 

counties in Arizona. 

b. Local: City of Blythe and City of Needles, California. City of Kingman, City of San Luis, 

City of Somerton, City of Tucson, City of Yuma, and the Town of Quartzsite, Arizona. 

c. Tribal: Ak-Chin Indian Community, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Cocopah Tribe, CRITs, Fort 

McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Fort Sill Apache Tribe, Fort Yuma–

Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai Tribe, Hia C’ed O’odham, Hopi 

Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Mescalero Apache 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-123 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Tribe, Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, The Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Tribe, San Juan Southern Paiute 

Tribe, Tohono O'odham Tribal Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, Viejas Band of Mission Indians, 

White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and 

Pueblo of Zuni.

2. Communities of Place 

Communities of place are local and regional population centers relative to the planning area that 

would be considered gateway or natural resource dependent communities. Gateway communities 

are defined as such because they are near publicly owned natural areas that attract visitors who 

pass through to reach their destination. Increasingly, people who visit an area as tourists return as 

part-time or year-round residents. 

The City of Yuma and Town of Quartzsite are considered gateway communities in the planning 

area. These communities experience an increase in population during the winter months, due 

primarily to the weather and recreational opportunities. These communities are near a large 

variety of scenic and recreational attractions visited by residents and tourists throughout the year. 

a. City of Yuma 

As of July 1, 2005, the City of Yuma population estimate was 88,775, which reflects a 14.5 

percent growth rate since 2000. The population within one hour driving time to Yuma was 

approximately two million in 2005 (City of Yuma 2005). 

Yuma is the third fastest growing area in the U.S. for the period of 1990 to 2000, behind Las 

Vegas, Nevada and Naples, Florida. Yuma’s growth rate during this period was 49.7 percent. 

Yuma was also Arizona’s third largest metropolitan area, behind Phoenix and Tucson (City 

of Yuma 2006). 

The largest employment industries in the City of Yuma are educational, health, and social 

services at 22 percent; retail trade at 15 percent, and public administration at 12 percent (U.S. 

Census 2005). Agriculture is a major economic factor, and at the current growth rate, Yumaarea agribusiness is a billion-dollar industry. Tourism and the military also contribute 

substantially to the economy (Arizona Department of Commerce 2004). 

The City of Yuma estimated that 95,000 winter visitors stayed in the area in 2004 (City of 

Yuma 2006). Recreational and scenic attractions include BLM-administered lands, three 

USFWS NWRs, Colorado and Gila rivers, historic and cultural sites within the city and 

surrounding areas, sand dunes, dams, military installations, and port-of-entry communities 

(Mexico). 

b. Town of Quartzsite 

As of 2004, the population estimate for the Town of Quartzsite was 3,550, which reflects a 

9.4 percent growth rate since 2000 (Arizona Department of Commerce 2004). The Town of 

Quartzsite experienced an almost 53 percent growth rate from 1990 (population 1,876) to 

2004. 

Page 3-124 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

The largest employment industries for the Town of Quartzsite were retail trade at 28 percent, 

arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services at 16 percent, and 

construction at 10 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). Tourism is the major contributor to 

the Town of Quartzsite’s economy. The retail trade and services sectors benefit from the 

visitors who reside at the numerous (more than 70) mobile home and trailer parks in the 

vicinity between October and March. Nine major gem, mineral, and 15 general swap-meeting 

shows are popular tourist attractions, attracting 1.5 million people annually (Arizona 

Department of Commerce 2004). The winter population may reach a temporary peak of 

250,000 (Arizona Department of Commerce 2004). 

Recreational and scenic attractions are similar to those mentioned for the City of Yuma and 

also include a wide variety of rock hunting opportunities (agates, limonite, cubes, gold, and 

quartz are some of the minerals found in the area) (Arizona Department of Commerce 2004). 

3. Occupational and Interest Groups 

During the scoping process, BLM YFO received comments from the following interest groups: 

 Arizona Cotton Growers Association, 

 Arizona Native Plant Society Conservation Committee, 

 Arizona Wilderness Coalition, 

 Blythe Riding Club, 

 Center for Biological Diversity, 

 Colorado River Board of California, 

 Forest Guardians, 

 La Cuna Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee, 

 Pacific Legal Foundation, 

 Phoenix Zoo, 

 Quartzsite Historical Society, 

 Quartzsite Roadrunner Gem and Mineral Club, 

 Sierra Club, 

 Wilderness Society, 

 Wildlife Management Institute, and 

 Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club. 

During the Economic Profile System Workshop for the YFO and YPG held in May 2005, 

representatives from the following groups and agencies attended: 

 AGFD, 

 Arizona Tourism Alliance, 

 Arizona Western College, 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-125 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

 City of Yuma Chamber of Commerce, 

 Mexican Consulate, 

 Minerals (sand and gravel) companies, 

 Natural Resources Conservation District, 

 USDA NRCS, 

 Reclamation, and 

 Yuma County. 

C. ATTITUDES AND VALUES 

Attitudes and values indicators include attitudes and beliefs regarding the local environment and 

its uses; significance of proposed land management actions for various publics; and quality of 

life perceptions. Information presented below was derived primarily from two James Kent 

Associates reports conducted for BLM YFO: Social Considerations for the YFO in Developing a 

Preparation Plan for a New Resource Management Plan, 2001; and Identifying the Interests and 

Issues of Winter Visitors in the Yuma Area: A Social Ecology Approach to Community-Based 

Management, 2004. These reports identified social/cultural boundaries that distinguished 

populations in the planning area. The lowest level of population geography identified was the 

Community Resource Unit. Between the two reports, data were collected for 10 Community 

Resource Units in the planning area. Field visits for each Community Resource Unit included 

interviews with publics of interest and formal communications with organizations and potential 

partners. A summary of the major resource issues and themes identified in the reports for all 

Community Resource Units is outlined below. 

1. Major Resource Issues Identified 

 OHV use and access - issues included concerns about loss of OHV areas (closures), need for 

information brochures on OHV etiquette and safety, damage caused to natural resources, 

excessive speed, and straying off trails. 

 Information - requests for more BLM brochures describing recreational opportunities 

available, services available, rules of public land use, more interpretive and informational 

signs, and maps of recreational areas. 

 Desert stewardship - concerns about vandalism of facilities, trash accumulation and the need 

for additional trash disposal sites (closer to camping areas and LTVAs), dumping of 

hazardous materials, dust control concerns, request for better equestrian trails, concerns that 

there is too much OHV use, particularly near Yuma, and illegal dumping in many areas 

including roadways. Individuals expressed interest in desert cleanup opportunities. 

 Easements and leases - need for improved ROW process (takes too long), need more 

business opportunities (concession leases), cooperate more with the Town of Quartzsite to 

solve ROW issues and land availability needs, and better communication with local 

governments regarding waste disposal and water services. 

Page 3-126 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

 Access - request for additional recreational opportunities along the Colorado River, request 

for additional camping locations, concerns that areas are being closed to access by the public 

(but hunters seem to be trespassing), too many restrictions on access particularly in 

Wilderness and related to endangered species, make more lands available for disposal for 

community development, and a statement that the public should not be charged for the use of 

public lands. 

 Impacts on the Town of Quartzsite’s capacity to deal with winter visitors - the community 

has experienced budget impacts due to the need for increased law enforcement and fire 

department services, waste service needs, and library resources. 

 Mining - concern that BLM did not recognize recreational mining activities and concerns that 

miners consider their mining claims as private property, closing off access to the public. 

 Law enforcement - requests for additional law enforcement, particularly in LTVAs, concerns 

that there are insufficient rangers to cover areas where vandalism is occurring, and concerns 

that rangers do not enforce the rules enough. 

 LTVAs - safety and environmental concerns were common, and more information was 

requested related to facilities, rules, and recreational opportunities near LTVAs. 

 Agriculture - request that agricultural leases be renewed on a timely basis, concerns about 

illegal dumping on agricultural fields, and concern about the loss of agricultural lands to 

development. 

 Water - water issues must be part of BLM planning, concerns that the Colorado River is 

polluted and has too much trash, and water should be more available to visitors. 

2. Major Themes about Public Lands Identified 

 People believe that BLM is doing a good job. 

 People bring their public land issues with them from their State of origin. 

 Most issues were related to services and information, but very few to basic policy direction 

or philosophy. 

 Desert dumping will be an issue that has to be addressed, and can be, outside of planning. 

 Ongoing urban environmental education will always be the business of the YFO. 

 Awareness is low about public lands, where people can go, and the regulations operating on 

the lands. 

3.19.2 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

This section provides a summary of regional economic sectors and employment information. 

This section is divided into main parts that address employment, economic sectors, and 

potentially affected industries. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-127 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

A. EMPLOYMENT 

Total full- and part-time employment is presented for 2003 for the five planning area counties 

and the two affected states in Table 3-29. The number of jobs in the five-county planning area 

increased by almost one half between 1990 and 2000, with the largest increases occurring in the 

construction, services, finance, insurance, and real estate sectors. Employment increased in all 

sectors with the exception of mining and military sectors (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

Table 3-29 

Employment by County in 2003 

La Paz Maricopa Yuma Arizona Imperial Riverside California 

Total full-time and 

part-time employment 7,390 1,918,74

8 76,606 2,874,98

9 64,206 719,804 19,681,01

2 

Percentage of Total Employment

By Type

Wage and salary 

employment 

79.9 83.7 88.8 82.7 85.4 77.2 80.4 

Proprietors 

employment 

20.1 16.3 11.2 17.3 14.6 22.8 19.6 

By Industry

Farm employment 4.5 0.4 4.9 0.8 10.2 1.9 1.7 

Nonfarm employment 95.5 99.6 95.1 99.2 89.8 98.1 98.3 

Forestry, fishing, 

related activities, and 

other 

(D) 0.2 (D) 0.8 9.9 1.5 1.2 

Mining (D) 0.2 (D) 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 

Construction 2.8 7.8 5.3 7.4 3.7 10.1 5.4 

Manufacturing 3.2 7.4 2.9 6.7 4.0 7.5 8.8 

Transportation and 

warehousing 1.9 3.2 1.8 2.8 (D) 2.2 2.8 

Wholesale trade 1.6 4.4 2.5 3.6 3.0 2.8 3.7 

Retail trade 18.0 11.4 9.8 11.6 12.3 12.1 10.2 

Finance and insurance 0.9 6.7 1.6 5.3 1.9 3.0 4.5 

Other services except 

public administration (D) 4.7 3.7 5.1 5.3 6.3 6.0 

Government and 

government 

enterprises 

30.6 10.5 21.4 14.3 25.3 14.9 13.7 

Federal, civilian 1.9 1.0 3.5 1.7 2.9 0.9 1.2 

Military 0.5 0.6 5.6 1.2 0.7 0.3 1.2 

State and local 28.2 8.9 12.3 11.4 21.7 13.7 11.2 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2005) 

Note: Full- and part-time employment includes self-employed individuals. Employment is measured as the average 

annual number of jobs, both full- and part-time, with each job that a person holds counted at full weight. 

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the 

totals. 

The data presented in Table 3-29 are by place of employment, not place of residence, and, 

therefore include people who work in the area but do not live there. In the case of the border 

counties, this likely includes Mexican nationals who reside south of the border but work in the 

Page 3-128 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

U.S. Data compiled for 2001 indicated that there were 6.7 million border crossings at San Luis in 

Yuma County with approximately 20 percent of visitors entering Arizona to work (Charney and 

Pavlakovich-Kochi 2002). 

In addition to workers who regularly commute to the U.S. to work, there are also undocumented 

migrant workers who may not be included in these official totals. There are no official estimates 

of the size of this population, but unofficial estimates developed by the Pew Hispanic Center 

have estimated there are as many as 500,000 undocumented migrants in Arizona. Nationwide, 

approximately 70 percent of undocumented migrants participate in the U.S. labor force, which 

suggests that there may be as many as 350,000 undocumented migrants working in Arizona 

(Passel 2005). 

B. ECONOMIC SECTORS 

1. Yuma County 

The retail and services industries (including retail trade; real estate, rental, and leasing services; 

arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services; and other services) have 

become the highest employment industries in Yuma County, employing 18,891 full- and parttime workers in 2004. Personal income for these industries was $436,168,000 in 2004. 

Employment for these industries increased by 7.8 percent between 2003 and 2004 (U.S. Bureau 

of Economic Analysis 2005). 

Government and government enterprises (including Federal and civilian, military, and State and 

local) were the second highest employers in Yuma County, employing 17,075 full- and part-time 

workers in 2004. Personal income for these industries was $849,810,000 in 2004. Employment 

for these industries increased by about one percent between 2003 and 2004 (U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis 2005). 

Agriculture and related activities were the third highest employers in Yuma County, employing 

14,434 full- and part-time workers in 2004. Personal income for these industries was 

$275,006,000 in 2004. No data were available to determine the increase in these industries 

between 2003 and 2004 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2005). 

2. La Paz County 

Government and government enterprises (including Federal and civilian, military, and State and 

local) were the highest employers in La Paz County, employing 2,362 full- and part-time 

workers in 2004. Personal income for these industries was $87,393,000 in 2004. Employment of 

these industries increased by about 0.27 percent from 2003 to 2004 (U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis 2005). 

The retail and services industries (including retail trade; real estate, rental, and leasing services; 

arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services; and other services) were 

the second highest employment industries in La Paz County, employing about 1,700 full- and 

part-time workers in 2004. Personal income for these industries was $40,920,000 in 2004. 

Employment for these industries increased by about 0.27 percent between 2003 and 2004 (U.S. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 2005). 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-129 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Agriculture and related activities were the third highest employers in La Paz County, employing 

619 full- and part-time workers in 2004. Personal income for these industries was $10,622,000 in 

2004. No data were available to determine the increase in these industries between 2003 and 

2004 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2005). 

3. Economic Activity Level in Yuma and La Paz Counties 

Yuma County has a significantly larger level of economic activity than La Paz County (Table 3-

30). In the 2000 to 2005 time period, gross product grew much faster in Yuma County than in La 

Paz County. Together the counties represent almost four billion dollars in economic activity. 

Table 3-30 

Gross Product: Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona, 2000––2005 

(Billions of Dollars) 

County 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

La Paz $0.28 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.30 $0.31 

Yuma $2.67 $2.88 $3.00 $3.14 $3.29 $3.42 

Source: Economy.com Inc., 2002 

Note: Sum of all income produced in County including corporate profits. 

4. Economic Profile for Yuma and La Paz Counties 

Both La Paz and Yuma counties have shown growth in personal income, per capita income and 

average earnings per job in the 2000 to 2004 time period (Table 3-31). La Paz County showed 

very little population growth and only modest employment growth in the 2000 to 2004 time 

period. Yuma County exhibited much larger population and employment growth in the 2000 to 

2004 time period. In terms of full-time employment equivalents, Yuma County showed steady 

growth while La Paz County appeared stagnant in the 2000 to 2005 time period. 

Table 3-31 

Economic Profile: Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona 2000–2004 

Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Personal Income (in thousands) 

La Paz $308,061 $327,294 $359,390 $359,636 $393,184 

Yuma $2,653,830 $2,976,395 $3,312,998 $3,284,477 $3,563,282 

Population (persons) 

La Paz 19,657 19,607 19,509 19,686 19,915 

Yuma 160,753 163,452 166,693 170,518 175,629 

Per Capita Income 

La Paz $15,672 $16,693 $18,422 $18,269 $19,743 

Yuma $16,509 $18,210 $19,875 $19,262 $20,289 

Total Full-time & Part-time Employment 

La Paz 7,461 7,182 7,331 7,389 7,778 

Yuma 68,313 74,896 76,653 77,870 80,783 

Average Earnings Per Job 

La Paz $25,833 $25,221 $28,803 $27,608 $29,351 

Yuma $28,421 $29,365 $32,759 $31,416 $33,497 

Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2006 

Page 3-130 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Although recently revised by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Yuma unemployment rate was 

quite high, more than doubling the rate found in La Paz County (Table 3-32). 

Table 3-32 

Labor Data: Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona, 2000–2005 

Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Employment 

La Paz 7,124 6,533 6,703 6,850 7,024 7,003 

Yuma 53,695 54,162 56,863 59,915 61,396 63,388 

Unemployment Rate 

La Paz 6.2% 6.4% 6.7% 7.0% 6.7% 6.9% 

Yuma 16.5% 16.4% 16.7% 16.8% 15.6% 16.0% 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov), accessed on May 22, 2006. 

Table 3-33 provides tax collection information from 2000 to 2005. Both net taxable income and 

total tax collections increased faster in Yuma than in La Paz County. Retail tax collection growth 

was fairly similar in the two counties. However, hotel/motel tax collection rate increases were 

much larger in Yuma County.

Table 3-33 

Gross Transaction Privilege, Use, and Severance Tax Collections: 

Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona, Fiscal Year 2000–2001 through Fiscal Year 2004–2005 

Category FY2000-01 FY2001-02 FY2002-03 FY2003-04 FY2004-05 

La Paz 

Net taxable income $165,512,813 $190,062,464 $160,384,941 $196,553,151 $209,764,823 

Total tax 

collections 

$8,294,936 $9,527,328 $8,041,296 $9,851,275 $10,496,926 

Retail tax $4,384,524 $4,753,848 $4,709,286 $5,198,759 $6,071,787 

Hotel/motel tax $276,118 $242,066 $286,014 $297,479 $312,281 

Yuma 

Net taxable income $1,536,749,1

25 

$1,560,215,0

50 

$1,651,429,3

48 

$1,846,049,1

33 

$2,180,324,6

26 

Total tax 

collections 

$76,961,620 $78,114,184 $82,698,950 $92,450,952 $109,156,240 

Retail tax $42,777,847 $43,348,612 $46,516,639 $50,132,210 $57,894,374 

Hotel/motel tax $1,533,120 $1,477,937 $1,588,933 $1,853,807 $2,068,959 

Source: Arizona Department of Revenue, 2004 Annual Report 

5. Summary of Yuma and La Paz Counties IMPLAN Model 

The IMPLAN Input-Output System was applied to economic conditions of Yuma and La Paz 

counties. IMPLAN enables the user to develop input-output models for regions comprising one 

or more counties, states, or zip code areas. An IMPLAN model is derived using software 

developed by the Minnesota Implan Group (MIG, Inc.), that uses the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis 1997 Benchmark Input-Output Study and incorporates the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

implicit output deflators from their Employment Growth model projections to get current model 

parameters. IMPLAN data is currently available by State, county, and zip code through calendar 

year 2003. These data are updated annually using Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-131 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Economic Information System and Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Covered Employment and Wages

(ES202) program data. 

6. Agricultural Statistical Service and Other Local Area Data Sources 

The IMPLAN data for La Paz and Yuma counties for 2003 detail 198 industries with 85,917 

total employees, in an economy of 190,300 people in 94,197 households with an average 

household income of $38,398 and total personal income of $3.6 billion. For purposes of this 

study, the number of sectors of the model was reduced to 41, leaving the key sectors covering 

activities on BLM-administered lands disaggregated, and aggregating the remaining activities to 

broader North American Industry Classification System categories. The basic model structure 

and key statistics for the area are shown in Table 3-34. The model structure shows the 

distribution among 41 sectors: $6.4 billion in output, employment of 85,917, employee 

compensation of $2.47 billion, $448.3 million in proprietor earnings, $863.4 million in other 

property income, $224.8 million in indirect business taxes, and just over $4 billion in value 

added. 

C. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED INDUSTRIES 

The following paragraphs provide an overview of the industries that could be affected by the 

proposed YFO RMP revision: livestock grazing, mineral resources, recreation, and agriculture. 

The land managed by BLM in the planning area, approximately 1.3 million acres, is distributed 

across five large counties, and comprises 6.7 percent of the total land area in these counties. As a 

result, the contribution of activities on BLM-administered land to the economies of these 

counties may be relatively small, especially in Maricopa, Riverside, and Imperial counties. This 

contribution may, however, be very important at the community level and especially for 

individuals who make all or part of their living from activities on or related to this land. 

1. Livestock Grazing 

Grazing fees and BLM grazing allotments are measured in terms of AUMs. For a cattle 

operation, an animal unit is defined as one cow with a nursing calf or its equivalent. An AUM is 

the amount of forage needed to sustain that cow and calf for one month. AUMs are authorized by 

BLM on an annual basis. Data compiled for the range analysis presented in this document 

indicate that BLM manages 16 allotments consisting of approximately 1.2 million acres and 

23,907 AUMs, with BLM-administered land accounting for approximately 91 percent of the total 

acreage. 

2. Mineral Resources 

In terms of future development potential, the most important mineral resources in the planning 

area are aggregate (rock, sand, and gravel) and gold (hard rock). These commodities are 

currently in production (aggregate) or nearing production (gold) in several locations within the 

planning area. Uranium deposits and oil and gas potential are also present in the planning area. 

Existing mining activities and resource capabilities in the planning area are discussed in the 

Mineral Resources Section. Major existing aggregate operations are located approximately 13 

miles northeast of Yuma along Highway 95 and near the Gila River channel. Potential future 

sources of aggregate include a former ADOT gravel pit located approximately 17 miles east of 

Page 3-132 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Table 3-34 

Output, Value Added, and Employment in Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona, 2003 (in million d

Industry 

Industry 

Output* Employment 

Employee 

Compensation* 

Proprietor 

Income* 

Other 

Property 

Income* 

1 Agriculture, forestry, fish & hunting 59.61 795 8.23 11.83 12.01 3 Vegetable and melon farming 616.36 3,440 96.57 202.43 166.63 8 Cotton farming 33.41 192 5.13 2.94 7.42 

10 All other crop farming 85.93 412 6.64 17.39 25.23 11 Cattle ranching and farming 30.48 234 1.62 0.17 0.71 18 Agriculture and forestry support activities 303.16 16,320 282.61 21.68 -69.41 19 Other mining 0.62 2 0.08 0.12 0.19 24 Sand, gravel and stone 21.20 202 7.02 1.28 6.39 30 Utilities 34.17 173 9.73 0.20 11.49 33 Construction 496.73 4,524 118.01 32.55 38.02 41 Other new construction 41.27 419 11.23 3.05 1.46 45 Other maintenance and repair construction 4.13 68 1.85 0.50 0.23 46 Manufacturing 679.26 3,059 99.93 10.47 32.33 

390 Wholesale trade 198.87 1,954 78.94 5.76 33.83 391 Transportation and warehousing 172.12 1,569 66.49 12.12 21.59 401 Retail trade 288.74 5,256 132.52 10.48 41.45 405 Food and beverage stores 92.66 1,605 35.31 4.94 11.14 407 Gasoline stations 88.88 1,173 22.96 19.52 8.80 413 Information 200.78 930 44.54 1.47 25.85 425 Finance and insurance 109.03 978 26.99 2.82 40.01 431 Real estate and rental 180.23 1,256 20.58 27.26 56.99 437 Professional- scientific and tech services 110.42 1,396 38.47 14.05 6.84 451 Management of companies 16.58 126 6.78 0.10 1.93 452 Administrative and waste services 146.37 3,151 57.66 5.86 14.23 461 Educational services 12.52 245 6.36 0.03 0.14 464 Health and social services 463.75 6,584 212.90 21.38 26.28 

Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-34 

Output, Value Added and Employment Yuma County, La Paz County, Arizona, 2003 (in million dolla

Industry 

Industry 

Output* Employment 

Employee 

Compensation* 

Proprietor 

Income* 

Other 

Property 

Income* 

475 Arts- entertainment and amusement 9.00 201 0.50 0.84 0.48 478 Recreation and gambling 13.18 286 3.96 1.44 1.96 479 Hotels and motels, including casino hotels 24.86 506 8.93 1.09 5.14 480 Other accommodations 50.43 604 11.53 1.07 7.81 481 Food services and drinking places 188.73 4,421 58.80 1.13 15.55 482 Other services 197.75 4,752 81.89 12.30 11.63 496 Other Federal government enterprises 7.83 145 2.71 0.00 2.15 497 State and local government passenger transit 0.55 13 0.65 0.00 -0.58 498 State and local government electric utilities 78.10 170 13.59 0.00 16.71 499 Other State and local government enterprises 64.27 340 17.86 0.00 2.79 500 Government and non NAICs 324.60 0 0.00 0.00 214.43 503 State and local education 288.67 8,006 252.40 0.00 36.27 504 State and local non-education 157.06 2,975 133.99 0.00 23.06 505 Federal military 263.55 4,913 261.89 0.00 1.67 506 Federal non-military 224.92 2,524 222.36 0.00 2.55 

Totals 6,380.72 85,917 2,470.21 448.30 863.39 

Page 3-134 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Yuma, areas along the Gila River, and locations in the foothill terrace gravels on the west and 

east side of the Gila Mountains. Gold mining in the planning area has occurred since pre-Spanish 

times and continues today on both a small, recreational scale and on a (potentially) commercial 

scale. Recreational placer mining is a popular activity in the foothills and washes surrounding the 

Town of Quartzsite and in the foothill gravels on the flanks of the Gila Mountains. Potential 

commercial gold operations include the Verdstone and Copperstone properties, which have been 

mined in the past, and other nearby deposits. Silver, copper, lead, zinc, and uranium deposits or 

prospects are also present in the planning area. 

Oil and gas exploration occurred in the southwestern corner of the planning area primarily during 

the 1980s. Twenty-six exploratory wells have been drilled in or near this area, with oil and/or gas 

shows in four of these wells. 

The mining sector accounted for approximately 0.4 percent and 0.2 percent of total employment 

in Arizona and California in 2002, respectively (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2005). 

Mining employment data for La Paz and Yuma counties were last available for 1997, with 

mining accounting for 25 jobs and 61 jobs, respectively. Data for 1998 through 2002 are not 

available to avoid disclosure of confidential information. Mining accounted for 0.2 percent, 0.1 

percent, and 0.1 percent of total employment in Maricopa, Imperial, and Riverside counties in 

2002, respectively (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2005). 

The mining sector is typically well paid. The average annual salary for the mining sector in 

Arizona was $39,959 in 2003, compared to an average annual state salary of $33,837 (Arizona 

Workforce 2005b). 

3. Recreation 

Arizona received an estimated 27.8 million domestic overnight visitors in 2003 (Arizona Office 

of Tourism 2004a). Approximately 2.62 million of these visits were to Arizona’s west coast area, 

which extends along the Colorado River from Lake Havasu to Yuma and includes Yuma and La 

Paz counties, as well as parts of Maricopa, Yavapai, and Mohave counties (Arizona Office of 

Tourism 2004b). The average round trip distance traveled by domestic overnight visitors to the 

west coast area in 2003 was 1,096 miles, with Los Angeles, Phoenix, and San Diego accounting 

for 33 percent, 14 percent, and 10 percent of total visitors, respectively. Average expenditures 

per person per day were $78.79, with 81 percent of visitors staying one to three nights (Arizona 

Office of Tourism 2004b). 

Visitors using the planning area include winter visitors who migrate to Arizona from October to 

March and live in self-contained mobile camping units, weekend visitors from southern 

California and the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, and local residents who visit for day-use 

activities on weekends and weekday evenings (USDOI BLM 1987a). 

Popular recreation activities in the planning area include hunting, OHV and other motorized use, 

camping, rock hunting/collecting, fishing, photography, hiking, and wildlife viewing, among 

other uses (Tetra Tech 2004). Existing recreation opportunities and resource capabilities in the 

planning area are discussed in Section 3.13 Recreation. Developed recreation opportunities 

include two concession areas (Hidden Shores RV Village and Walters Camp) and nine recreation 

fee sites, including the La Posa LTVA, Imperial Dam LTVA, Betty’s Kitchen Watchable 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-135 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Wildlife Area and Interpretive Trail, and Ehrenberg Sandbowl Open OHV Management Area. 

The La Posa and Imperial Dam LTVAs are the most heavily used dispersed camping areas in the 

planning area. There are also 13 designated 14-day camping areas near the Town of Quartzsite 

on BLM-administered land. The 400-acre Ehrenberg Sandbowl OHV Area is designated as an 

Open OHV Management Area. Within the remainder of BLM-administered lands in the planning 

area, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, trails, and drivable washes within 

approximately 1,148,700 acres and closed to motorized travel on approximately 169,000 acres. 

Recreation and tourism is not classified or measured as a standard industrial category and 

therefore, employment and income data are not specifically collected for this sector. Components 

of recreation and tourism activities are instead captured in other industrial sectors, primarily the 

retail sales and services sectors. The contribution of travel and tourism to a local economy and 

employment may, however, be generally assessed by assigning all or a portion of the economic 

impacts in other sectors to visitors. Employment in the arts, entertainment, and recreation and the 

accommodation and food services sectors accounted for 18 percent and 10 percent of total 

covered employment in La Paz and Yuma counties in 2003, respectively, compared to 11 percent 

statewide (Arizona Workforce 2005c). This provides a general indication of the relative 

importance of travel and tourism, but tends to overstate the total contribution because these totals 

also include employment supported by local spending in these sectors. 

Employment in the recreation and tourism sector tends to be seasonal and relatively low wage, 

with a high proportion of the labor force self-employed. In Arizona in 2003, the average annual 

salary in the arts, entertainment, and recreation sector was $26,213, and in the accommodation 

and food services sector was $17,319. These salaries are low compared to the average annual 

state salary of $33,837 (Arizona Workforce 2005b). 

A recent study of the economic importance of OHV recreation in Arizona estimated that OHV 

recreation supported approximately 459 and 1,094 full- and part-time jobs in La Paz and Yuma 

counties in 2002, respectively (Silberman 2003). These estimates are based on surveys of local 

residents and do not include non-residents or commercial operators. A similar study conducted 

for fishing and hunting found that fishing and hunting activities supported approximately 232 

and 689 full- and part-time jobs in La Paz and Yuma counties in 2001, respectively (Silberman 

2002). There is likely some overlap in these estimates, because some OHV users are driving an 

OHV to gain access to areas for hunting and fishing. These estimates do, however, provide an 

indication of the relative importance of these activities to La Paz and Yuma counties. 

4. Lands and Realty—Agriculture 

There were a total of 6,465 farms and ranches in the five-county planning area in 2002, with a 

total of 101 and 531 farms identified in La Paz and Yuma counties, respectively (USDA 2005). 

The overall value of agricultural products sold in the planning area’s five counties was about 

four billion dollars. Market share data are not available for Yuma County. In the other four 

planning area counties, crops and livestock accounted for approximately 62 percent and 38 

percent of total value, respectively. Crops accounted for approximately 99.3 percent of 

agricultural production by market value in La Paz County. Although market share data are not 

available for Yuma County, data on the number of farms suggest that crop production accounts 

for a large share of overall agricultural activity in the county with 84 percent of farms engaged in 

crop production in 2002 (USDA 2005). 

Page 3-136 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Farms in the five-county planning area provided nearly 55,000 jobs in 2002, approximately three 

percent of total employment, compared to statewide averages of 1.3 percent in Arizona and 2.7 

percent in California. Agricultural employment was relatively important in La Paz, Yuma, and 

Imperial counties, accounting for approximately 12 percent, 11 percent, and 13 percent of total 

full and part-time employment in 2002, respectively (Table 3-35). Employment in the 

agricultural sector is often seasonal or part-time and workers are often self-employed. 

Table 3-35 

Agricultural Employment by County in 2002 

State, County Farm Employment Percent of Total Employment 

Arizona 36,459 1.3 

 La Paz* 877 12.3 

 Maricopa 13,990 0.7 

 Yuma* 8,265 10.8 

California 535,256 2.7 

 Imperial 8,438 13.1 

 Riverside 22,788 3.2 

Total Planning Area 54,358 2.6 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2005) 

*RMP-related effects are most likely to occur in these counties, where the majority of the planning area lands are 

located. The data include covered and self-employed farm workers. 

Farm income accounted for approximately one percent of total income in the five planning area 

counties in 2002, ranging from 0.1 percent in Riverside County to 7.3 percent in Imperial County 

in 2000 (Table 3-36). Farm income comprised approximately 6.8 percent and 5.7 percent of total 

income in La Paz and Yuma counties, respectively (Table 3-36). Farm income fluctuated as a 

percentage of total income in the five planning area counties in the 1990s. Adjusted for inflation, 

farm income in the five-county planning area decreased by 28.5 percent between 1990 and 2000, 

with the largest decreases, 52.7 percent and 41.6 percent, occurring in Imperial and La Paz 

counties (Table 3-36). Farm income increased slightly (4.7 percent) in Yuma County over the 

same period. 

Table 3-36 

Agricultural Income by County in 1990 and 2000 (in thousands) 

1990 2000 

County Agriculture 

Farming as 

Percent of 

Total 

Income Agriculture 

Farming as 

Percent of 

Total 

Income 

Absolute 

Change 

Percent 

Change 1990 

to 2000 

La Paz* 35,632 19.6 20,815 6.8 -14,817 -41.6 

Maricopa 256,893 0.6 278,269 0.3 21,376 8.3 

Yuma* 143,551 9.7 150,338 5.7 6,787 4.7 

Imperial 391,129 22.0 185,101 7.3 -206,028 -52.7 

Riverside 29,458 0.1 35,339 0.1 5,881 20.0 

Total 354,290 1.6 253,397 0.7 -100,893 -28.5 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2005) 

*RMP-related effects are most likely to occur in these counties, where the majority of the planning area lands are 

located. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-137 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

3.20 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

U.S. EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (59 CFR 7629, 16 February 1994) directs Federal agencies to “make ... 

achieving environmental justice part of its mission” and to identify and address 

“...disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.” BLM IM No. 2002-164 

confirms that “BLM will incorporate environmental justice considerations in land use planning 

alternatives to adequately respond to environmental justice issues and problems facing minority 

populations, low-income communities, and Tribes living near public lands, working with, and/or 

using public land resources.” 

3.20.1 METHODOLOGY 

Pursuant to IM No. 2002-164, this section identifies possible minority, low-income, or Tribal 

populations that might be subject to disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts 

or health effects from activities proposed in the planning area. The areas of potential effect for 

environmental justice are Yuma, La Paz, and Maricopa counties in Arizona; and Imperial and 

Riverside counties in California. 

The first step in analyzing this issue is to identify minority, low-income, and Tribal populations 

that might be affected by implementation of any of the proposed alternatives. Demographic 

information on ethnicity, race, and economic status is provided in this section as the baseline 

against which potential effects of future land use decisions can be identified and analyzed. 

Information utilized in this section is directly from the U.S. Census Bureau which provides 

necessary data for environmental justice analysis. 

3.20.2 BASELINE ANALYSIS 

A. MINORITIES 

Minorities are persons of Hispanic or Latino origin of any race, Blacks or African Americans, 

American Indians or Alaska Natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders. 

Compilation information on minority populations is presented in Table 3-37. 

The CEQ identifies these groups as minority populations when either: 

 The minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent; or 

 The minority population percentage in the affected area is meaningfully greater than the 

minority population percentage in the general population or appropriate unit of geographical 

analysis. 

In order to be classified as “meaningfully greater,” a local population must exceed the State 

minority population by 10 percent; in the State of Arizona, this threshold is 36.2 percent. 

Page 3-138 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Because the minority population in California exceeds 50 percent (53.3 percent), the latter 

condition is not applicable for California counties. 

Table 3-37 

Minority Populations in 2000 

County 

Minority Populations Yuma 

AZ 

La Paz 

AZ 

Maricopa 

AZ 

Imperial 

CA 

Riverside 

CA 

Total Population 160,026 19,715 3,072,149 142,232 1,545,387 

White not of Hispanic/ Latino 

origin (%) 44.3 63.8 66.2 20.2 51.0 

Minority, composed of* (%) 55.7 36.2 33.8 79.8 49.0 

Hispanic or Latino origin (%) 50.5 22.4 24.8 72.2 36.2 

American Indian or Alaska 

Native (%) 1.6 12.5 1.8 1.9 1.2 

Black or African American (%) 2.2 0.8 3.7 4.0 6.2 

Asian (%) 0.9 0.4 2.2 2.0 3.7 

Native Hawaiian and other 

Pacific Islander (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002, State and County Quick Facts. Available online at http:quickfacts.census. 

gov/qfd/states.html 

*Totals may not add up due to reporting classifications. 

Minority populations in Yuma County, Arizona, and Imperial County, California, both exceed 50 

percent of the total population, meeting the CEQ standard for having a minority environmental 

justice population. Throughout the planning area, persons of Hispanic or Latino origin constitute 

the largest portion of the minority population, which is consistent with the planning area location 

near the Mexican border. La Paz County, Arizona, has a large percentage of American Indian or 

Alaska Native persons (see Tribal populations below). 

B. LOW INCOME POPULATIONS 

Low-income populations are defined by environmental justice guidance by using the statistical 

poverty thresholds of the U.S. Census Bureau. In 1999, the poverty-weighted average threshold 

for a family of four was $17,029 and $8,501 for an unrelated individual (U.S. Census Bureau 

2001). The national poverty level was 12.4 percent. In order to be classified as “meaningfully 

greater,” local poverty rates must exceed the national rate by 10 percent; this threshold is 22.4 

percent. Imperial County, California, meets this standard with 22.6 percent of its population 

living below the poverty limits. Compilation information on low-income populations is presented 

in Table 3-38. 

Table 3-38 

Low-Income Populations in 1999 

Jurisdiction Percent Below Poverty Level 

United States 12.4 

State of Arizona 13.9 

Yuma, AZ 19.2 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-139 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Table 3-38 

Low-Income Populations in 1999 (cont.) 

Jurisdiction Percent Below Poverty Level 

La Paz, AZ 19.6 

Maricopa, AZ 11.7 

State of California 14.2 

Imperial, CA 22.6 

Riverside, CA 14.2 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2001, U.S. Census Bureau 2002 

C. TRIBAL POPULATIONS 

Tribal populations are defined as groups of individuals who live within the boundaries of 

designated reservations. The planning area contains three Native American tribal reservations. 

The CRIT Reservation is located in the northwestern corner of the planning area. The reservation 

spans the Colorado River and contains land in La Paz County, Arizona, and San Bernardino 

County, California. The CRIT economy is centered around agriculture, recreation, as well as 

government and light industry. According to the InterTribal Council of Arizona, the CRIT have 

senior water rights to 717,000 acre feet of the Colorado River, which is almost one-third of the 

allotment for the entire State of Arizona (InterTribal Council of Arizona 2003). The river is also 

the tribes’ greatest recreational resource offering scenic attractions as well as fishing and boating 

opportunities. The CRIT operate the Ahakhav Preserve, a 250-acre aquatic and riparian habitat 

preserve which offers hiking and wildlife viewing. The BlueWater Resort and Casino opened in 

1999. In 2000, 1,998 people lived within the reservation boundaries, of whom 1,707 identified 

themselves as full members of the CRIT. Twenty-seven percent of the CRIT residents were 

classified as living below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). 

The Cocopah Reservation is located south of the City of Yuma (Yuma County) in the southwest 

corner of the planning area boundary just east of the Colorado River. Agriculture is the tribe’s 

major economic resource, farming on its irrigated lands and leasing farmland to non-Indian 

farmers. The tribe opened a tribal museum and cultural center in 1999 and operates a casino with 

slot machines and bingo. In 2000, approximately 1,013 people lived within the reservation 

boundaries, of whom 891 identified themselves as full members of the Cocopah Tribe. Almost 

35 percent of the reservation residents were classified as living below the poverty limits (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2004). 

The Fort Yuma–Quechan Reservation is located along both sides of the Colorado River just west 

of the City of Yuma, in Yuma County, Arizona and Imperial County, California, as well as 

abutting the Mexican states of Baja California and Sonora. The reservation encompasses 45,000 

acres and is bisected by Interstate 8 mid-way between Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, 

California. Largely an agricultural community, the Quechans lease a 700-acre farm and a sandand-gravel operation to non-Indian businesses. The tribe also counts on tourism and related 

businesses to augment its economy. In addition to trailer and RV parks and a small museum, the 

tribe recently developed a casino. In 2000, 2,761 people lived within the reservation boundaries, 

of whom 2,146 identified themselves as full tribal members. Approximately 25 percent of the 

Page 3-140 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

residents on the reservation were classified as living below the poverty level (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2004). 

3.20.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

JUSTICE 

Public involvement meets two requirements of EO 12898: 

 It aids in identifying minority and low-income groups; and, 

 It provides the means for these groups to participate in Federal decision making that might 

affect them. 

A full description of the public involvement process is located in the Scoping Report. Persons 

and organizations known or thought to have a potential interest, including minority, low-income, 

disadvantaged, and Native American groups, were identified, informed, and given the 

opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. 

3.20.4 SUMMARY 

Environmental justice populations exist throughout the planning area, specifically in Yuma 

County, Arizona, and Imperial County, California, as well as on the three reservations. Impacts 

of the of the PRMP alternatives analyzed in this FEIS will be evaluated for disproportionately 

high and adverse environmental impacts or health effects from activities and land use decisions 

proposed in the planning area. 

No environmental justice-specific issues were raised during the scoping process, although there 

were several issues raised about the International Border and undocumented immigrants. 

3.20.5 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN 

EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (April 21, 

1997) recognizes a growing body of scientific knowledge that demonstrates that children may 

suffer disproportionately from environmental health risks and safety risks. These risks arise 

because (1) children’s bodily systems are not fully developed, (2) children eat, drink, and breathe 

more in proportion to their body weight, (3) their size and weight may diminish protection from 

standard safety features, and (4) their behavior patterns may make them more susceptible to 

accidents. Based on these factors, the President directed each Federal agency to make it a high 

priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may 

disproportionately affect children. The President also directed each Federal agency to ensure that 

its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that 

result from environmental health risks or safety risks. 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-141 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Page intentionally left blank. 

Page 3-142 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

CHAPTER 4.0 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter analyzes and discloses the potential environmental impacts from implementing any 

of the RMP alternatives described in Chapter 2. Existing environmental conditions described in 

Chapter 3 comprise the baseline used for projecting these impacts. Management actions and land 

use decisions that could impact the human environment (i.e., the natural and physical 

environment and the relationship of people with that environment) have been analyzed, and the 

conclusions drawn from those analyses are described under the appropriate resource 

consequence section. The order of this chapter mirrors the order of resources and resource uses 

described in the planning area’s existing conditions (Chapter 3). This ordering sequence allows 

the reader to compare existing resource conditions in Chapter 3 to the potential impacts 

described here in Chapter 4. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, this RMP identifies two different types of LUP decisions: 

 Desired Future Conditions (Goals and Objectives) 

 Management Actions (Allowable Uses) 

4.1.1 TYPES OF IMPACTS 

Direct, indirect, and long-term environmental consequences were considered for each resource. 

Effects and impacts as used in this document are synonymous, and may be either beneficial or 

adverse. Direct impacts from BLM authorized actions generally occur at the same time and place 

as the action. Indirect effects usually occur further in time and/or distance from the action. 

Adverse effects to the human environment are impacts that would be unavoidable if one of the 

alternatives were selected and implemented, as a result of YFO following the mandate to allow 

for multiple use of resources and protect public health and safety. These potential adverse 

impacts are addressed only under those resource sections where they could foreseeably occur. 

Cumulative impacts, discussed at the end of this chapter, are impacts on the environment that 

result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency or individual undertakes such other 

actions. 

The impacts of the planning decisions on visitor experience depend largely on the expectations 

and values of the individual visitors. Any particular action could benefit some users and be 

simultaneously perceived as having an adverse effect by others. The degree of impact also varies 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

relative to user sensitivity. Sensitivity varies among different user types and may also differ 

between new users and traditional users of a particular resource. 

4.1.2 CRITICAL ELEMENTS NOT ADDRESSED 

The only critical element to the human environment not addressed in this document is Wild and 

Scenic Rivers. This plan has not addressed this critical element because no eligible Wild and 

Scenic Rivers are present in the planning area. 

4.1.3 GENERAL ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS 

Due to the programmatic and strategic nature of the RMP alternatives, the timing and specific 

location of project-specific actions that could impact resource values are not always defined. 

Moreover, the relationship between cause (future actions) and effect (impacts on resources) is 

not always known or quantifiable. For these reasons, the analysis of alternatives is both 

qualitative and quantitative and based on a series of assumptions. The following general 

analytical assumptions and guidelines were used to facilitate the analysis of environmental 

consequences. Other assumptions specific to a particular resource are presented under that 

resource. 

Most of the impacts discussed under each resource or resource use are potential, not unavoidable. 

Potential impacts are described here as accurately as possible for the purpose of disclosure and 

planning. 

A fundamental assumption is that BLM would continue to avoid or minimize impacts to the 

extent feasible by pursuing the Desired Future Conditions, implementing the Management 

Actions, Administrative Actions, BMPs, Conservation Measures, and Stipulations for Land 

Actions as described in Chapter 2. 

Funding and personnel would be sufficient to implement any of the alternatives as described in 

Chapter 2. The laws, regulations, and policies that direct BLM work, and with which all BLM 

activities must comply, would be applied consistently across all alternatives. All alternatives 

would maintain vegetation resources and meet the need for water, nutrients, and energy cycling. 

The approved RMP is expected to be effective for 15 to 20 years or longer. 

Short-term impacts are those expected to occur within one to five years after implementing the 

activity. Long-term impacts are those that would occur after the first five years of 

implementation. 

Comparison of impacts among resources is intended to provide an impartial assessment to 

inform the decisionmaker and the public. The impact analysis does not imply or assign a value or 

numerical ranking to impacts. Actions resulting in adverse impacts to one resource may impart a 

beneficial impact to other resources. 

Key planning issues identified in Chapter 1 provide the focus for the scope of impact analyzed in 

this chapter. 

Page 4-2 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.1.4 SPECIFIC RESOURCE ASSUMPTIONS 

The following resource-specific assumptions and guidelines were used to facilitate the analysis 

of environmental consequences. Other assumptions specific to a particular resource are presented 

under that resource: 

 Wildlife Habitat: The loss of any wildlife habitat may cause a reduction in wildlife 

populations. 

 Cultural Resources: Cultural resources would continue to deteriorate through natural forces, 

visitation, and vandalism if no corrective or preventive action is taken. 

 Rangeland Resources: Current trends in livestock market conditions would continue. 

Livestock values would therefore remain the same as at present. 

 Vegetation Resources: Assessments of vegetation-related impacts are based on expectations 

of normal precipitation during the life of the plan. 

 Grazing: Long-term grazing use levels would be based on monitoring information, including 

utilization studies and actual use data. 

 Wilderness Characteristics: The loss of any wilderness characteristics would degrade 

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. 

 Land Tenure: Lands designated as available for disposal may contain various types of 

encumbrances such as ROWs or permits. Conveyance documents would address 

encumbrances, if any, on the lands to be disposed. 

 ROWs: All land use authorizations would have site specific impacts evaluated on a case-bycase basis using the appropriate NEPA documentation including those within designated 

ROW Corridors and communications sites. 

 Recreation: Visitor use of public lands would continue to increase at present rates. Current 

types of recreation use would continue in the future unless otherwise stated. 

 Wilderness Managed by YFO: Under the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990, 

Wilderness in Arizona (Eagletail Mountains, Muggins Mountains, Trigo Mountains, and 

New Water Mountains Wilderness areas) would continue to be managed by BLM under the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. 

 Under the California Desert Protection Act of 1994: Wilderness in California (Big Maria 

Mountains, Little Picacho, Palo Verde Mountains, and Riverside Mountains Wilderness 

areas) would continue to be managed by the BLM under the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

 Minerals: The Federal government would retain all mineral rights on public lands identified 

for disposal where valuable minerals are known to occur. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

 Threatened and Endangered Species: Compliance with Section 7 of the ESA would be 

completed before implementing specific projects resulting from RMP decisions. 

4.2 AIR QUALITY, WATER, AND SOIL RESOURCES 

4.2.1 AIR QUALITY 

Predictions of potential air quality impacts within the planning area were based on data sources 

when available and on the use of nearby representative data to fill in data gaps or when otherwise 

appropriate. The primary sources of impacts on air quality in the PM10 non-attainment area 

within the planning area are windblown dust and human activity. While windblown dust is 

generated in undisturbed areas, it is much more prevalent where the natural soils and soil 

retaining vegetation have been disturbed by human activity. Windblown dust emanates from 

agricultural fields, miscellaneous disturbed areas, unpaved roads, and urban disturbed areas. 

ADEQ has proposed several measures in the Yuma Natural Events Action Plan such as reducing 

track-out onto paved roads; using PM10-efficient street sweepers on paved roads; enforcing 

construction dust control plans; and watering, grading, and compacting unpaved roads to 

decrease PM10 emissions resulting from these site conditions (USDOI BLM 2005e). Under all 

alternatives, BLM management actions that may result in impacts as stated would be avoided or 

minimized to the maximum extent possible by following Management Actions, BMPs (outlined 

in Chapter 2), and Conservation Measures (Conservation Measures for Fire Management 

Activities, Appendix 2-C). 

The analysis of potential impacts to air quality was based on review of existing literature and the 

expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. Literature sources include but are not limited 

to the following: 

 Final Analysis of the Management Situation for the Yuma RMP and EIS (USDOI BLM 

2005e). 

A. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential impacts (direct and indirect) to air quality are categorized below as those resulting in 

increases in dust, smoke, and emissions in the planning area. Based on the information presented 

in this document and the assumption that BLM would adhere to applicable preventative 

measures proposed by ADEQ for reducing PM10 emissions in the planning area, it is unlikely 

that activities conducted within BLM jurisdiction would result in exceeding regional emissions 

levels. The consideration of potential air quality impacts is qualitative at this stage of the RMP 

revision process. 

Air pollutants may result from natural or human processes. Natural pollution may occur from 

naturally occurring wild-fires (e.g., from lightning strikes), decomposition of plants and animals, 

soil erosion, pollen and mold spores, volatile organic compounds emitted by vegetation, 

electrical storms, and photochemical reactions. Human pollution sources include industrial 

Page 4-4 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

sources, prescribed wildland burning, animal production, agricultural burning, residential and 

business development, and vehicle emissions. 

1. Dust and Smoke 

a. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Vegetation treatments include manual, biological, mechanical, fuel breaks, herbicide application, 

and prescribed fire. Vegetation management activities could affect air quality through smoke 

emissions from wildfires, prescribed burns, exhaust from machinery used in site preparation, fire 

control, monitoring, and thinning activities. Smoke from wildfires and prescribed fire is a 

complex mixture of carbon, tars, liquids, and gases. The major pollutants are particulate matter 

(PM10 and particulate matter up to 2.5 micrometers in size), carbon monoxide, and volatile 

organic compounds. Nitrogen oxides are also produced in relatively small quantities compared to 

the other pollutants. Sulfur oxides compounds are produced in negligible quantities due to low 

elemental sulfur content of forest fuel. Other constituents of smoke (gases and chemicals) may 

also be generated by burning. All prescribed fire activities are required to follow ADEQ smoke 

management regulations. 

The most effective method of controlling wildfire emissions is to prevent the occurrence of 

wildfires. Prescribed burning is one of the most frequently used techniques as a preventive 

measure for reducing wildfire occurrence. Wildfires generally result in greater emissions per acre 

when compared to prescribed burns. They also often occur under conditions of high temperature 

and low humidity, when high concentrations of ozone are most likely. 

b. From Travel Management 

OHV travel would not be restricted to existing or inventoried routes within proposed Open OHV 

Management Areas. This would result in increased dust emissions from OHV use within these 

areas when compared to dust emissions from Limited OHV Management Areas, where OHV 

travel would be limited to inventoried routes. Travel in Open OHV Management Areas disturbs 

soils by tires of vehicles physically breaking loose sediments and disturbing soil retaining 

vegetation. This can result in an increase of PM10 concentrations, not only during the process of 

travel, but after the travel has occurred due to the physical disturbance of soils causing increased 

erosion by wind and water. 

Within the non-attainment area, YFO proposes Open OHV Management Areas which may 

adversely impact PM10 concentrations. 

Closed OHV Management Areas protect local air quality by precluding the generation of fugitive 

dust emissions from motorized travel. 

The growing popularity of OHVs has led to concerns about the possible air quality impacts from 

this form of recreation. Emissions from OHV engines includes carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, 

particulate matter, and a variety of gases classified as “air toxins” such as formaldehyde, other 

related aldehydes, and volatile organic compounds such as benzene. 

Travel along existing inventoried routes disturbs soils by tires of vehicles physically breaking 

loose sediments, which results in increased wind and water erosion of soils and increased PM10 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

concentrations. Travel would be confined to existing routes which are already disturbed, 

localizing impacts to areas surrounding existing routes. 

c. From Lands and Realty Management 

BLM-authorized actions that permit soil or surface disturbance, such as major ROWs, 

communications sites, access roads, concessions, and other types of facility construction, would 

increase fugitive dust emissions in the planning area. 

Road construction has the potential to create fugitive dust and increase PM10 concentrations. The 

application of mitigation measures such as watering or reduced vehicle speed limits can 

minimize these impacts. 

d. From Mineral Resource Management 

Mineral operations and development would generate dust and airborne particulates. Impacts 

would depend on the location of activities. Mineral operations and activities would be mitigated 

on a case-by-case basis to minimize noise and dust as part of the permitting process. 

B. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

Impacts to air quality from proposed decisions in this RMP are primarily related to motorized 

travel within Open OHV Management Areas (Table 4-1). The two new Open OHV Management 

Areas proposed in the DRMP/DEIS were removed from the PRMP/FEIS Proposed Plan. 

Alternatives A, D, and the Proposed Plan would not designate new Open OHV Management 

Areas but would continue the existing Open designation at the 400-acre Ehrenberg Sandbowl, 

which is outside of the planning area’s PM10 non-attainment area. Two proposed Open OHV 

Management Areas are designated under Alternatives B and C, along with an expanded Open 

designation at the Ehrenberg Sandbowl. The Blaisdell proposed Open OHV Management Area is 

located within the PM10 non-attainment area and currently has numerous existing routes. This 

PRMP/FEIS has not proposed Closed OHV Management Areas within the PM10 non-attainment 

area. The table below quantifies the OHV Open, Limited, and Closed areas by alternative (Table 

4-1). 

Table 4-1 

Travel Management Designations by Alternative (BLM acres)

Designation 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

Open Areas 

Total Open (acres) 400 3,800 2,400 400 400 

Closed Areas 

Designated Wilderness 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 

Non-wilderness areas 1,200 3,200 3,500 66,000 5,100 

Total Closed (acres) 169,000 171,000 171,300 233,800 172,900 

Limited Areas 

Total Limited (acres) 1,148,600 1,143,200 1,144,300 1,083,800 1,144,700 

Total Open, Closed, and Limited 

Total Acres 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 

Page 4-6 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-2 below quantifies potential impacts to air quality by disclosing the acreages and miles 

of lands and realty actions by alternative. Alternatives B and C would result in an increase in 

potential impacts to air quality, as compared to Alternative A (Table 4-2) because more ROW 

Corridors and communications sites are proposed in these alternatives. Implementation of the 

Proposed Plan would result in impacts at an amount less than under Alternatives B and C, but 

greater than Alternatives A and D. Alternative D would result in only a slight increase of 

impacts, as compared to Alternative A. 

Table 4-2 

Lands and Realty Proposed Actions by Alternative 

Lands Actions 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

Disposal 

Total Acres 19,100 46,900 10,500 8,200 11,900 

Acquisitions 

Lands would be acquired from willing sellers on a case-by-case basis. 

Withdrawal 

Designated Wilderness 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 

ACECs* 6,500 3,600 5,400 8,300 12,000 

Total Closed (acres) 174,300 171,400 173,200 176,100 179,800 

ROW Corridors 

Total Number of Corridors 4 10 10 5 8 

Total miles 300 500 500 400 465 

Communications Sites 

Total Number of Sites 6 13 11 8 10 

Renewable Energy 

Proposed on a case-by-case basis to meet public demand. 

*BLM would propose to withdraw 2,900 acres in the Big Marias ACEC should Reclamation revoke their existing withdrawal for 

the area. In 1996, Public Land Order 7212 identified 3,600 acres for withdrawal as the Gila River Cultural ACEC. The Public 

Land Order immediately withdrew approximately 1,700 acres of Federal lands. An additional 1,900 acres of non-Federal lands, 

within the designated boundary of the ACEC, if acquired by the U.S., would also be by Public Land Order 7212. Through the 

acquisition of non-Federal lands since 1996, there are currently 2,400 acres of withdrawn BLM lands within the existing Gila 

River Cultural ACEC. 

C. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Emissions from a single vehicle are generally low in comparison to smoke-stack emissions; 

however, the combined emissions of many vehicles can create a large overall emission source. 

These emissions are largely concentrated in urban centers. Pollution from cars comes from byproducts of combustion, as well as evaporative emissions. Pollutants associated with highway 

vehicle use include hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which are precursors to ozone, as well as 

carbon monoxide, CO2, particulate matter, and a variety of gases classified as “air toxins.” 

Smoke generated from wildfires, managed natural fires, and prescribed burns would be 

unavoidable, but impacts would be short-term and generally moderate. It is anticipated that OHV 

and overall recreational use would increase in proportion to population increases in the 

surrounding area. Natural events (e.g., wind) would continue to create dust levels that could 

exceed air quality standards in the planning area. The overall impacts to air quality from 

proposed mineral developments, and lands and realty actions are expected to be minor. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.2.2 WATER RESOURCES 

The primary impacts to water resources within the planning area potentially affect surface water 

quality, sedimentation, ground water quality, and ground water quantity. Management actions 

and land use decisions that may cause or contribute to these impacts include vegetation 

treatments (including fire management), agricultural leases, construction-related activities, 

mining activities, and recreation. Under all alternatives, the impacts as stated would be avoided 

or minimized to the maximum extent possible by BMPs and Management Actions, including 

those defined in specific Pesticide Use Proposals under recommendation from the Vegetation 

Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States EIS and subsequent Vegetation Treatment 

EIS, upon signature. 

The analysis of potential impacts to water resources was based on review of existing literature 

and the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. Literature sources include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

 Recommendations to address Colorado River Quality by the Clean Colorado Alliance, 

January 2006; 

 American Rivers Report; and 

 LCR MSCP, Final Programmatic EIS/Environmental Impact Report, 2004. 

A. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential impacts to water resources are categorized below as those resulting in changes in water 

quality and sedimentation/turbidity. 

1. Water Quality 

a. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Aquatic and terrestrial vegetation control using herbicides have the potential for adverse impacts 

to surface and groundwater resources; however, all vegetation treatments follow standard 

operating procedures and would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. 

Most of the impacts from fire on water quantity and quality ultimately result from destruction of 

vegetation and soil litter. Destruction of vegetation and litter can affect water in several ways, 

including decreased soil stability, leading to increased erosion of upland soils during rainstorms 

and to loss of bank stability along streams. The ultimate effect is increased loadings of solutes, 

suspended solids, and bedload to surface waters, which adversely affect water quality and 

aquatic flora and fauna. Effects of fire on water quality are generally of short duration, lasting 

only until vegetation is reestablished on a burned area. 

b. From Recreation Management 

Large concentrations of recreationists in areas near the Colorado River or other surface water 

bodies in the planning area could result in increased quantities of nitrates from human waste in 

surface and groundwater (American Rivers 2004). 

Page 4-8 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Boats with internal combustion engines produce relatively invisible wastes that can concentrate 

with increased boat traffic to toxic levels both in the air and water. Boating access from existing 

facilities may cause both short- and long-term impacts to water quality due to beaching and 

loosening of bank side sediments. 

Maintenance and installation of restroom and garbage facilities would likely have beneficial 

long-term impacts on water resources by reducing the effects of visitor use on surface and 

groundwater quality. 

c. From Lands and Realty Management 

Shallow aquifers in the planning area could be impacted by construction activities associated 

with ROWs and other land use authorizations. These potential impacts include changes in 

overland flow and recharge caused by clearing and grading in construction areas (USDOI BLM 

2002b). 

d. From Mineral Resource Management 

Mining activities in arid ecosystems could result in the alteration of the water regime and 

depletion of groundwater depending on the type and intensity of mining. These impacts may 

result in increased erosion of soils. Erosion could lead to indirect effects of decreased 

productivity of vegetation leading to a decrease in forage for wildlife species. 

Mining activities could lead to the unauthorized disposal of metals and acidic chemicals that 

have the potential to leach into the groundwater. 

2. Sedimentation/Turbidity 

a. From Recreation Management 

Boating access from existing facilities may cause both short- and long-term impacts to water 

quality due to beaching and loosening of bank side sediments. Construction of facilities to 

support recreation activities could alter drainage patterns in a manner that could result in erosion 

or siltation in the vicinity of surface waters. 

b. From Lands and Realty Management 

Impacts from grading, excavating, and dredging activities associated with ROW Corridors, and 

other land use authorizations may result in localized soil erosion and sedimentation of the lower 

Colorado River (USDOI BLM 2005e), which in turn would impact water quality by increasing 

sediments and turbidity. 

Construction activities, including development of ROWs within corridors in the planning area 

could alter the existing drainage patterns in construction areas in a manner that would result in 

erosion or siltation (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). Any improvements that would occur 

below the ordinary high water mark of the Colorado River, tributary washes or wetlands require 

a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and impacts would be mitigated on a case-by 

case basis. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Construction activity impacts on dry washes would typically be limited to temporary alteration 

of beds and banks, loss of wildlife habitat, and possibly increased sediment load during initial 

storm events following construction (USDOI BLM 2002b). 

B. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

Differences in impacts to water resources between alternatives differ by number of acres open to 

mineral developments, agricultural leases, and grazing, however they are insignificant and 

minimal overall. 

C. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts would potentially occur as a result of uncontrollable natural events 

(e.g., floods and storm events) that could increase turbidity, siltation, and sediment loads in the 

planning area. Similar unavoidable impacts would potentially occur as a result of nondiscretionary activities of cooperators or co-managers of BLM-administered lands. 

4.2.3 SOIL RESOURCES 

Soil resources in the planning area included sensitive soils such as desert pavements, cryptobiotic 

soil crusts, and prime and unique farmlands. Both beneficial and adverse impacts to each of these 

types of soil resources may occur from vegetation treatment activities, land use authorizations 

(including ROWs, leases, and development), mineral/mining development, recreation, and OHV 

use. Soils within the planning area are susceptible to impacts from compaction, disturbance, and 

invasion by non-native plant species. Natural erosion occurs in the washes and tributaries 

throughout the planning area as a result of large storm events. Natural erosion of soil resources 

occurs throughout the planning area throughout the year. Under all alternatives, the impacts as 

stated would be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent possible by BMPs and 

Management Actions. 

The analysis of potential impacts to soil resources was based on review of existing literature and 

the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. Literature sources include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

 Environmental Assessments for BLM Grazing Allotments: Dateland, Quartzsite, and 

Vicksberg, Yuma, Arizona 2003; 

 Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management, Technical Reference 1730-2, USDOI 

BLM and USGS 2001; 

 Preliminary Assessment of Biodiversity Values and Management Framework Adaptation for 

the Expanded Kofa Complex and Yuma Resource Management Area in Southeastern 

Arizona, Weinstein et al. 2003; 

 Anthropogenic Degradation of the Southern California Desert Ecosystem and Prospects for 

Natural Recovery and Restoration, Lovich and Bainbridge 1999; and 

 LCR MSCP, Final Programmatic EIS/Environmental Impact Report, 2004. 

Page 4-10 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

A. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

The potential impacts to soil resources are categorized below as those resulting in compaction, 

erosion, and loss of productivity. 

1. Compaction 

a. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Prescribed fires and mechanical fuel reduction treatments that require the use of heavy 

equipment could increase soil compaction, especially following rain events which leave soils 

susceptible to disturbance. 

b. From Recreation Management 

Concentrated visitor use of designated camping and day-use areas, along with the installation of 

recreation facilities and signs, results in increased soil disturbance, and compaction which in turn 

can increase erosion and/or severely limit soil productivity. The concentration of visitor use and 

their associated impacts to soils is normally preferred over allowing high levels of dispersed 

visitor use to continue impacting a wider area. As the population in the planning area continues 

to increase, recreational activities on BLM-administered lands are also likely to increase, which 

would result in additional impacts to soil resources. 

c. From Travel Management 

Hiking, biking, equestrian, and OHV trail use disturb and compact sensitive desert soils such as 

desert pavements and cryptobiotic soil crusts, which in turn results in increased wind and water 

erosion, and can change soil chemistry (Belnap et al. 2001; Green 2005; Weinstein et al. 2003; 

Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). 

d. From Lands and Realty Management 

Soil compaction and erosion would occur during surface-disturbing activities associated with 

construction and maintenance of authorized facilities at project-specific locations. Clearing, 

grading, and heavy equipment uses can accelerate the erosion process by disturbing soil and soil 

retaining vegetation, and without adequate protection, result in discharges of sediment to 

wetlands and water bodies. Such a process can decrease soil fertility by removing essential 

organic material and soil organisms from a site (USDOI BLM 2002b). 

Heavy construction vehicles could cause near-surface soil compaction which could have 

localized impacts to the soils’ ability to absorb water (USDOI BLM 2002b). 

2. Erosion 

a. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Vegetation treatments include manual, biological, mechanical, fuel breaks, herbicide application, 

and prescribed fire. Vegetation management treatments could result in the temporary disturbance 

to soil resources. The direct impact of these actions would include effects on erosion, soil 

permeability, and soil fertility. Disturbances are anticipated to be minimal and would impact 

only a small percentage of the planning area. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Prescribed fires and mechanical fuel reduction treatments would directly impact soil by 

increasing erosion rates due to fireline construction or road building, especially on steeper 

slopes. 

Restoration projects potentially benefit local conditions in the long-term by improving watershed 

cover, increasing soil retaining vegetation, and reducing erosion potential. 

b. From Livestock Grazing Management 

Long-term environmental consequences of present management are maintenance or a slow 

improvement of upland soil and watershed conditions due to implementation of Land Health 

Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration, and restoration efforts. These beneficial 

effects derive from improved vegetation conditions and increased amounts of plant litter that 

provide watershed cover and decrease soil compaction, resulting in reduced erosion, 

sedimentation, and runoff. Management that achieves proper utilization of key forage species 

ensures adequate cover to maintain appropriate watershed conditions and reduce soil loss 

through wind and water erosion. 

c. From Recreation Management 

See discussion above under impacts to soil compaction. 

d. From Travel Management 

Disturbances to sensitive soils caused by OHV use could lead to degradation of desert pavements 

and cryptobiotic soil crusts, which in turn could result in surface erosion, water runoff, changes 

in soil chemical properties, exotic plant germination and establishment, and changes in plant 

density (Belnap et al. 2001; Green 2005; Weinstein et al. 2003). OHV travel in Open OHV 

Management Areas would have moderate adverse impacts to soil erosion from disturbance to 

sensitive soils and removal of existing ground cover, making soils more susceptible to erosion 

from both wind and water. However, the Ehrenberg Sandbowl is an unstabilized dune, which is 

not a sensitive soil type and is located at the edge of the mesa, which will result in minimal 

erosion to the soil surface in the watershed. The concentration of OHV use in the Sandbowl 

mitigates some impacts on other areas with sensitive soils by directing the use to this area. 

OHV travel within Limited OHV Management Areas should not increase the adverse impacts 

because travel would be limited to existing inventoried routes. However, impacts may increase in 

intensity from compaction in wheel troughs resulting in channelization. Channelization can 

modify drainage patterns of a watershed and increase velocity of surface waters during rain 

events, resulting in an increase of erosion. 

Closed OHV Management Areas protect soil resources by precluding motorized travel, thereby 

reducing soil compaction and erosion rates from OHV use. 

Desert pavement found throughout the planning area provides a smoother surface for vehicle 

travel. With vehicle use, desert pavement breaks down to fine-grained materials, which are 

extremely susceptible to wind-blown erosion from which active sand-dunes can begin to form. 

Once a road becomes unusable, drivers move off of the original road and onto adjacent 

undisturbed desert pavement, which eventually breaks down. As a result, many areas of desert 

Page 4-12 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

pavement terrain are bisected by braided roads. A similar process affects cryptobiotic crusts, 

which become erodable with vehicle compaction. 

The effects of motorized travel on poorly constructed routes include the removal of surface cover 

such as larger rocks, which creates new water flow paths and channels and increased runoff. This 

contributes to increased soil erosion rates and an ultimate loss of soil productivity within the 

route. Because this RMP is deferring the designation of routes, the impacts to soils from poorly 

constructed routes appearing in the route inventory would continue under Alternatives B, C, D, 

and the Proposed Plan. 

3. Loss of Productivity 

a. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Loss of soil productivity is anticipated to be minimal and would impact only a small portion of 

the planning area. Chemical treatments may leave residues that could alter the soil’s microbial 

populations or vegetative recovery, affecting the productivity of the soil and increasing its 

vulnerability to erosion. However, chemical treatments are conducted using BMPs for chemical 

application to minimize potential adverse impacts to vegetation and soil resources in the 

planning area. 

b. From Livestock Grazing Management 

Short-term adverse impacts are possible where watershed cover is not adequate due to current 

livestock management. Livestock grazing has been limited in the planning area, resulting in 

relatively minimal impacts to soils from this activity (USDOI BLM 2003b, 2003c, 2003d). 

c. From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Management actions in the planning area related to wild horses and burros would continue to 

have a minimal impact on soil resources. Wild horses and burros have the potential to compact 

soil near common watering sites or travel corridors which could decrease productivity. 

d. From Visual Resource Management 

VRM Class I and II areas allow minimal impacts to soil resources because of the limits placed on 

visual contrast in these areas. 

e. From Lands and Realty Management 

Agricultural Leases: In the event that BLM agriculture leases are terminated and identified for 

other beneficial uses including the conversion to wildlife habitat, BLM would follow provisions 

required by the Farmland Protection Policy Act, which determine impacts to farmland that would 

occur due to proposed projects. 

f. From Mineral Resource Management 

Development of mineral resources on BLM-administered lands would result in the loss of soil 

resources through loss of vegetation and surface disturbance. Impacts to soils result from mineral 

materials extraction, sand and gravel operations, and mining activities due to a lack of topsoil 

within the planning area (Weinstein et al. 2003). 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

B. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

Differences between the alternatives are limited to the potential loss of productivity, as measured 

by acres of surface disturbance resulting from BLM-authorized actions, as shown in Table 4-3. 

Table 4-3 

Potential Impacts to Soil Resources by Alternative 

Cause Agents 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

Adverse Impacts 

Betty’s Kitchen NRT (miles) 0.5 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Back Country Byways (miles) 0 220 76 0 21 

Communications Sites (acres) 200 300 300 200 300 

Community Pits (acres) 100 800 400 100 700 

Open OHV Management Areas 

(acres) 

400 3,800 2,400 400 400 

ROW Corridors (acres) 74,600 129,900 129,900 91,300 121,700 

VRM Class III & IV (acres) 1,135,000 608,400 589,100 500,800 531,600 

Total Acres* 1,135,200 638,600 624,000 513,100 568,500 

Beneficial Impacts 

ACECs 6,700 6,700 28,900 491,300 28,900 

Closed OHV Management Areas 

(acres) (non-wilderness) 1,200 3,200 3,500 66,000 5,100 

VRM Class I (acres) (nonwilderness and not proposed for 

withdrawal) 

0 0 0 19,800 0 

Wilderness (acres) 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 

Withdrawal acres (nonwilderness) 6,500 3,600 5,400 8,300 12,000 

Total Acres 175,500 174,600 176,700 266,700 184,900 

 Note: Acreage totals include BLM-administered acres only

 * Non-overlapping total 

1. From Special Designations 

The 5.0-mile extension of the Betty’s Kitchen NRT proposed under Alternative B would 

temporarily disturb soils during trail construction activities. Maintenance of the proposed trail 

would cause a permanent loss of soil productivity along the entire length and width of the trail; 

however, approximately half of the trail’s length would be located on an existing route and 

would not create entirely new impacts to soils. 

Alternative B would nominate seven Back Country Byways (220 miles). Under Alternative C, 

four Back Country Byways (76 miles) would be nominated, and two would be nominated in the 

Proposed Plan (21 miles). Alternatives A and D propose no Back Country Byway designations. 

Vehicle pullouts would generally be small in nature, located at pre-disturbed sites as much as 

possible, and would follow construction BMPs to minimize potential impacts to soils. A 

beneficial effect of reducing erosion to the landscape could occur by focusing vehicle travel onto 

the byways. Under Alternative C, increased traffic on Type III and Type IV segments could 

eventually lead to erosion of these unimproved roads. Management Actions would reduce this 

Page 4-14 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

effect by monitoring site conditions and making improvements that would keep the segment at 

the designated type. 

Alternative D would designate a total of 491,400 acres as ACECs, which could indirectly benefit 

soil resources due to the protective nature of the ACEC designations. For example, in an ACEC, 

protective management actions discourage land-use authorizations, require special mitigation to 

avoid impacts from mineral entry if applicable, and commercial grazing would not be allowed. 

Alternative B would designate 6,700 acres of ACECs, which is also the same under the existing 

condition in Alternative A. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would designate 28,900 acres of 

ACECs. Indirect adverse impacts to soils from ACECs could potentially result from an increase 

of visitation to these areas because of their attractive resources. 

2. From Visual Resource Management 

VRM allocations can avoid adverse impacts to soil resources from some activities, as they 

specify the allowable amount of modification to the existing environment in order to maintain 

the natural aesthetic quality of the area. VRM Classes I and II allow little or no modification (i.e. 

construction of facilities, communications sites, or utilities structures), unless already within an 

existing ROW or corridor. This limitation would avoid adverse impacts to soils from these types 

of activities. VRM Classes III and IV allow modifications to the existing environment, 

potentially resulting in adverse impacts to soils (see Table 4-3). 

3. From Recreation Management 

Under Alternative D, the YFO would not expand or develop any new recreation sites, and the 

impacts to soil resources would be contained to the 20,500 acres of existing recreation sites. 

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and the Proposed Plan, the YFO would use adaptive management on 

a case-by-case basis to determine if the expansion or development of new recreation sites is 

necessary to meet public demands or address user and resource conflicts. Additional impacts to 

soil resources from new and expanded recreation sites would be considered and disclosed as 

required by NEPA during the development of subsequent recreation site activity plans. 

4. From Travel Management 

In Open OHV Management Areas, motorized travel is currently not limited to existing or 

inventoried routes, and visitors may travel cross-country wherever they choose. OHV area 

designations would impact the least amount of soil resources under Alternatives A, D and the 

Proposed Plan, which would continue the existing 400-acre Open OHV Management Area 

designation at the Ehrenberg Sandbowl. Two additional Open OHV Management Areas have 

been proposed under Alternatives B and C along with an expanded Open OHV Management 

Area designation at the Ehrenberg Sandbowl. Under these alternatives, there would be increased 

acreages of lost soil productivity within the planning area, as represented in Table 4-3. 

Motorized travel would not be authorized within proposed Closed OHV Management Areas, and 

additional soil erosion and compaction from OHV use would no longer occur. OHV closures 

would remain in effect within the planning area’s 167,800 acres of designated Wilderness under 

all alternatives. Soil resources would be provided with the most protection from OHV use under 

Alternative D, which would designate approximately 66,000 acres as Closed OHV Management 

Areas. The remaining four alternatives propose fewer acres of Closed OHV Management Areas, 

which are all listed on Table 4-3. Closures were proposed to protect resource values within 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

ACECs, SCRMAs, and lands with wilderness characteristics and soil resources would indirectly 

benefit from these allocations. Alternatives B and C would provide less protection to soil 

resources from OHV use, as these alternatives only propose to close 3,200 and 3,500 additional 

acres, respectively. Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 5,100 acres of public land outside of 

designated Wilderness have been proposed to be closed to motorized travel. 

Under Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan, OHV travel throughout most of the planning 

area would be limited to existing inventoried routes. There are currently 4,600 miles of existing 

inventoried routes and linear features within the planning area. The YFO has estimated that the 

routes are an average of eight feet wide, which collectively totals to 4,400 acres of routes (or 

0.0034 percent of the planning area), which are negatively impacting soil resources. On BLMadministered lands, there are currently 12 miles of closed routes in Alternative A (Fortuna Wash 

and La Paz Valley), Alternative B would close 12 miles of routes (La Paz Valley and Muggins 

Mountains) , Alternative C would close 14 miles (Dripping Springs, La Paz Valley, and Muggins 

Mountains), Alternative D would close 491 miles of routes (Dripping Springs, Laguna 

Mountains, La Paz Valley, Muggins Mountains, North Bank Milpitas Wash, Sears Point, and 

proposed lands with wilderness characteristics), and the Proposed Plan would close 20 miles 

(Dripping Springs [Spur Route LP 1087 only], Fortuna Wash, La Paz Valley, Muggins 

Mountains, and Sears Point). 

This PRMP/FEIS is deferring the overall designation of routes. Recreational trail use would 

continue to impact 4,400 acres of soil resources under Alternatives A, B, C, D, and the Proposed 

Plan. Under Alternative A, motorized travel would continue to be limited to existing inventoried 

routes. It is possible that there are additional existing routes which have not been identified on 

the proposed YFO route inventory, and therefore, a slightly higher acreage of soil resources 

would continue to be impacted under Alternative A. 

5. From Lands and Realty Management 

In the range of alternatives in this PRMP/FEIS, lands actions would impact soils differently 

primarily by the concentration of ROWs within designated corridors. Land use authorizations 

that include construction and maintenance of facilities such as transmission lines, pipelines, and 

roads would impact soils due to removal of vegetation, compaction, erosion, and disturbance of 

topsoil and soil crusts. Within ROW Corridors, this impact would potentially be increased due to 

the concentration of major utilities and facilities; however, these impacts would be the result of 

individual ROWs. The greatest number of ROW Corridors being proposed are under 

Alternatives B and C (10 corridors). Alternative A would have the least impact, with only four 

existing ROW Corridors, while Alternative D proposes five, and the Proposed Plan proposes 

eight. 

a. Agricultural Leases 

Under the Proposed Plan, some of the lands currently under agricultural production are available 

for disposal. These lands are surrounded by private farmlands. The disposal of these lands has 

the potential to permanently remove them from agricultural production based on the intent of the 

buyer, which creates uncertainty over potential impacts. 

Page 4-16 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

6. From Mineral Resource Management 

No new mineral material sales would be allowed in designated ACECs. Soil loss and erosion 

may be minimized with proper reclamation in areas where mineral entry is allowed as part of the 

BMPs for mineral development. There are currently 6,500 acres withdrawn from mineral entry 

(Alternative A). Alternative B would withdraw 3,600 acres, while Alternative C proposes to 

withdraw 5,400 acres from mineral entry. Alternatives D would withdraw 8,300 acres and the 

Proposed Plan would withdraw 12,000 acres within proposed ACECs from mineral entry. 

Common to all of these alternatives is the congressional withdrawal of Wilderness Areas which 

consist of 167,800 acres. If an ACEC is approved and the area is withdrawn from mineral entry, 

the impacts to soils from mineral development in this area would be avoided. Alternatives D or 

the Proposed Plan would have the least impact on soil resources, while Alternative B would have 

the greatest impact. 

7. From Wilderness Characteristics Management 

The BLM would seek to maintain existing opportunities to experience naturalness within lands 

that have been identified for wilderness characteristics management. The maintenance of 

naturalness on these public lands would be accomplished through the relocation, mitigation, or 

restoration of authorized surface-disturbing activities. These measures may result in the 

maintenance and/or improvement of soil resource values. Public lands that have been identified 

to maintain wilderness characteristics where indirect beneficial impacts to soil resources may 

occur vary by alternative as follows: Alternative A, 0 acres; Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, 

48,400 acres; Alternative C, 91,400 acres; and Alternative D, 301,200 acres. 

C. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Natural events such as high winds and thunderstorms would continue to erode soils potentially 

leading to loss of productivity. 

4.3 VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Vegetation resources within the planning area include terrestrial, aquatic, riparian and wetlands, 

priority, and special status plant species. Both beneficial and adverse impacts may occur from 

vegetation treatment activities, land use authorizations (including ROW Corridors, leases, and 

development), surface-disturbing activities, mineral/mining development, recreation, and OHV 

use. These activities generally lead to disturbance, degradation, and loss of vegetative resources 

in the planning area as well as the introduction of exotic and invasive species. Impacts to 

vegetation resources, including special status and priority plant species, as a result of vegetation 

treatments and surface-disturbing activities would be assessed on a case-by-case basis and would 

follow Management Actions and BMPs (outlined in Chapter 2). 

The analysis of potential impacts to vegetation resources was based on review of existing 

literature and the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. Literature sources include 

but are not limited to the following: 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

 Preliminary Assessment of Biodiversity Values and Management Framework Adaptation for 

the Expanded Kofa Complex and Yuma Resource Management Area in Southwestern Arizona 

(Weinstein et al. 2003); 

 LUP Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management (USDOI BLM 2004c); 

 Anthropogenic Degradation of the Southern California Desert Ecosystem and Prospects for 

Natural Recovery and Restoration (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999); 

 LCR MSCP, Final Programmatic EIS/Environmental Impact Report (USDOI Reclamation et 

al. 2004); 

 Heritage Data Management System (AGFD 2005); 

 Arizona Rare Plant Guide (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2003); and 

 Final Propgrammatic EIS and Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States (USDOI BLM 2007a). 

4.3.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential impacts to vegetation resources are categorized below into loss/removal, 

degradation/alteration, and enhancement/beneficial. 

A. LOSS/REMOVAL 

1. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Vegetation treatments include manual, biological, mechanical, fuel breaks, herbicide application, 

and prescribed fire. YFO staff has estimated that vegetation treatments for wildland fire 

management would collectively total an average of 1,000 acres of terrestrial vegetation per year. 

Vegetation management treatments would result in the temporary loss of aquatic and riparian 

vegetation depending on the treatment applied. These losses are anticipated to be minimal and 

would impact only a small percentage of the planning area. Some losses of vegetation would be 

of undesirable plant species including exotic and invasive species, which are treated to 

reintroduce or promote desirable plant species. Impacts from these treatments are beneficial in 

both the short and long-term. 

2. From Travel Management 

Within designated Open OHV Management Areas, motorized travel would not be limited to 

existing or inventoried routes, and visitors may travel cross-country wherever they choose. 

Increased trampling of vegetation would be expected and degradation of vegetative productivity 

would be anticipated within the entire acreage of the proposed Open OHV Management Areas. 

A minimal amount of additional impacts to vegetation resources are expected within Closed and 

Limited OHV Management Areas where motorized travel would either not be permitted or 

limited to existing inventoried routes, respectively. 

Page 4-18 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

3. From Lands and Realty Management 

Temporary losses of vegetation resources would occur during surface-disturbing activities 

associated with construction and maintenance of authorized facilities. These activities include, 

but are not limited to, grading, trench excavation, clearing, and/or removal of existing vegetation. 

Permanent loss of vegetation may occur when access roads needed to maintain authorized 

facilities are constructed. Proposed ROW Corridors occur within the habitat of two special status 

plants, the scaly sand plant and Schott wire lettuce (Stephanomeria schottii). These plants, if 

present, could be impacted during the construction of approved activities within ROW Corridors. 

Disposal of public lands may cause long-term or permanent impacts to vegetation, special status 

and priority species, through alteration or development of those lands. The blue sand lily could 

be impacted by a proposed disposal under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. Sand food is 

found on Reclamation’s “five-mile zone.” Dune spurge (Euphorbia platysperma) could be 

present along ROW Corridors. Potential development of disposed lands may indirectly impact 

vegetation or wildlife habitat on adjacent public lands due to increased human pressure on the 

undeveloped lands. Indirect impacts would include potential degradation of vegetation habitats 

that are on the fringes of associated lands identified for disposal. 

4. From Mineral Resource Management 

Development of mineral resources may result in the loss of vegetation resources. In each 

proposed mineral development, a subsequent NEPA analysis or mining notice is required, which 

would evaluate the potential impacts on a case-by-case basis. 

B. DEGRADATION/ALTERATION 

1. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Vegetation treatments occurring in habitat for priority species, which occur throughout the 

planning area, may impact those species. 

Treatment of non-native invasive species may include short-term impacts including both adverse 

and beneficial impacts on native vegetation resources, e.g., herbicide overspray or inadvertent 

mechanical removal of non-target native species. Some impacts are immediately beneficial 

because of a reduction in competition for native species from the removal of invasive species. 

Treatment of non-native invasive species would also impact species composition, resulting in a 

beneficial alteration of the immediate plant community. 

Firewood collection, if not monitored, would result in direct and indirect adverse impacts to 

vegetation resources. Firewood collection associated with recreational activities removes 

nutrients and microclimates which provide for desert plant growth and seed germination 

(Weinstein et al. 2003). 

2. From Wildland Fire Management 

Use of heavy equipment and the mechanical thinning of trees may generate emissions of criteria 

pollutants and fugitive dust. Dust blowing across landscapes coats the leaves of established 

species resulting in the short-term degradation of some vegetation. Clearing of fuel breaks in 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

riparian areas may have negative impacts to native riparian vegetation. However, fuel breaks are 

generally placed in salt cedar areas to reduce chances of fire spread into higher value riparian and 

wetland vegetative types. Prescribed burns could result in short-term adverse impacts to desired 

plant species, although most of these treatments are applied in plant communities which exhibit 

uncharacteristic fuel loads or undesirable plant species, resulting in beneficial long-term impacts 

to vegetation resources. 

3. From Recreation Management 

Concentrated visitor use of designated camping and day-use areas, along with the installation of 

recreation facilities and signs, results in increased soil compaction and erosion, increased 

trampling of vegetation, and increased dispersal of non-native invasive species. These impacts 

can severely limit vegetative productivity within designated recreation areas. As the population 

in the planning area continues to increase, recreational activities on BLM-administered lands are 

also likely to increase, which would result in additional degradation and/or alteration of 

vegetation resources from unauthorized route usage, and increases of invasive seed carriers. 

These activities could result in trampling or degradation of native sensitive plant species, and 

introductions of invasive species in native plant communities. 

Recreational boating activities could result in impacts to aquatic and shoreline vegetation 

resources. Wakes can suspend bottom sediment, uproot submerged aquatic vegetation, and erode 

shorelines (USDOI BLM 2005g). The enforcement of existing “No Wake Zones” regulations 

within these areas would continue to minimize these potential impacts to aquatic vegetation from 

water-based recreation activities. Recreational boaters can also inadvertently introduce and 

spread non-native invasive aquatic vegetation into fresh water ecosystems, which can result in 

the displacement of native aquatic species. Dispersed shoreline camping, use of boat ramps and 

piers can result in increased rates of soil erosion, which can also have detrimental impacts to 

terrestrial and aquatic vegetation. 

BLM’s commitment to providing safe and dependable public boating access necessitates the 

periodic dredging of collected sediments around boat launches. Dredging activities can result in 

the degradation or removal of aquatic vegetation. 

4. From Travel Management 

Hiking, biking, and equestrian use disturb and compact fragile desert soils, which in turn results 

in increased wind and water erosion, and changes in soil chemical properties (Belnap et al. 2001; 

Green 2005; Weinstein et al. 2003). These impacts to soils indirectly impact vegetation resources 

by damaging the wide and shallow root systems of desert plants and preventing the germination 

of seedlings. Recreational trail use also increases the likelihood of introducing non-native 

invasive vegetation, which can displace native species (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). 

OHV use on existing inventoried routes is considered the main threat to the Dunes WHAs within 

the planning area (Weinstein et al. 2003). Sand dunes are popular places to participate in OHV 

use, and this activity has the potential to disturb vegetation and their shallow root systems. 

Stabilized dunes are easily eroded when driven across. These impacts degrade the overall quality 

of the Dunes WHA, which could potentially provide habitat for endemic species, such as the 

fringe-toed lizard. 

Page 4-20 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

5. From Lands and Realty Management 

Surface-disturbing activities can facilitate the dispersal and establishment of invasive plant 

species. The clearing of existing perennial vegetation provides an opportunity for non-native 

invasive species to populate construction sites, and the movement of equipment in the area could 

disperse these plants to other locations (USDOI BLM 2002b). Heavy equipment could increase 

soil compaction, slowing the re-establishment of vegetative cover. Management actions and 

BMPs are implemented on a case-by-case basis to deter the introduction and spread of nonnative invasive plants. 

6. From Public Health and Safety 

Law enforcement activities may necessitate OHV use and cross-country travel, which may 

impact vegetation and increases fire occurrence. Illegal immigration traffic results in degradation 

of vegetation resources. 

C. ENHANCEMENT/BENEFICIAL 

1. From Special Designations 

Land use allocations and designations that provide increased protections, such as Wilderness, 

ACECs, WHAs, and VHAs, would result in beneficial impacts to vegetation resources by 

providing increased protection to these resources. 

2. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Restoration projects such as prescribed burning and post-fire seeding and revegetation 

potentially benefit vegetation resources. Invasive species management treatments (goat grazing 

as a biological control agent) produce long-term beneficial impacts to native vegetation by 

reducing competition with native species for limited desert resources. Long-term effects would 

improve growth of native plant species. Vegetation treatments are expected to increase the 

density and quality of the native riparian plant communities. The use of native plant species 

when restoring or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded areas would result in reestablishment of 

native plant communities and other beneficial impacts 

3. From Livestock Grazing Management 

Adherence to Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration would result in beneficial direct impacts to terrestrial and riparian vegetation by 

reducing soil erosion and promoting the development of riparian and wetland plant communities. 

Adhering to these standards and guidelines would have positive long-term impacts to biological 

resources by maintaining the ecological rangeland condition for those areas currently in healthy 

condition and by improving those areas that are currently not meeting existing standards, 

ultimately improving priority plant and wildlife habitat. Management that achieves proper 

utilization of key forage species ensures adequate cover to maintain appropriate watershed 

conditions and reduces soil loss through wind and water erosion. Long-term environmental 

consequences of present management would be maintenance or a slow improvement of upland 

soil and watershed conditions due to implementation of rangeland health standards and 

guidelines and restoration efforts. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-21 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4. From Travel Management 

Motorized travel would not be permitted within Closed OHV Management Areas, which would 

maintain or enhance terrestrial vegetative productivity within these areas. 

5. From Visual Resource Management 

VRM Class I and II areas allow minimal impacts to vegetation resources because of the limits 

placed on visual contrast in these areas. These limitations reduce BLM-authorized surface 

disturbing activities within the area, which allow plant communities to remain intact. 

4.3.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives B and C would result in an increase in potential impacts to vegetative resources 

from BLM-authorized surface disturbance activities, as compared to the No Action Alternative 

(Alternative A) (Table 4-4), because more proposals that cause surface disturbance are included 

under these alternatives. Implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in fewer impacts 

from BLM-authorized surface disturbing activities than Alternatives B and C, but the Proposed 

Plan would have more impacts than Alternatives A and D. Alternative D would result in only a 

slight increase of impacts, as compared to the No Action Alternative (A). 

Table 4-4 

Potential Impacts to Vegetative Resources (BLM acres) 

Loss/Degradation Alternative 

A B C D E 

Adverse Impacts 

Communications Sites 200 300 300 200 300 

Community Pits 100 800 400 100 700 

Land Disposals 19,100 46,900 10,500 8,200 11,900 

Open OHV Management Areas 400 3,800 2,400 400 400 

ROW Corridors 74,600 129,900 129,900 91,300 121,700 

Total Acres* 94,400 178,500 143,500 103,700 134,600 

Beneficial Impacts 

ACECs 6,700 6,700 28,900 491,400 28,900 

Closed OHV Management Areas (nonWilderness) 1,200 3,200 3,500 66,000 5,100 

Firewood Collection 134,700 142,800 179,300 1,318,000 153,000 

VHA 12,400 0 12,400 22,900 22,900 

Wilderness 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 

Wilderness Characteristics 0 48,400 91,400 301,200 48,400 

Total Acres* 318,000 360,600 426,900 1,318,000 395,000 

Note: Acreage totals include BLM-administered acres only 

* Non-overlapping total 

Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan include an increase in protective land use allocations 

and designations, such as Closed OHV Management Areas, SCRMAs, and ACECs. All 

alternatives include management of invasive non-native plant species and firewood collection 

closures to minimize adverse impacts to vegetation resources. Alternative D and the Proposed 

Plan would also include three proposed VHAs to provide additional protection to priority plant 

Page 4-22 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

species, specifically for elephant tree and blue sand lily communities, and for the Fred J. Weiler 

Greenbelt riparian habitat (see Chapter 2, Table 2-4). 

A. FROM SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

The Betty’s Kitchen NRT is proposed to be extended approximately five miles under Alternative 

B. While approximately half of the proposed trail length would follow an existing route, 

construction of the trail would require the removal of both terrestrial and riparian vegetation. 

Subsequent site-specific NEPA analysis and coordination with AGFD would ensure that future 

trail layout and design minimizes impacts to vegetation as much as possible. 

Alternative B would consider nominating the most miles of National Back Country Byways 

(seven byways, 220 miles). Byways have the potential to cause losses of roadside vegetation if 

improvements such as signs or pullouts are constructed. These actions would be evaluated for 

impacts to vegetation on a case-by-case basis. 

Alternative D would designate seven ACECs (491,400 acres), which would have a positive 

benefit to vegetative resources due to the protective measures they would afford. In Alternative 

D, the proposed Sears Point, Dripping Springs, Limitrophe, Walters Camp, Gila River Terraces 

and Trails, and Palomas Plain ACEC designations would protect high value riparian, desert 

washes, and mesquite bosques and prioritize vegetation management treatments for these areas, 

in greater acreages than the other alternatives. Big Marias ACEC is primarily upland desert with 

low vegetative productivity. 

B. FROM VEGETATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

1. Vegetation Habitat Management Areas 

The Elephant Tree Community (10,000 acres) and Blue Sand Lily Community (500 acres) VHAs 

are both proposed under Alternative D and the Proposed Plan. The Elephant Tree Community 

VHA allocation would benefit the health of this unusual plant community and support 

designation of the shrub as a conservation element by The Nature Conservancy. The Blue Sand 

Lily VHA would protect one of the few known localities for this species north of Mexico. 

Protective measures could have a positive impact on the population within BLM-administered 

lands which is threatened by housing development, OHV use, and invasive non-native species 

such as Sahara mustard. The Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt (12,400 acres) is a proposed VHA in 

Alternatives A, C, D, and the Proposed Plan to beneficially impact riparian values as a Resource 

Conservation Area. 

2. Vegetative Use Authorizations 

The collection of personal use campfire wood from dead, down, and detached vegetation would 

vary by alternative. Alternative D would close the entire planning area from collection of dead 

and downed wood, which is valuable wildlife habitat. Alternatives A, B, C, and the Proposed 

Plan would allow adaptive management to evaluate whether areas are being denuded of dead, 

down, and detached vegetation. Portions of the planning area are currently closed and would 

remain closed to wood collection in the foreseeable future. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-23 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

C. FROM WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

The Arizona Fire LUP Amendment decisions would be carried forward, which are common to 

all alternatives. Full suppression of wildland fires would be used to protect WUI areas, riparian 

areas, natural and cultural resources. No “fire use” areas are currently identified in the planning 

area, meaning that there are no areas where wildfires are allowed to burn to treat vegetation 

resources. Prescribed fire would be a management tool for cattail marshes in all alternatives. 

D. FROM FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

1. Wildlife Habitat Management Areas 

The Proposed Plan would create five WHAs (1,526,200 acres [overlapping acres]), all of which 

would have beneficial impacts to vegetation including priority and special status plants. The 

acreage of WHAs exceeds the total acreage within the planning area because some of these 

proposed WHAs overlap. The Colorado and Gila River Riparian WHA would protect 

cottonwood and willow priority plant species and other native riparian plants and habitats. The 

Dunes WHA contains sensitive and priority plants such as scaly sand plant and sand food which 

would be afforded protection under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan. 

E. FROM RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

Under Alternative D, BLM would not expand or develop any new recreation sites, and the 

impacts to vegetation resources would be contained to the existing recreation sites located on 

desert lands which support these native plants. Under Alternatives A, B, C, and the Proposed 

Plan, adaptive management would be used on a case-by-case basis to determine if the expansion 

or development of new recreation sites would be necessary to meet public demands or address 

user and resource conflicts. Additional impacts to terrestrial vegetation from new and expanded 

recreation sites would be considered and disclosed as required by NEPA during the development 

of subsequent recreation site activity plans. 

Under Alternative D, impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation would be contained to 

approximately 500 acres of existing recreation sites located near riparian and wetland 

ecosystems. Under Alternatives A, B, C, and the Proposed Plan, adaptive management would be 

used on a case-by-case basis to determine if the expansion or development of new recreation 

sites would be necessary to meet public demands or address user and resource conflicts. 

Additional impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation from new and expanded recreation sites 

would be considered and disclosed as required by NEPA during the development of subsequent 

recreation site activity plans. 

F. FROM TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

The proposed Martinez Lake Open OHV Management Area would negatively impact 16 acres of 

riparian vegetation under Alternative B. Under Alternatives A, C, D, and the Proposed Plan there 

would be no impacts to riparian vegetation from Open OHV Management Area designation. 

Page 4-24 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan, motorized travel would be limited to 

inventoried routes. There are currently 4,600 miles of existing inventoried routes and linear 

features within the planning area’s terrestrial ecosystems. YFO has estimated that these routes 

are an average of eight feet wide, which collectively covers 4,400 acres of public lands, or less 

than one percent of all BLM-administered lands in the YFO. Motorized travel on these routes 

precludes significant vegetative productivity on approximately 4,250 acres of terrestrial 

ecosystems and approximately 150 acres of riparian ecosystems. Under Alternative A, motorized 

travel would continue to be limited to existing inventoried routes. It is possible that there are 

additional existing routes which have not been identified on the proposed YFO Route Inventory, 

and therefore, a slightly higher acreage of vegetation would continue to be impacted under 

Alternative A. 

Under all alternatives, existing inventoried routes would continue to impact five linear miles 

within the Blue Sand Lily VHA; and 14 linear miles within the Elephant Tree VHA. Special 

status and priority plant species which could be impacted from recreational trail use include the 

Algodones Dune sunflower, Alverson’s foxtail cactus, long leaf sand paper plant, sand food, and 

dune spurge. 

G. FROM LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT 

Under Alternative D, land supporting the blue sand lily, a special status species, would not be 

available for disposal. Under the Proposed Plan, the land would be available for disposal. 

1. ROW Corridors 

Alternatives B and C would designate the most ROW Corridors (10). The use of the designated 

ROW Corridors would cause a concentration of ROWs in a confined area and could cause a 

degradation of vegetative resources. Designation and use of ROW Corridors minimizes the 

degradation to vegetative resources throughout the planning area by concentrating BLMauthorized surface disturbances from major ROW activities within a confined area. All ROW 

actions in corridors would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis to protect vegetative resources 

according to Management Actions, BMPs, and Conservation Measures. 

H. FROM MINERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

BLM-authorized surface disturbing activities associated with leasable, locatable, and salable 

mineral actions like mining, oil/gas leasing, or sand and gravel removal have direct adverse 

impacts to vegetative resources. These impacts occur from disturbance of surface soil and 

vegetation removal. The areas open to mineral entry require a subsequent NEPA process before 

any proposed action is implemented. Due to the harsh climatic conditions and lack of rainfall 

within the planning area, revegetation efforts are largely unsuccessful in upland desert 

environments. 

Mineral entry withdrawals would beneficially impact vegetation resources in general. There are 

currently 6,500 acres withdrawn from mineral entry (Alternative A). Alternative B would 

withdraw 3,600 acres, while Alternative C would withdraw 5,400 acres from mineral entry. 

Alternatives D would withdraw 8,300 acres and the Proposed Plan would withdraw 12,000 acres, 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-25 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

the most acreage from mineral entry. This would afford protection to the Sears Point ACEC. The 

additional withdrawals in the Proposed Plan at Dripping Springs and Expanded Sears Point 

ACECs would protect vegetation at the springs and within the expanded Sears Point area. 

Common to all of these alternatives is the Congressional withdrawal of Wilderness Areas which 

consist of 167,800 acres. 

1. Community Pits 

Alternative B would cause the most impact to vegetation resources as a result of removal of 

salable minerals from community pits if they are designated as a result of this plan. This 

alternative proposes 800 acres of community pits, while Alternatives A and D propose no new 

community pits, leaving the existing 100 acres of pits in use. Alternative C proposes 400 acres in 

three community pits. The Proposed Plan proposes 700 acres in five community pits. 

I. FROM WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS MANAGEMENT 

The BLM would seek to maintain existing opportunities to experience naturalness within lands 

that have been identified for wilderness characteristics management. The maintenance of 

naturalness on these public lands would be accomplished through the relocation, mitigation, or 

restoration of authorized surface-disturbing activities. These measures may result in the 

maintenance and/or improvement of vegetative resource values. Public lands that have been 

identified to maintain wilderness characteristics where indirect beneficial impacts to vegetative 

resources may occur vary by alternative as follows: Alternative A, 0 acres; Alternative B and the 

Proposed Plan, 48,400 acres; Alternative C, 91,400 acres; and Alternative D, 301,200 acres. 

4.3.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

 Dredging and boat ramp maintenance may cause unavoidable adverse impacts to aquatic 

plants. 

 Construction of ROWs may cause unavoidable adverse impacts to slow growing species such 

as ironwood trees and saguaros within areas of surface-disturbing activities. 

 Wildfire and fire suppression activities. 

 Effects to non-target species resulting from vegetation treatments. 

 Law enforcement activities may necessitate OHV use and cross-country travel, which may 

impact vegetation resources. Illegal immigration traffic results in trampling of vegetation and 

increases human caused fire occurrence. 

4.3.4 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS 

Land tenure decisions resulting in disposal of lands would be considered a loss of vegetation 

resources, and therefore an irretrievable and irreversible impact. Land tenure decisions could 

have both positive and negative impacts, depending on land use after disposal and/or if the lands 

were disposed of by exchange. 

Page 4-26 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Fish and wildlife resources within the planning area include priority game species; priority nongame species (raptors, bats, and migratory birds); fish and other aquatic species; and special 

status species. The impact analysis focused on those management actions that have the potential 

for physical disturbance of habitat, loss of habitat, and the loss or disturbance of special status 

and priority species (see Appendix 2-B—Priority and Special Status Species List) within the 

planning area. Impacts can be direct or indirect. 

Direct impacts result from an activity or action that affects, through no other means, a change of 

existing conditions or practices in a given species or population. Indirect impacts result from an 

activity or action that, through associated effects, can be reasonably linked and thereby shown to 

be contributing to the change of existing conditions or practices of a given species or population. 

Indirect impacts to fish and wildlife may occur when actions result in environmental changes that 

indirectly influence the survival, distribution, or abundance of species (or increase the abundance 

of undesired non-native species). Examples of indirect impacts may include effects of noise, 

barriers to migration, presence of chemical contamination, or incidence of human activity levels 

that may disturb or harm wildlife. 

The following effects are considered to be adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Activities that: 

 Result in either direct or indirect harm to, harassment of, or destruction of individuals of any 

species listed as endangered, threatened, or rare under Federal or State law, regardless of 

duration of impact. Species to which this classification applies include State- and federally 

listed, proposed, as well as candidate species, species of concern, or other species that are 

demonstrably rare, threatened, or endangered. 

 Cause toxic contamination of wildlife, or inhibit recolonization of the site as a result of 

discharge of toxic compounds at the surface and/or subsurface of a disposal site, or through 

exposure of toxic compounds during dredging activities. 

 Cause the loss or long-term degradation (including changes in species composition and 

abundance) of a sensitive habitat, defined as a habitat that 

o provides essential resources that are otherwise limited on a regional scale; 

o serves as a concentrated breeding, nursery, or foraging area; or 

o supports substantial concentrations of sensitive species. 

 Violate Federal, State, or local laws with respect to the protection of fish and wildlife species, 

regardless of duration of impact. 

 Disrupt the feeding, breeding, nesting, or roosting habits, directly or indirectly, of special 

status species (including federally and State-listed species within Arizona and California, 

BLM sensitive species, and species of concern) or their habitats, as designated by Federal, 

State, or local agencies. 

 Result in substantial loss, reduction, degradation, or disturbance in species habitats or in their 

populations. These impacts could be short- or long-term impacts. For example, short-term or 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-27 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

temporary impacts may occur during project implementation, whereas long-term impacts 

may result from the loss of vegetation and thereby loss of the capacity of habitats to support 

fish and wildlife populations. Degradation of species could also result from introduction of 

invasive exotic species. 

 Result in a net loss of riparian area or habitat value, either through direct or indirect impacts 

to riparian or wetland vegetation, loss of habitat for wildlife, degradation of water quality, or 

alterations in hydrological functions. This classification includes riparian habitat and 

federally protected wetlands. 

 Result in substantial loss, reduction, degradation, or disturbance of sensitive plant 

communities and habitat types. 

 Result in substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory species of 

fish or wildlife or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. 

 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting fish and wildlife or conflict with the 

provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan; species recovery plan; natural community 

conservation plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. 

Avoidance is the preferred method to prevent loss. If a measure to prevent the loss of habitat is 

not available, then an action should be designed to minimize impacts to all affected areas. 

Beneficial impacts to fish and wildlife resources are expected to occur from vegetation treatment 

and removal of invasive species, range and wildlife habitat improvements, protective area 

designations such as Wilderness and ACECs, and protective allocations (such as SCRMA, VHA, 

WHA, VRM Classes I and II, Closed OHV Management Areas, and CMAs). 

The analysis of potential impacts to fish and wildlife was based on review of existing literature 

and the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. Literature sources include but are not 

limited to the following: 

 Anthropogenic Degradation of the Southern California Desert Ecosystem and Prospects for 

Natural Recovery and Restoration (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999); 

 LCR MSCP, Final Programmatic EIS/Environmental Impact Report (USDOI Reclamation et 

al. 2004); 

 Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration 

(USDOI BLM 1997a) ; and 

 USFWS Biological Opinions for activities in the planning area. 

4.4.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL SPECIES 

The potential impacts (direct and indirect) to fish and wildlife resources are categorized below as 

those resulting in: habitat loss and fragmentation; habitat disturbance/degradation; and habitat 

enhancement and restoration. 

Page 4-28 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

A. HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION 

1. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Vegetative treatment actions would result in the loss of habitat for some species through the loss 

of vegetative cover or forage resources. 

2. From Livestock Grazing Management 

Direct impacts from livestock grazing on vegetative cover and biomass are documented. The loss 

of vegetative cover and biomass leads to decreases in shelter sites. This has been shown to be 

associated with a decrease in the diversity and abundance of lizards as well as other wildlife 

species in arid environments (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). Impacts to wildlife shelter sites are 

anticipated to be minor and negligible due to the relatively small percentage of the planning area 

used for livestock grazing, as well as the Standards and Guidelines for rangeland health and 

grazing practices, which minimize impacts on wildlife resources. 

3. From Lands and Realty Management 

Land use authorizations (i.e., ROWs, leases, and permits) could cause fragmentation, barriers, 

and/or loss of wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, construction of fences, and 

construction of other structures and facilities. 

Site specific activities (construction or other surface-disturbing actions) authorized within land 

use allocations may result in the temporary or permanent removal of wildlife habitat and lead to 

degradation of habitat from land use actions. Habitat in these areas may no longer function as 

they did prior to development and disturbance in the area. Impacts may include elimination of 

wildlife forage, cover, and breeding habitat (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). 

Disposal of lands could result in fragmentation of habitats. Indirect impacts from land disposals 

could include effects on wildlife habitats that are on the fringes of associated disposed lands. 

Land disposals surrounding urban areas could result in the potential elimination of the buffer 

zone protecting wildlife and wildlife habitats. Disposal of large tracts of agricultural land could 

prevent opportunities for flood-irrigation riparian restoration. 

4. From Mineral Resources Management 

Mining and mineral extraction activities (including community pits) would result in the loss of 

habitat and habitat features, including the loss of boulders and other rock shelters. 

B. HABITAT DISTURBANCE/DEGRADATION 

1. From Special Designations 

The designation of proposed National Byways could potentially increase recreational trail use on 

these routes. Increased use on these identified routes could result in a greater amount of impacts 

to wildlife and wildlife habitat through these areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Proposed 

National Byways represent some of the most heavily traveled routes within the planning area, 

and impacts to wildlife along them would continue independent of a byway designation. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-29 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Increased interpretation, monitoring, maintenance, and enforcement along proposed byways by 

the BLM and interested partners would strive to minimize existing impacts to wildlife from 

recreational trail use. 

The development of a recreational Anza Trail proposed under all alternatives would increase 

recreational trail use within the Colorado and Gila Rivers Riparian WHA. The development of 

the Anza Trail may require the use of heavy equipment and minor modifications to the riparian 

wildlife habitat. Increased trail use would result in increased harassment of wildlife. Because 

wildlife management is one of the primary purposes of the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt, future trail 

alignment and recreational use limitation decisions would attempt to minimize these impacts. 

2. From Livestock Grazing Management 

Degradation of habitat could occur from livestock grazing activities. These impacts are 

anticipated to be minor and negligible as all livestock grazing activities would be in accordance 

with the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. 

These standards and guidelines preclude negative impacts by requiring regular site assessments 

and alteration or termination of grazing if adverse impacts are evident. 

3. From Recreation Management 

Wildlife could be adversely impacted by human interactions, including higher noise levels, litter, 

and wildlife harassment. Dispersed camping may impact wildlife habitat by degrading 

vegetation. Camping tends to be more concentrated along the river in summer and winter, and 

dispersed during the hunting seasons. Wildlife may be collected, displaced, harassed, and 

disturbed in camping areas 

Degradation of habitat may occur from vegetative product collection (authorized and 

unauthorized, firewood collection, seed collection). Collection of firewood has the potential to 

adversely impact wildlife when people drive to collection areas and through the removal of dead 

and downed material. Dead, downed, and detached vegetative material provides shelter for 

various species, including reptiles and amphibians. 

Concentrated recreational activities may have adverse impacts on wildlife by displacement, 

either temporarily or for long terms depending on the type of recreation activities. Destination 

SRMAs proposed under Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan would focus on marketing 

these areas as regional or national recreational destinations, potentially increasing the number of 

visitors to these areas. Any increase in visitor use throughout the YFO is expected to 

correspondingly increase the amount of disturbances to wildlife. 

Recreationists could be attracted to these areas in order to experience whatever niche is 

emphasized in that area, which could result in a disturbance to wildlife. 

Recreational boating may cause the degradation of aquatic habitat by uprooting vegetation, 

eroding shorelines, suspending bottom sediments, and directly harming fish and wildlife. Boating 

activity also impacts air by increased hydrocarbon pollution, soils by fuel and chemical spills, 

and habitats surrounding water bodies by wave activity, noise, trampling, and beaching of boats. 

Page 4-30 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Maintenance activities (including dredging) associated with boat ramps and docks could alter 

river and reservoir structure, but the area affected by these activities would likely be only a 

fraction of an acre individually and likely only a few acres cumulatively. 

Because most wildfires in the planning area are human-caused, recreational use in riparian 

habitat increases the risk of wildfires that remove riparian vegetation along the river corridor. 

4. From Travel Management 

Several peer-reviewed scientific papers “universally conclude that the construction of roads, the 

presence of roads in the landscape, and the vehicles that travel upon roads have a wide range of 

ecological effects” (Brooks and Lair 2005). There are several documented direct and indirect 

impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat in desert ecosystems from OHV use. These impacts 

include mortality from road construction and vehicle collisions, modifications of animal 

behavior, alterations of the physical environment, increased spread of non-native invasive 

species and increased use of areas by humans (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). However, the 

severity of these impacts are dependent upon a number of factors, including the type of vehicular 

route, the density of motorized routes, the total area of routes within the landscape, the presence 

of infrastructure including fences and culverts, and the overall habitat quality surrounding the 

route (Brooks and Lair 2005). These impacts would generally occur along all motorized routes 

within the planning area, including drivable desert washes. Research in the adjacent Mojave 

Desert concludes that individual OHV trails and unimproved local roads may lack broadscale 

ecological impacts, but collectively they represent a significant threat when trails are dense and 

comprise a large portion of desert landscapes (Matchett et al. 2004). 

Wildlife movement corridors would be directly impacted by OHV use, particularly if use 

increases. Impacts to movement corridors could potentially alter behavior, foraging, and 

breeding activities. Increased OHV activity would likely also increase wildlife mortality. OHV 

activities would increase noise, ground disturbance, human use, litter, and harassment. Paved 

highways intersecting corridors also contribute to mortality of wildlife. For example, vehicle use 

can displace desert bighorn sheep from watering areas (Jorgensen 1974) at the proposed 

Martinez Lake Open OHV Management Area. In non-watering areas (for example, Laguna 

Mountains RMZ), human disturbance can stress sheep in the form of cardiac or behavioral 

responses (MacArthur et al. 1982). 

Within designated Open OHV Management Areas, motorized travel would not be limited to 

existing or inventoried routes, and visitors would be able to travel cross-country wherever they 

choose. The impacts to wildlife from Open OHV Management Area designations, therefore, 

would be more severe than recreational trail use that is limited to inventoried routes. Designating 

new Open OHV Management Areas can potentially increase OHV use within the area. New 

Open OHV Management Area designations are likely to further denude vegetation within the 

open area, and further increase illegal OHV use outside of the open area boundaries (Matchett et 

al. 2004). Consequently, sensitive wildlife habitat outside of boundaries of the Open OHV 

Management Area can be further impacted. 

OHV use and other disturbances to the desert pavement within the planning area increase wind 

and water erosion and degrade habitat quality. Route proliferation threatens fragmentation of 

what is currently contiguous habitat. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-31 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Fenced off areas, such as the Milpitas Wash North Bank OHV restriction creates a movement 

barrier and alter wildlife’s travel routes to forage, water, and breeding areas. 

Non-motorized recreational trail activities, such as hiking, biking, and equestrian use, generally 

disturb wildlife and wildlife habitat much less than motorized activities. Hikers that bring dogs 

along can cause increased impacts to wildlife through harassment by temporally introducing a 

perceived predator, which can disturb and frighten wildlife. 

5. From Lands and Realty Management 

Construction activities from BLM-authorized lands and realty actions that cause surface 

disturbance may potentially introduce contaminants into the air, water, and soil, which in turn 

may have adverse impacts on wildlife and habitats (USDOI Reclamation et al. 2004). ROW 

Corridors can also fragment wildlife habitats and create barriers to movement. 

6. From Mineral Resource Management 

BLM-authorized mining and mineral extraction activities (including community pits) would 

result in surface disturbance that denude areas of vegetation, reducing forage, cover, and 

breeding habitat available to wildlife. Indirect impacts of mining and mineral activities would 

include the segmentation of habitat and barriers to wildlife movement. 

Mining and mineral extraction activities have the potential to increase human harassment of 

wildlife. Short-term impacts from mining activities include changes in wildlife behavior because 

of human presence, and the presence of unnatural objects. Long-term impacts include the overall 

change in species diversity and composition including the potential for circulation of invasive 

species. 

C. HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND RESTORATION 

1. From Special Designations 

Enhancement and protective designations such as ACECs would benefit wildlife habitat by 

limiting human activities and disturbances in these areas while prioritizing restoration treatments 

as part of vegetation and management actions. 

Enhancement and protective allocations such as SCRMAs, VHAs, WHAs, Closed OHV 

Management Areas, and CMAs (Fortuna Pond CMA, Limitrophe and Mittry Lake CMAs) would 

also be beneficial to wildlife habitat because of resource protection. 

2. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Vegetative treatments would result in improvements to habitat which may benefit many wildlife 

species. Degradation of habitat potentially occurs from invasive non-native species in the 

planning area. Vegetative treatments to reduce invasive species are primarily beneficial to 

wildlife habitat because they restore native plant communities, thus improving the ecological 

health of the area. 

Page 4-32 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Prescribed fire would likely result in the temporary loss of habitat, but would have beneficial 

impacts in the long-term. Prescribed fire has been shown to remove invasive plant species and 

improve habitat for several species, including threatened and endangered species (Conway and 

Nadeau 2005). 

3. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Range and wildlife habitat improvement projects would have beneficial impacts to wildlife by 

providing forage and watering sites which are made wildlife accessible. Conservation, 

enhancement, and restoration projects would have beneficial impacts on wildlife habitat within 

the planning area. 

4. From Livestock Grazing Management 

Adherence to the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration would result in beneficial direct impacts to wildlife by reducing soil erosion and 

promoting the development of riparian and wetland plant communities. Adhering to these 

standards and guidelines would have positive long-term impacts to biological resources by 

maintaining the ecological rangeland condition for those areas currently in healthy condition and 

by improving those areas that are currently substandard, ultimately improving priority plant and 

wildlife habitat (USDOI BLM 1997a). 

5. From Lands and Realty Management 

Acquisition of lands could have beneficial long-term impacts to wildlife. Any additional lands 

acquired along with any acquisitions of split estate for minerals, could directly benefit wildlife 

by providing surface protection and forage, shelter, and breeding habitat. 

4.4.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS – SPECIAL STATUS 

SPECIES 

A. DISTURBANCE 

1. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Effects to SWFL and Yuma clapper rail from implementation of vegetation treatments or 

restoration projects would vary by the method of treatment used. Vegetation treatment projects 

would generally not be proposed in habitat of these listed species except where doing so would 

enhance survival and recovery of these species. Direct effects could include disturbance, injury, 

or mortality from personnel or vehicles in or adjacent to nesting habitat, nest abandonment, and 

loss of habitat. Indirect effects would include reduced fitness or mortality resulting from loss of 

vegetative cover, increased temperatures at nesting sites from loss of shading, reduction or loss 

of available nest sites, reduction or loss of food resources, and increased risk of predation and/or 

nest parasitism. Effects would vary from short to long-term. Vegetation treatments in areas not 

currently occupied by these species may provide or improve habitat where these species can 

relocate. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-33 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Effects to razorback sucker from implementation of vegetation treatments or restoration projects 

would vary by the method of treatment used. Vegetation treatment projects would generally not 

be proposed in listed fish habitats except where doing so would enhance survival and recovery of 

these species. Direct effects could include disturbance, injury, or mortality, or physical removal 

of habitat. Indirect effects would include reduced fitness or mortality resulting from loss of 

vegetative cover, increased temperature from loss of shading, increased sedimentation from 

erosion in surrounding watersheds, reduction or loss of hiding cover, reduction or loss of food 

resources, and the potential for increased predation. Effects would vary from short to long-term. 

2. From Livestock Grazing Management 

The impacts of livestock grazing on special status species, such as Sonoran desert tortoise, could 

include habitat loss and degradation, and mortality or injury resulting from operation, 

construction, and maintenance of range developments; and habitat loss and degradation and 

associated mortality resulting from livestock grazing. Livestock grazing could impact Sonoran 

pronghorn if the species is reintroduced into currently unoccupied historic habitat. 

3. From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Burros may compete with Sonoran desert tortoise for forage and alter the vegetative composition 

of Sonoran desert tortoise habitat. 

4. From Recreation Management 

Maintaining recreational boating access and fishing opportunities increase the probability that 

recreational activities could continue to impact the bonytail chub, razorback sucker, and other 

aquatic species. These impacts include inadvertently taking or capturing special status fish, the 

introduction of non-native fish, and modifying or disturbing the shoreline or riverbed habitat 

(USDOI USFWS 1998a and 1998b). 

Recreational activities could lead to disturbance of SWFL or Yuma clapper rail nesting sites by 

humans. The probability of nest abandonment from such activities is low, but not discountable. 

In addition, agricultural activities, livestock grazing, and wide scale human activities could 

increase the presence of brood parasites of SWFLs, such as brown-headed cowbirds (USDOI 

USFWS 1995). 

The allocation of RMZs to provide special recreation niches for public recreationist might attract 

an increase of visitors to some areas, which could potentially result in a disturbance to wildlife 

from human presence and motorized equipment 

Boating use disturbs wintering bald eagles in the planning area. Recreational boating access 

would be maintained under all alternatives at the Senator Wash Boat Launch, Squaw Lake 

Campground, and Oxbow Recreation and Wildlife Area, and these impacts to bald eagles would 

continue to occur (USDOI BLM 1996b). 

Public use increases the risk of wildfires that remove riparian vegetation along the river 

corridors, which would have an adverse impact on wildlife habitat. 

Page 4-34 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Short-term uses of areas can result in the loss, fragmentation, and degradation of wildlife habitat. 

Impacts include long-term productivity of habitats that recover slowly (including long-lived 

species in impacted areas such as ironwood, saguaro, creosote, and desert tortoise). Some 

habitats could take a hundred years or more to recover from short-term impacts (construction, 

ROW Corridors, etc.) 

5. From Travel Management 

Take of listed species may occur during OHV activities or use of routes in the planning area by 

direct mortality (vehicle collisions), habitat fragmentation, and disturbance. 

6. From Lands and Realty Management 

Take of listed species could occur during land use authorization activities (communications use 

lease, roads, powerlines, pipelines, etc.), particularly in areas with resources known to be used by 

listed species. However, these authorizations require an individual NEPA analysis for each 

action, which must undergo a biological assessment including consultation with appropriate 

wildlife management agencies to determine listed species are not likely to be harmed. 

Disposal of lands could result in the net loss of habitat, which in turn would potentially cause 

direct and indirect impacts to individuals and populations of species. Species within disposed 

lands may suffer direct mortality or injury as a result of activities within the disposal lands 

(USDOI USFWS 2002e). 

Although there are many acres potentially identified for disposal in historic FTHL habitat, most 

are fragmented and unlikely to support this species. 

The continued agricultural leasing of isolated public lands adjacent to suitable SWFL habitat 

may attract brown-headed cowbirds. The brown-headed cowbird, a brood parasite of the SWFL, 

may adversely impact breeding success of this endangered species (Brown 1994; Whitfield and 

Sogge 1999). 

Disposing of agricultural land near Palo Verde, California, along the Colorado River would 

prevent inexpensive restoration opportunities for flood-irrigation of native riparian (cottonwoodwillow) communities. Restoration of retired agricultural leases is identified in the LCR MSCP. 

7. From Mineral Resource Management 

Direct effects to Sonoran desert tortoise from mining and mineral extraction activities (including 

community pits) include disturbance, injury or mortality where tortoise are run over or crushed 

in their burrows, loss of habitat, increased risk of ingestion of foreign objects and toxic 

substances. 

Take of listed species may occur during mining and mineral extraction activities in the planning 

area from injury or mortality, loss of habitat, increased risk of contact with toxic substances, and 

disturbance. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-35 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

B. BENEFICIAL 

1. From Special Designations 

Designation of the Palomas Plain ACEC would result in protection and management of the 

potential reintroduction habitat for the Sonoran pronghorn, because ACECs are designed with 

management actions that preserve and restore wildlife habitat and limit degradation. 

4.4.3 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

Differences in potential impacts on fish and wildlife for each alternative by resource and 

resource uses are outlined in Table 4-5 and the discussion below. 

Table 4-5 

Potential Impacts to Fish and Wildlife 

Loss/Degradation 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

Adverse Impacts 

Back Country Byways 

(miles) 0 220 76 0 21 

National Recreation Trail 

(miles) 0.5 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Communications Sites 200 300 300 200 300 

Community Pits 100 800 400 100 700 

Destination SRMA 0 697,100 494,300 250,500 459,100 

Land Disposals 19,100 46,900 10,500 8,200 11,900 

Open OHV Management 

Areas 400 3,800 2,400 400 400 

ROW Corridors 74,600 129,900 129,900 91,300 121,700 

Total Acres* 94,400 735,700 570,900 310,100 522,600 

Beneficial Impacts 

ACECs 6,700 6,700 28,900 491,900 28,900 

Closed OHV Management 

Areas (non-wilderness) 1,200 3,200 3,500 66,000 5,100 

CMA 3,800 5,300 5,300 3,800 5,300 

Undeveloped SRMA & 

ERMA 

0 33,600 758,800 1,031,900 735,600 

VHA 12,400 0 12,400 22,900 22,900 

Wilderness (AZ/CA) 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 

Wilderness Characteristics 0 48,400 91,400 301,200 48,400 

Withdrawal acres (nonwilderness) 6,500 3,600 5,400 8,300 12,000 

Total Acres* 198,400 281,000 1,061,100 2,093,800 1,026,000 

Note: Acreage totals include BLM-administered acres only 

* Non-overlapping total 

Page 4-36 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

A. FROM SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

The development of the proposed Betty’s Kitchen NRT extension (5.0 miles) proposed under 

Alternative B would increase recreational trail use within the Mittry Lake Wildlife Area, which 

is part of the Colorado and Gila Rivers Riparian WHA. The development of the NRT would 

require the use of heavy equipment and minor modifications to the riparian wildlife habitat. 

Increased trail use would result in increased disturbance of wildlife within the immediate vicinity 

of the trail. Because wildlife management is the primary purpose of the Mittry Lake Wildlife 

Area, recreational use decisions would include provisions to mitigate these impacts. 

Back Country Byways have the potential to affect the proposed Desert Mountains WHA under 

Alternatives B and C (Table 4-6). Designations may increase existing traffic and cause 

disturbances to bighorn sheep (Jorgensen 1974) and other wildlife (Trombulak and Frissell 

2000). Alternative D would not nominate any byways, and therefore would avoid impacts to 

wildlife such as desert bighorn sheep and desert tortoise. The Proposed Plan does not nominate 

as many byways which pass through the Desert Mountain WHA as Alternative C. Alternative B 

nominates all of the proposed byways including Clanton Hills and Red Raven Loop which have 

high wildlife values. Management actions and SOPs for wildlife would minimize impacts by 

using public interpretation, signs, and vehicle pullouts. Mileages of byways by alternative are 

displayed below in Table 4-6. 

Several of the proposed ACECs overlap with WHAs. The impacts of these designations would 

be beneficial because ACECs propose actions specifically aimed at managing the area to protect 

its “critical” environmental resources. These designations protect the area’s natural systems and 

features, including wildlife and habitat from irreparable damage. Alternative D proposes the 

greatest acreage in seven ACECs consisting of 491,400 acres. The Proposed Plan proposes three 

ACECs consisting of 28,900 acres, The Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt passes through the expanded 

Sears Point Cultural Area. The Colorado and Gila Rivers Riparian WHA overlaps with the 

Limitrophe and Walters Camp ACECs under Alternative D. 

Table 4-6 

Proposed Back Country Byways on BLM-Administered Lands within WHAs by Alternative (miles) 

Proposed Byways within Alternatives 

WHAs A B C D E 

Priority Wildlife Habitat N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Wildlife Movement Corridors N/A 13 7 N/A 2 

Desert Mountains N/A 87 38 N/A 3 

Palomas Plain N/A 108 34 N/A 0 

Dunes N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 

Colorado and Gila River Riparian Area N/A 1 1 N/A 1 

Total miles N/A 208 80 N/A 6 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-37 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

B. FROM RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

Under Alternative D, BLM would not expand or develop any new recreation sites, and the 

impacts to the Colorado and Gila River Riparian WHA would be contained to the 500 acres of 

existing recreation sites located within these ecosystems. Under Alternatives A, B, C, and the 

Proposed Plan, BLM would use adaptive management on a case-by-case basis to determine if the 

expansion or development of new recreation sites would be necessary to meet public demands or 

address user and resource conflicts.. 

C. FROM TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

The Blaisdell Open OHV Management Area identified in Alternatives B and C would likely 

impact more than 600 acres of Category III Sonoran desert tortoise habitat (Table 4-7). Sonoran 

desert tortoises are likely to occur within non-designated habitat within the Blaisdell Open OHV 

Management Area. Sonoran desert tortoises regularly occur in non-designated habitat adjacent 

to designated tortoise habitat (AGFD 2005) (Table 4-7). 

A total of 1,800 acres of Open OHV Management Areas overlap with WHAs under Alternative 

B. In Alternative C, 1,700 acres overlap. These amounts are less than one percent of the total 

acreage of WHAs. There is a potential for wildlife disturbance and loss of Sonoran Desert 

tortoise habitat in some of these areas. No Open OHV Management Areas overlap with WHAs 

under Alternatives A, D, and the Proposed Plan. 

Motorized travel is not permitted within proposed Closed OHV Management Areas. Impacts to 

wildlife would not occur within the proposed Closed OHV Management Areas and wildlife 

habitat would be maintained or enhanced. 

Table 4-7 

Proposed Open OHV Mangement Areas within WHAs and Sonoran Desert Tortoise Habitat 

(acres) 

Habitat A B C D E 

Category III Desert Tortoise Habitat 0 650 600 0 0 

Desert Mountains WHA 0 700 600 0 0 

Wildlife Movement Corridor WHA 0 1,100 1,100 0 0 

WHA = Wildlife Habitat Area 

D. FROM VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

The Desert Mountain WHA, which contains desert bighorn sheep habitat, is mostly within VRM 

Class II. VRM Class II areas allow minimal impacts to vegetation resources, and in turn wildlife, 

because of limits placed on visual contrast in these areas. 

Page 4-38 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

E. FROM LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT 

Alternative B and the Proposed Plan would dispose of some lands currently authorized under 

agricultural leases near the Colorado River. These alternatives would reduce the opportunities for 

inexpensive, flood irrigated, riparian restoration for federally listed species such as the SWFL 

and the yellow-billed cuckoo. 

Category III Sonoran desert tortoise habitat would be disposed of under various alternatives. 

Alternative B would dispose of 320 acres (60 acres west of the Town of Quartzite and 260 acres 

west of Gila Mountains), and Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would dispose of less than 

one acre (West of the Gila Mountains). Compensation for loss of habitat would be required and 

would offset some impacts. 

F. FROM FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

The Dunes WHA includes 59,400 acres under Alternatives C and D; 0 acre under Alternatives A 

and B; and 57,500 acres under the Proposed Plan. The additional 1,900 acres proposed under 

Alternatives C and D do not provide high quality dunes habitat for special status species. Impacts 

to special status species would not change as a result of the reduced acreage identified under the 

Proposed Plan. Under Alternatives A and B, YFO would not have a Dunes WHA and therefore 

would not maintain sand dune habitat quality. This could potentially impact several special status 

species. 

The Palomas Plain WHA includes 704,800 acres under Alternatives B and C; 0 acre under 

Alternative A; and 627,700 acres under the Proposed Plan. The additional 77,100 acres proposed 

under Alternatives B and C are primarily located on isolated and noncontiguous parcels that 

would increase the difficulty of consistent wildlife habitat management. Under Alternative A 

there would be no WHA allocated in the Palomas Plain; and instead, portions of the Palomas 

Plain would be managed for priority wildlife habitat. 

G. FROM WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS MANAGEMENT 

The BLM would seek to maintain existing opportunities to experience naturalness within lands 

that have been identified for wilderness characteristics management. The maintenance of 

naturalness on these public lands would be accomplished through the relocation, mitigation, or 

restoration of authorized surface-disturbing activities. These measures may result in the 

maintenance and/or improvement of wildlife habitat values. Public lands that have been 

identified to maintain wilderness characteristics where indirect beneficial impacts to wildlife 

habitat values may occur vary by alternative as follows: Alternative A, 0 acre; Alternative B and 

the Proposed Plan, 48,400 acres; Alternative C, 91,400 acres; and Alternative D, 301,200 acres. 

4.4.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS COMMON TO 

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

 Dredging and boat ramp maintenance would result in unavoidable impacts to aquatic habitat. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-39 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

 Surface-disturbing activities from land use authorizations (ROWs, leases, and permits) would 

lead to the unavoidable loss of wildlife habitat features. 

 Wildfire and fire suppression activities would cause unavoidable adverse impacts to wildlife 

habitat. However, the conservation measures in Appendix 2-C would minimize the effects 

and suppression would limit the impacts of fire on wildlife compared to not suppressing 

wildfires. 

 Vegetation treatment activities would cause unavoidable adverse impacts, if there are effects 

to non-target species during treatments. 

 Mining activities allowed under the 1872 Mining Law for locatable minerals may result in 

unavoidable loss of habitat. 

 Expansion of roadways and creation of new unauthorized routes would result in unavoidable 

wildlife habitat loss. 

 Population growth and associated urban expansion increase the WUI and unavoidable 

impacts to wildlife habitat. 

 Natural events such as high winds, wildfire, and drought would continue, and could cause 

disturbance and loss of wildlife habitats in the planning area. 

 Roadways have been shown to act as mortality sinks for small animals due to roadkill from 

vehicles. Roadway impacts on wildlife include fragmentation of habitat, barriers to 

movement and migration, collection of species, propagation of invasive species, and direct 

mortality. 

 Border initiatives would impact wildlife through direct loss and degradation of habitat. 

Wildlife displacement may also occur as a result of activities related to border security. 

Displacement may be temporary or long-term, depending on the type of habitat disturbance. 

4.4.5 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS 

Land disposals converted to developments would lead to irretrievable and irreversible impacts to 

wildlife through the direct loss of lands under Federal ownership unless the land was disposed of 

by an exchange in which the BLM received lands suitable for wildlife causing a beneficial 

impact. 

4.5 WILD HORSE AND BURRO 

The primary potential impacts to wild horses and burros in the planning area are those that may 

affect habitat features (i.e., forage, water, cover, and space), individuals and populations, and the 

continuance of a thriving natural ecological balance, as required by the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming 

Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended. Management actions that may cause such impacts 

include land use authorizations, land tenure decisions, and land use allocations for HMA and 

AML2. 

Page 4-40 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

The analysis of potential impacts to wild horses and burros was based on review of existing 

literature and the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. Literature sources include 

but are not limited to the following: 

 Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan, an amendment to 

the California Desert Conservation Area Plan 1980 and Sikes Act Plan with the CDFG and 

FEIS (USDOI BLM 2002a); 

 HMA Plan and Environmental Assessment (USDOI BLM 1980); and 

 BLM 1999 to 2004 Monitoring Information–Cibola-Trigo Management Area (USDOI BLM 

2005f). 

4.5.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential impacts to wild horses and burros are categorized below by potential impacts to habitat 

(food, water, cover, and space), to individuals and populations, and to ecological balance. 

A. FROM WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT 

HMA allocations would reduce the number of nuisance animals. Herds would no longer be 

located on the east side of Highway 95, where vehicle encounters with wild horses and burros 

have been a problem in the past. There have been many accidents along Highway 95 since 1979 

involving wild horses and burros. One resulted in the death of the occupants of the vehicle. 

However, these incidents have been dramatically reduced over the last 6 years. The larger health 

and safety concern is for the wild horses and burros, and personnel on the YPG Kofa Firing 

Range. This is the portion of the HMA east of Highway 95. This is a live fire and high explosive 

impact area on YPG. The potential of UXO is high and endangers not only the animals, put 

personnel attempting management. 

Impacts to wild horse and burro habitat may occur from reductions or other changes in HMA 

allocations. Changes in HMAs may also impact AML2s. 

HMA allocations may impact individuals or populations when allocation changes result in 

removal (adoption or relocation) of wild horses and burros. 

B. FROM LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT 

1. Land Use Authorizations 

Potential adverse short- and long-term impacts on wild horses and burros could result, if their 

ability to use and find habitat features important to their survival, such as forage, water, and 

cover, were restricted by conflicting land use authorizations. 

Potential short-term impacts to individuals or populations during authorized construction 

activities could occur. Wild horses are more susceptible to these impacts than burros, because 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-41 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

they are more territorial and would likely avoid construction areas for a longer period of time 

after activities have ceased. 

Potential short- and long-term adverse impacts on the thriving ecological balance could result, if 

land use authorizations reduced wild horse and burro forage habitat, which in turn could result in 

reduced AML2s and a population reduction. 

2. Land Tenure Decisions 

Land disposals (primarily along the Colorado River) from land tenure decisions could have an 

adverse long-term impact on wild horses and burros by removing habitat and restricting or 

closing access to forage, water, and cover. Land disposals may result in long-term adverse 

impacts, if individuals need to be removed or relocated. 

4.5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to wild horses and burros are expected to occur as a result of HMA 

changes in the area east of Highway 95. An estimated 100 horses and 100 burros would be 

removed (i.e., captured and relocated outside of the planning area) from this area. 

4.6 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Primary impacts to wildland fire ecology can be characterized as those actions that limit or 

enhance the ability to suppress fire. Most fires within the planning area are human caused fires 

which merit full suppression tactics. Wildland fires are infrequent in upland desert, but are more 

common within the riparian zone. Neither of these areas are fire adapted. The riparian zone has 

been drastically altered by the presence of dams and water delivery, and the riparian vegetation 

has been altered and has uncharacteristically volatile fuel. Management objectives include 

meeting air quality standards. Meeting air quality standards limits the amount of prescribed 

burning in the planning area. Every prescribed fire requires an approved prescribed burn plan 

that lists predetermined prescription criteria for weather and fuel conditions. The plan also 

includes smoke management criteria, which are important to determining the complexity of the 

prescribed fire. These criteria define measures that would be taken to reduce smoke impacts on 

sensitive receptors from prescribed fire. ADEQ must approve all prescribed fires before being 

implemented. State air quality regulations enforced by ADEQ meet or exceed Federal standards. 

Management objectives also include meeting WUI goals and reducing hazardous fuels in the 

planning area. WUI strategies and the fuels reduction program would continue to result in 

beneficial impacts to communities surrounding public lands by reducing the risk of wildfires that 

could result in property loss and provide for public and firefighter safety. 

4.6.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

No impacts to fire management have been identified as a result of management actions for the 

following resources: paleontological resources, special designations, lands managed to maintain 

wilderness characteristics, wild horse and burro management, and VRM. 

Page 4-42 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

A. INCREASED FIRE RISK 

1. From Livestock Grazing Management 

Removal of forage by livestock, especially removal of light fuels in the form of grasses and 

forbs, can reduce the potential of a site to carry fire and result in fewer fires of lower intensity or 

lower rates of spread. A history of grazing, especially improper grazing, can convert ecological 

types. Conversion of grasslands or ecological types with naturally high grass components to 

types with higher woody species can result in lower fire frequencies but higher fire intensities 

when these converted types do burn. In these cases, wildfires might not burn as often, but the 

likelihood of a catastrophic fire increases. 

Livestock grazing in the Sonoran and other western desert ecosystems has led to rapid invasion 

of Mediterranean annual grasses and forbs, most notably Sahara mustard and Mediterranean 

grass (Schismus spp.), which have increased the fire frequency in ecosystems where the natural 

vegetation is not fire-adapted. The potential outcome of this invasion is the possibility of creating 

a fire-dependent plant community consisting mainly of nonnative invasive annual plants, and the 

eventual loss of native desert vegetation in those places. 

In desertscrub and other desert plant communities, wildfires depend on large volumes of 

ephemeral annual grass and forb production, generally after winters with above-average 

precipitation. Livestock operators commonly apply for increased livestock numbers to take 

advantage of abundant forage. In years where the amount of ephemeral production is marginal, 

high livestock numbers can reduce the potential of large fires. In years with extraordinary 

ephemeral production (perhaps one year in 10), livestock would not affect fire potential. 

2. From Lands and Realty Management 

The land tenure adjustment proposal under all alternatives might affect fire management, 

depending on the post-disposal land use conversion. If disposal leads to development, human 

population in the area and visitor use on adjacent public lands could increase. This growth could 

increase the potential for accidental human-caused fire starts. Developing these parcels would 

also do the following: 

 Expand the WUI, 

 Potentially increase fire suppression complexity and costs, and 

 Increase the risk of public loss of life or property in the event of a wildfire. 

Impacts from land disposal, under all alternatives, could include redistributing the overall 

Federal land ownership and consolidating Federal lands into more contiguous management 

blocks. This disposal could reduce fire suppression and management responsibilities and increase 

their effectiveness. Suppression costs could decrease. Management would be more contiguous 

across the landscape (not broken by parcels of non-BLM ownership) with a resultant increase in 

the efficiency of operations. 

Depending on post-disposal land use, all alternatives could affect both fire suppression and fuels 

conditions. Continued wildland uses and management would probably have negligible impacts. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-43 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

But conversion to development uses would increase human populations and change ignition 

potential, fire behavior, and risk decisions. 

Continued use of the existing ROW Corridors and potential reasonable foreseeable development 

within corridors is expected to temporarily affect fuels and fire because of ground disturbance 

and increased opportunities for ignition during operation and maintenance. Building more 

utilities, transportation corridors, and communications sites could affect fire by increasing 

opportunities for accidental human-caused ignition. More improvements and structures would do 

the following: 

 Affect suppression and costs by placing on the ground more features that could require 

protection from a wildfire; 

 Present more hazards, such as flight hazards from overhead power lines or explosion hazards 

of buried gas pipelines; and 

 Create restrictions to prescribed burning. 

3. From Recreation Management 

Areas with more potential development and recreation use could affect fire management by 

increasing the risk of accidental human-caused ignitions. Increased visitation, camping, and 

OHV use increases potential for cigarettes, campfires, and sparks emitted by OHVs to ignite 

fires. 

4. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

The presence of threatened and endangered species and high value riparian habitat would limit 

the applicability of fuels reduction treatments which in turn increase the risk of wildfire in these 

areas due to uncharacteristically high and volatile fuel loads. 

5. From Public Health and Safety 

International Border issues such as illegal immigration, illegal drug trafficking, and associated 

crime results in increased potential of human caused fire. This in turn raises the risk to personal 

firefighter safety. 

B. LIMITATIONS TO FIRE SUPPRESSION TACTICS 

1. From Cultural Resource Management 

Protecting some cultural resources results in fire managers using MIST during suppression that 

might affect cultural resources. When implementing MIST, fire managers use the fewest fire 

suppression resources, and least-impacting tools and equipment to effectively manage and 

suppress fire, while (1) meeting fire management protection and resource objectives and (2) 

minimizing the impact to cultural resources and the landscape. Examples of MIST used by fire 

managers include the following: 

 Limiting fire vehicles to established routes, 

Page 4-44 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

 Burning out from existing roads, trails, and natural breaks, and 

 Placing fire lines and retardant lines away from known cultural sites. 

MIST applies indirect attack strategies more often than direct attack strategies. Where areas are 

not surveyed, cultural sites could be unintentionally damaged, especially flammable structures. 

Mitigation measures taken by fire managers to protect cultural sites in suppression and 

prescribed fire would reduce the known and unknown impacts to cultural resources. The 

expected results include more area burned by wildfires and increased suppression costs. In 

prescribed fires, protecting cultural resources results in the following measures: 

 Relocating planned firelines, 

 Adjusting the size of burnblocks, 

 Mitigating adverse effects by removing vegetation around cultural sites to protect them, and 

 Determining where prescribed fires might or might not be planned from known cultural 

resources. 

Such measures would have the following results: 

 Increasing project costs to protect cultural sites. 

 Spending more time and cost in planning. 

 Excluding some areas from burning because of the presence of cultural resources. 

2. From Travel Management 

Closing roads within Closed OHV Management Areas could affect fire management by reducing 

access to fires by ground initial attack resources (i.e., on-the-ground personnel and equipment). 

This reduction would have the following impacts: 

 Increased initial attack response time, 

 Limited access to fires, 

 Fewer routes to use as firelines, 

 Larger fires (more acres burned), and 

 Increased fire suppression costs. 

3. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Protecting endangered and threatened wildlife species results in fire managers complying with 

the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities (Appendix 2-C). The limitations 

provided for under the Conservation Measures could limit the efficiency in which fire managers 

are able to suppress fire. Conservation Measures would be followed, unless firefighter or public 

safety, protection of property, improvements, or natural resources render them infeasible during 

a particular operation. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-45 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

C. BENEFICIAL/ENHANCEMENT 

1. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Vegetation resource management would provide beneficial impacts to wildfire management 

under most circumstances and alternatives within this RMP. The planning area is a non-fire use 

area, defined as an area that is not historically fire dependant, and where wildfires are suppressed 

and not allowed to burn to treat vegetation. Historic and native vegetation in the area is not fire 

dependant, and naturally caused wildfires were very infrequent. Vegetation treatments proposed 

under all alternatives would reduce hazardous fuel loads. Prescribed fire would reduce risk and 

potential intensity of a wildfire where these fuel treatments are applied. Restoration efforts to 

remove undesired and exotic-invasive plant communities would decrease the volatility of fuels, 

reducing the frequency of wildfires. 

2. From Lands and Realty Management 

ROWs, leases, permits, and other land use authorizations inadvertently create fuel breaks and 

provide access routes for wildfire suppression. Federal regulations specific to authorizations 

reduces the potential threat of accidental ignition of wildfires during construction or 

maintenance. 

4.6.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

Wildland fire management would be implemented in a similar manner under each of the 

alternatives. 

A. FROM TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

The number of routes available would be designated in the Travel Management Plan; however, 

Alternative A would provide the greatest amount of access to existing routes providing access to 

firelines. Alternative D provides the least amount of limited access to existing routes and the 

lowest potential providing access to firelines. Alternatives B, C, and the Proposed Plan provide 

slightly less potential than Alternative A. Potential impacts to fire suppression capabilities are 

expected to be minor even after the route designation process is completed because the YFO 

Manager maintains the authority to allow cross-country vehicle travel in emergency situations. 

4.6.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The presence of cultural and natural resources which afford protection and human habitation, 

such as recreation areas and WUI may be impacted during fire suppression. 

The presence of all cultural and natural resources and the human environment limits the ability to 

suppress wildland fire. Firefighter safety is of paramount importance. The impacts of these 

resources on the fire program are unavoidable and sometimes adverse. 

Page 4-46 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.6.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

No proposals would result in an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. 

4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources (also referred to as heritage resources) are subject to numerous impacts. For 

the purposes of this document, adverse impacts can be characterized as those that result in the 

loss, degradation, or destruction of NRHP-listed or eligible cultural properties (sites or districts), 

traditional cultural properties, or cultural landscapes. 

Since heritage resources are finite and non-renewable, avoidance of impacts is always preferred, 

but other mitigation can reduce and resolve adverse effects to significant cultural properties. The 

Management and Administrative Actions described for Cultural Resources in Chapter 2 are 

included to reduce or offset adverse impacts to cultural resources. 

The analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources, both adverse and beneficial, was based on 

a review of existing literature and the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. 

Literature and data sources include but are not limited to the following: 

 Arizona statewide database for cultural resources, 

 California Historic Resources Inventory System, 

 Arizona Site Steward Program monitoring data, 

 Information from Native American consultations and ethnographic reports, 

 Bare Bones Guide to Fire Effects on Cultural Resources (Winthrop 2004), 

 Comprehensive Management and Use Plan and Final EIS for the Anza NHT (USDOI NPS 

1996), 

 Gila River Cultural Area ACEC Management Plan (USDOI BLM 1990b), and 

 Big Marias Cultural RMP (USDOI BLM 1984). 

BLM land use decisions that authorize surface disturbing activities may result in adverse impacts 

to cultural resources. Resources could be disturbed, exposed, or lost during these activities. 

Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and other applicable cultural resource laws and 

regulations would be completed before implementing specific projects resulting from RMP 

decisions. Examples of ground-disturbing actions that would need project-specific NEPA and/or 

compliance with cultural resource laws and regulations include proposed communications sites, 

ROW Corridors, community pits, Open OHV Management Areas, habitat restoration, water 

catchments, range improvements, and others. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-47 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.7.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential impacts (direct and indirect) to cultural resources are categorized below into 

loss/destruction, degradation, or beneficial impacts to important cultural resources. 

A. LOSS/DESTRUCTION 

1. From Vegetation Resources Management 

Direct impacts from prescribed fire would include damage or destruction of sites and associated 

artifacts; destruction of organic materials such as bone, plant, and animal fibers, and wooden 

elements of structures; and destruction or chemical alteration in materials used to date sites, such 

as charcoal. Prescribed burns would be expected to have less severe effects on cultural resources 

than would uncontrolled wildfire, because it is possible to determine the predicted temperature 

and duration of a fire through an area, and possibly to modify burn plans to minimize effects to 

cultural resources (Winthrop 2004). 

2. From Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Impacts from fire suppression activities would vary depending on the mechanical and/or 

chemical suppression methods used. Impacts from mechanical fire suppression activities would 

include potential destruction of artifacts and other materials, and the disturbance of site context 

and loss of scientific value of individual sites. This has more potential to destroy sites or artifacts 

than either wildland fire or prescribed burns. Within SCRMAs, ACECs, or areas with other 

protective allocations, MIST on wildfires would minimize these adverse impacts to cultural 

resources. 

3. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Range and wildlife improvements in the planning area mainly consist of water resource 

development projects and fencing. These undertakings tend to alter travel patterns of big game 

animals, wild horses and burros, and livestock. Modification in travel patterns could result in the 

destruction or displacement of surface artifacts, causing loss of site context, disturbance or 

destruction of features (such as intaglios), and similar adverse impacts to cultural resources. 

4. From Livestock Grazing Management 

Some residual cultural resource values could be lost, after mitigation, within grazing allotments 

where cattle trail or congregate. Destruction or displacement of surface artifacts may result from 

concentrated use by cattle, causing loss of site context, disturbance or destruction of features 

(such as intaglios), and similar impacts from cattle trailing or congregating. 

5. From Travel Management 

Despite the fact that identified Open OHV Management Areas must be completely surveyed for 

the presence of cultural resources, there would still be the potential of sub-surface resources 

being disturbed, exposed, or lost within these areas. 

Page 4-48 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

6. From Lands and Realty Management 

In general, establishing specific ROW Corridors encourages project applicants to place utility 

lines in certain confined areas. Confining utilities to corridors helps to avoid impacts to cultural 

sites in other areas. However, ROW Corridors are proposed in known areas of high sensitivity 

for cultural resources. According to mitigation included in Chapter 2, if land use actions cannot 

be redesigned to avoid culturally sensitive locations, BLM would be required to minimize direct 

and indirect impacts to cultural resources, including those within SCRMAs allocated to 

traditional use or conservation for future use, pursuant to applicable cultural resource laws and 

regulations. 

While site-specific survey, evaluation, and mitigation would be completed prior to any disposal 

or R&PP lease, some residual cultural resource values would be lost, after mitigation, if cultural 

resources are present within lands that leave Federal ownership. 

B. DEGRADATION 

1. From Special Designations 

The Anza Trail passes through the planning area along the Gila River. There are numerous 

archaeological sites along this route. The route has been designated, but the actual footprint has 

not yet been identified through the planning area. Once established, this route would eventually 

increase visitation to the trail itself and its associated archaeological sites. Impacts to sites would 

be mitigated through increasing public interpretation along the trail and site monitoring. 

National Byways in the planning area were proposed in recognition of the scenic, historic, 

recreational, cultural, archaeological, and/or natural qualities along these routes, and in an 

attempt to manage increased visitor use. The designation may increase public awareness of the 

heritage resources along these routes and thereby increase the potential for site vandalism and 

artifact collection. This is offset by increased public interpretation which encourages a 

stewardship ethic. 

2. From Recreation Management 

Potential adverse impacts to significant cultural resources may occur as a result of SRMA and 

RMZ allocations and subsequent management for them. Increased visitation to areas with 

cultural artifacts has resulted in increased collection and vandalism of cultural resources. The 

Destination SRMA allocation in particular could increase visitor use of these areas, leading to 

surface disturbance, unauthorized artifact collecting, and other depreciative behavior. 

3. From Visual Resource Management 

VRM classes and actions proposed under all alternatives could affect qualities that contribute to 

the eligibility of cultural resource sites for nomination to the NRHP. These qualities include 

integrity of setting (which refers to the level of disturbance to the physical environment 

surrounding a site), and integrity of feeling (which refers to a site’s expression of the aesthetic or 

historic sense of a particular period of time). The alternatives in Chapter 2 provide for the 

maintenance of view sheds of important cultural resources whose settings contribute 

significantly to their scientific, public, traditional, or conservation values. VRM classifications 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-49 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

specify the extent of future development allowed in the area. These designations can therefore 

preserve the aesthetic quality, while consequently preserving the cultural resources of an area. 

4. From Cultural Resource Management 

Allocation of cultural sites and/or SCRMAs to the Public Use category would lead to increased 

visitation and thereby increase the potential for damage to existing cultural sites from 

depreciative behavior. There are no SCRMAs allocated to Public Use under any of the 

alternatives; however, individual sites within SCRMAs may be managed for Public Use if they 

meet the criteria outlined in Chapter 2 for that allocation. Public Use sites identified currently 

within the YFO include the Blythe Intaglios Complex in the Big Marias ACEC, the Dripping 

Springs site, the Fisherman Intaglio, the Sears Point ACEC interpretive area, the Tyson Wash 

Petroglyphs, and historic trails such as the Anza Trail, the Butterfield Overland Mail Route, the 

Gila Trail, and the Mormon Battalion Trail. In order to protect these sites, Chapter 2 stipulates 

that BLM must map and document cultural properties before interpretive development for public 

use and implement appropriate developments necessary for site protection and interpretation. In 

addition, as protection for the public use sites (Blythe Intaglios, Sears Point, Dripping Springs, 

and historic trail corridors) contained inside ACEC proposals, Chapter 2 states that BLM would 

not formally publicize ACECs for public use, until the cultural resources have been adequately 

recorded and protected for visitation. 

5. From Travel Management 

Unauthorized cross-country travel can inadvertently damage sites from surface disturbance or 

provide vehicular access to previously remote areas, which may result in artifact collection, 

breakage, displacement, vandalism, and looting. 

Parking off of inventoried routes for purposes of camping has the potential to damage cultural 

resources from compaction, artifact breakage, and displacement, resulting in loss of scientific 

data. Continued use of inventoried routes in areas of high site density may increase the potential 

for vandalism and damage to cultural resources. 

When hikers, bikers, and equestrian users stray from established trails, adverse impacts may 

occur to indigenous cultural resources like intaglios, cleared areas in the desert pavement, and 

trail networks. Bikes and horses in particular have the potential to cause adverse impacts to 

cultural resources that are located on sensitive soils. 

6. From Mineral Resource Management 

Mining and exploration activities defined as casual use and exploration activities disturbing less 

than five acres typically do not require mining plans. It is more difficult to monitor and mitigate 

the effects of these activities on cultural resources or the effects of associated activities such as 

camping. 

Page 4-50 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

C. BENEFICIAL 

1. From Special Designations 

Potential benefits to cultural resources are likely to occur as a result of BLM special 

designations. Management guidance and directions for designated Wilderness, NHTs, NRTs, 

National Byways and ACECs would provide benefits to cultural resources from restricting 

certain degrading activities and practices. See Table 2-1 for acreages of these 

allocations/designations by alternative. 

Heritage sites that are located within ACECs would have additional protection from impacts that 

could be caused by mineral extraction. Chapter 2 specifies that protection of resource values 

would take precedence over leaseable/locatable materials. If an area is not withdrawn from 

mineral entry, special mitigation would be required to avoid impacts to resources. All locatable 

mineral actions would require an approved Mining Plan of Operations in accordance with BLM 

Manual 3809 regulations. Leasable mineral exploration and development would be evaluated on 

a case-by-case basis. In addition, new mineral material disposal (salable mineral) sites would not 

be authorized inside ACECs. Existing material sites would be evaluated and closed if found to be 

impacting significant resources. 

All Wilderness Areas in the planning area are statutorily closed to motorized equipment and 

mechanized transport use and are withdrawn from mineral entry, except for valid existing rights. 

Field observations suggest that these restrictions result in fewer visitations and fewer impacts to 

heritage resources from the visitation. 

2. From Vegetative Resource Management 

Reducing the fuel load near heritage sites provides the beneficial effect of reducing the chance of 

wildfires impacting those important heritage sites. 

3. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Management directions for proposed WHAs, as identified in Table 2-6, would benefit plant and 

wildlife species and could also provide coincidental benefits to cultural resources, since the 

WHAs have associated management actions that restrict ground-disturbing activities. 

4. From Livestock Grazing Management 

Making areas unavailable to livestock grazing and reducing livestock numbers would be 

beneficial to cultural resources by preventing trampling of cultural resources and preventing 

impacts from livestock rubbing against rock art. 

5. From Recreation Management 

SRMAs and RMZs have been proposed to identify and enhance targeted recreational 

opportunities and experiences. There is a potential for beneficial impacts to significant cultural 

resources as a result of these allocations and subsequent management for them. The Blythe 

Intaglios, Dripping Springs, and Sears Point Heritage RMZs would be primarily managed to 

provide the public with sustainable cultural resource viewing opportunities. The Heritage RMZs 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-51 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

would be managed to enhance the preservation and interpretation of cultural resource values in 

these areas. 

6. From Travel Management 

Limiting OHV travel to inventoried routes until the route designation process is complete would 

provide a clearly delineated travel network, reduce route proliferation, and facilitate law 

enforcement. This approach generally would have the beneficial effect of controlling impacts of 

OHV use on cultural resources. 

Use of non-motorized trails by the public for hiking, biking, and equestrian use would have the 

potential to reduce impacts to cultural resources if users restricted their activities to the identified 

trails. In SCRMAs and ACECs, vehicles would be restricted to the existing routes, and would not 

be allowed to pull off 100 feet to either side. This would provide additional protection reducing 

impacts to cultural resources. 

7. From Cultural Resource Management 

Allocation of certain cultural sites and/or SCRMAs to the Public Use category would increase 

public surveillance of important heritage sites and increase public stewardship of cultural 

resources in the planning area. 

Areas proposed for allocation as SCRMAs, as identified in Table 2-29, would be managed such 

that short-term and/or long-term benefits to cultural resources would also occur. 

For cultural sites and SCRMAs allocated to Traditional or Conservation for Future Use, BLM 

would be required to minimize direct and indirect impacts to cultural values pursuant to 

applicable cultural resource laws and regulations if land use actions cannot be redesigned to 

avoid culturally sensitive locations. In addition, BLM would reduce or eliminate indirect impacts 

from land uses on important cultural resources, and maintain viewsheds of important cultural 

resources whose settings contribute significantly to their scientific, public, traditional, or 

conservation values. 

8. From Lands and Realty Management 

Land acquisitions provide additional protection for cultural resources because those lands would 

then be subject to Federal cultural resource laws and regulations. Land acquisitions would 

therefore have a beneficial effect on any cultural resources that exist within the acquired 

property. Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan include criteria for acquisition that would 

enhance management of significant cultural resources. These alternatives include acquisition of 

properties adjacent to public lands that contain significant cultural resources including, but not 

limited to, properties eligible for inclusion to the NRHP. 

Reclamation lands, Wilderness, and portions of proposed ACECs are currently withdrawn or 

proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry, which would provide additional protection for 

cultural resource sites. 

Page 4-52 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.7.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

Table 4-8 shows a comparison of the alternatives for the number of acres of ground disturbance 

that have a potential to adversely affect cultural resources and the number of acres of 

designations and allocations that have a potential to benefit cultural resources. 

Table 4-8 

Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources 

Loss/Degradation 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

Adverse Impacts 

Back Country Byways 0 220 76 0 21 

Communications Sites 200 300 300 200 300 

Community Pits 100 800 400 100 700 

Land Disposals 19,100 46,900 10,500 8,200 11,900 

Livestock Grazing 

(Acres Available) 1,005,600 680,900 428,300 0 428,300 

Open OHV Management 

Areas 400 3,800 2,400 400 400 

ROW Corridors 74,600 129,900 129,900 91,300 121,700 

Total Acres* 1,053,400 839,600 555,500 103,700 543,200 

Beneficial Impacts 

ACECs 6,700 6,700 28,900 491,900 28,900 

Closed OHV Management 

Areas (non-wilderness 1,200 3,200 3,500 66,000 5,100 

Wilderness (AZ/CA) 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 

Wilderness Characteristics 0 48,400 91,400 301,200 48,400 

Withdrawal acres (nonwilderness) 6,500 3,600 5,400 8,300 12,000 

Total Acres 178,100 227,800 293,400 696,900 204,100 

Note: Acreage totals include BLM-administered acres only 

* Non-overlapping total 

A. FROM SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

1. National Byways 

Currently there are no Back Country Byways or Scenic Byways in the planning area. Alternative 

A would therefore have no direct or indirect impacts on cultural resources from this designation. 

Alternative B proposed seven Back Country Byways (Plomosa, Gold Nugget, Brenda, Agua 

Caliente, Red Cloud, Clanton Hills, and Red Raven Loop). These designations would have the 

potential to impact more cultural sites than under all of the other alternatives. 

Alternative C proposes four Back Country Byways (Plomosa, Gold Nugget, Brenda, and Agua 

Caliente) and one Scenic Byway (Highway 95). These designations would have the potential to 

impact more cultural sites than Alternatives A and D, but less than Alternative B. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-53 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

No Back Country Byways were proposed in Alternative D. The impacts under Alternative D 

would be the same as Alternative A. 

The Proposed Plan proposes two Back Country Byways (Agua Caliente and Plomosa) and one 

Scenic Byway (Highway 95). These designations would have the potential to impact more 

cultural sites than Alternatives A and D, but fewer than Alternatives B and C. 

2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Alternative C and the Proposed Plan identified three areas for ACEC designation, totaling 28,900 

acres. All of these areas (Sears Point, Dripping Springs, and Big Marias ACECs) were 

specifically identified in part to protect important cultural resources. Cultural sites within the 

ACECs would be afforded enhanced protection under ACEC management actions which limit 

development and degrading activities to the environment. Each ACEC under these alternatives 

contains an important public use site, with accompanying management prescriptions which 

balance the protection of cultural resource values with proposed interpretive development in 

Chapter 2. In addition, the ACEC designation would provide additional protection for sites 

allocated to the scientific, traditional, and conservation for future use categories. 

Alternatives A and B have only two designated ACECs (Sears Point and Big Marias ACECs), 

comprising 6,700 acres. Management actions under these alternatives provide protection for two 

important public use sites and many other known significant cultural resource sites that are 

allocated to other appropriate uses. These alternatives provide the least amount of protection for 

significant cultural resources as a result of ACEC designation. 

Alternative D identified seven areas for ACEC designation (Big Marias, Dripping Springs, Gila 

River Terraces and Trails, Limitrophe, Palomas Plain, Sears Point, and Walters Camp) totaling 

491,900 acres. These alternatives would protect several public use sites (Dripping Springs, Sears 

Point, Blythe Intaglios, and the Anza Trail and other historic trail corridors), the Limitrophe 

corridor along the Colorado River identified by Native Americans as having traditional use 

values, and many known sites that are allocated to the conservation for future use category. 

These alternatives provide the highest level of protection for cultural resources as a result of 

ACEC designation. 

B. FROM LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT 

Alternative A would keep 1,005,600 acres and Alternative B would propose 680,900 acres of the 

planning area available for livestock grazing which contain the greatest number of known 

cultural sites. Impacts to cultural resources would be expected to be the greatest under these 

alternatives. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would make 428,300 acres of the planning area 

available for livestock grazing which contain considerably fewer known cultural sites. Impacts to 

cultural resources under these alternatives would be expected to be greater under these 

alternatives than Alternative D, but fewer than under Alternatives A and B. Alternative D 

proposes that the entire area managed by the YFO would be unavailable for grazing. This 

alternative would have the least impacts on cultural resources from livestock grazing. 

Page 4-54 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

C. FROM RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

All alternatives except Alternative A would allocate SRMAs and RMZs to identify and enhance 

targeted recreational opportunities and experiences. Different marketing strategies would vary by 

SRMA. In Destination SRMAs, YFO would proactively seek to form partnerships to promote 

recreational opportunities within the SRMA as a national destination. This increase in promotion 

would likely result in an increasing number of public users in these areas over time. Higher 

number of visitors creates a greater risk for cultural resources in these areas to be either 

intentionally or unintentionally damaged or destroyed. Alternative B would result in the greatest 

potential impact to cultural resources with 697,100 acres identified within Destination SRMAs, 

while Alternative D, with 250,500 acres of Destination SRMAs, would have the least potential to 

impact cultural resources. There are 455,700 acres identified as Destination SRMAs in the 

Proposed Plan, within the Colorado River corridor and La Posa area. 

Generally, it is expected that fewer people would be visiting Undeveloped SRMAs, so there 

would be fewer impacts to cultural resources in these areas. Acreages for Undeveloped SRMAs 

range from 0 acres in Alternative B to 642,700 acres in Alternative D. The Proposed Plan 

proposes 571,600 acres of undeveloped SRMAs in the Gila River valley and Yuma East areas. 

While fewer people are expected to be recreating in these undeveloped areas, there would be less 

of an administrative presence to deter the damage or destruction of cultural sites. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the Sears Point, Dripping Springs, and Blythe Intaglios Heritage RMZs 

overlap with Public Use cultural sites in proposed ACECs. The recreation management objective 

for these RMZs is to ensure that heritage-based recreation does not negatively impact the 

resource values of the proposed ACECs. Managing recreation to ensure protection of ACEC 

values would benefit important cultural resources in these Public Use areas. 

D. FROM TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

1. Open OHV Management Areas 

Alternatives B would designate 3,800 acres as open to OHV use which is the greatest among the 

alternatives, while Alternative C would designate 2,400 acres as open areas. Alternatives A, D, 

and the Proposed Plan have the fewest number of acres designated open, with 400 acres for each 

alternative. In these areas, visitors would not be restricted to inventoried and/or designated routes 

(see Table 4-1). 

2. Additional Mitigation 

If there is an important cultural site identified within an Open OHV Management Area that is 

eligible to the NRHP, and impacts on that cultural site cannot be sufficiently avoided or 

mitigated, then the area would not be appropriate for open area designation. Instead, the area 

would be limited to inventoried routes until the route designation process is complete. 

3. Closed OHV Management Areas 

Approximately 167,800 acres of designated Wilderness is statutorily closed to motorized use 

under all alternatives. Additionally, Alternative D would close 66,000 acres; Alternative B would 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-55 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

close 3,200 acres; Alternative C would close 3,500 acres; Alternative A would close 1,200 acres; 

and the Proposed Plan would close 5,100 acres. Closing areas with extensive cultural resources 

to OHV use would benefit the cultural resource sites in terms of reduced direct and indirect 

impacts. The Closed OHV Management Areas located in the Sears Point ACEC, the Dripping 

Springs ACEC, and the Muggins Mountains SCRMA that are included in Alternative D and the 

Proposed Plan would have a direct beneficial impact to the cultural resources in those areas. 

All alternatives prohibit cross-country travel except in Open OHV Management Areas. 

Alternative A would limit OHV use to existing routes. Under Alternatives B, C, D, and the 

Proposed Plan, OHV use on BLM-administered lands would be limited to existing inventoried 

routes until the route designation process is complete. The current inventory includes 4,600 miles 

of roads, trails, and linear features. In general, the allowable use of these routes would be a 200-

foot-wide corridor (100-feet from centerline), so that there would be some potential for impacts 

to cultural sites situated within that 101,500-acre area, such as tire damage to a desert pavement 

feature like an intaglio. The amount of damage to cultural sites from vehicles pulling up to 100 

feet off of inventoried routes is expected to be greater in areas with a high density of cultural 

sites, such as within ACECs and SCRMAs. The Proposed Plan provides the greatest protection 

for cultural sites by restricting vehicles to existing inventoried routes until designated, and not 

allowing vehicles to pull off of those routes within ACECs and SCRMAs. The number of 

eligible sites that might be impacted under the five alternatives is unknown. 

E. FROM VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

Alternative D has the greatest number of acres designated to VRM Classes I and II, with 192,400 

and 624,800 acres respectively, for a total of 817,200 acres (see Table 2-26). This alternative 

would result in the protection of the visual setting for the greatest number of cultural resource 

sites because VRM class designations limit the type of development, which also would prevent 

construction and direct damage to resources from occurring in VRM Class I and II areas 

especially. The remaining alternatives, from most protective to least protective, are the Proposed 

Plan with 786,400 acres of Class I and II, Alternative C with 728,900 acres of Class I and II, 

Alternative B with 709,600 acres of Class I and II, and Alternative A with only 183,000 acres of 

Class I and II. 

In general, SCRMAs would be located inside VRM Class II areas; however, among the different 

alternatives the Cibola Valley, Laguna Mountains, Ligurta Area, Limitrophe, Mittry Lake, 

Muggins Mountains, North Gila Mountains, and Senator Wash SCRMAs would be either 

partially or entirely within VRM Class III (see Table 4-9). SCRMAs located within VRM Class I 

and II have a greater potential for retention of their current visual settings and would provide the 

greatest protection of cultural resources from loss, degradation, and vandalism. 

Page 4-56 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-9 

SCRMAs within VRM Classes by Alternative 

SCRMA 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

Big Maria Terraces N/A I / II I / II I / II 

Cibola Valley N/A III III III 

Laguna Mountains N/A II / III II / III II / III 

Ligurta Area N/A III III III 

Limitrophe N/A III 

Mittry Lake N/A III II III 

Muggins Mountains N/A II / III II / III II / III II / III 

North Gila Mountains N/A II / III II / III II / III 

Palo Verde Point Area N/A II II II II 

Sears Point Mesas N/A II 

Senator Wash North N/A II / III II / III II / III 

Walters Camp N/A II II 

I = Class I VRM; II = Class II VRM; III = Class III VRM 

F. FROM LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT 

1. Disposals 

There would be no lands identified for disposal within SCRMAs under any of the alternatives. 

Only two to six percent of the proposed disposal areas between alternatives have been surveyed 

for cultural resources. Additional cultural sites are expected to occur within the unsurveyed 

portions of the identified lands. All lands identified for disposal are required to be surveyed prior 

to a final decision to leave Federal ownership. Lands with significant cultural findings are likely 

to be maintained in Federal ownership. All but a few of the known cultural sites on lands 

identified for disposal are located in the vicinity of the Town of Quartzsite. Alternative B has the 

greatest number of lands identified for disposal and would have the greatest number of known 

cultural sites affected among the alternatives. 

2. ROW Corridors 

The amount of previous cultural resources survey within proposed ROW Corridors varies from 

nine to 10 percent between the alternatives. Among the five alternatives, Alternative A, with 

approximately 445 known sites within existing ROW Corridors, would impact the fewest known 

cultural sites (Table 4-10). Alternatives B and C each have approximately 1,128 cultural sites 

recorded within the proposed ROW Corridors. Alternative D has 700 sites and the Proposed Plan 

has approximately 1,086 cultural sites recorded within the proposed ROW Corridors. In addition, 

Table 4-11 shows that proposed ROW Corridors overlap with proposed SCRMAs in Alternatives 

B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan. Of the four SCRMAs proposed under Alternative B, three of 

those SCRMAs intersect with ROW Corridors. Under Alternative C, seven of the 11 proposed 

SCRMAs intersect with ROW Corridors. Under Alternative D, three of the eight proposed 

SCRMAs intersect with ROW Corridors. The Proposed Plan has ROW Corridors overlapping 

with six of the 10 SCRMAs that are proposed under that alternative. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-57 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-10 

Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources from ROW Corridors by Alternative 

Element 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

Number of known cultural sites within 

ROW Corridors 

445 1,128 1,128 700 1,086 

NOTE: Numbers of sites shown in this table are approximate only and are intended to demonstrate general, 

relational differences between alternatives. Information in this table is based on data in the AZSITE database 

as of July 2005. Other cultural sites could potentially exist within these areas available for ROW Corridors. 

3. Communications Sites 

Alternatives with fewer communications sites would have fewer visual intrusions on the 

landscape that have the potential to adversely impact the visual setting of cultural resources. 

There are six existing designated communications sites under Alternative A. Under Alternative 

B, the number of designated communications sites in the planning area would increase to 13. 

Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan would include 11, eight, and 10 designated 

communications sites, respectively (see Table 4-2). For compliance with Section 106 of the 

NHPA, the two new proposed designated communications sites (Laguna Mountain High-Power 

communications site and Palo Verde Gap) under Alternatives B, C, and the Proposed Plan would 

need to be surveyed for cultural resources before they are available for use. If cultural resources 

are identified within these areas, impacts to these resources would need to be reduced or 

mitigated according to applicable cultural resource laws and regulations. Alternative B has the 

greatest potential to affect cultural resources, because this alternative proposes the greatest 

number of communications sites. 

Table 4-11 

SCRMAs Crossed by ROW Corridors by Alternative 

SCRMA 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

Big Maria Terraces N/A X X X 

Cibola Valley N/A 

Laguna Mountains N/A X X X 

Ligurta Area N/A X X X 

Limitrophe N/A 

Mittry Lake N/A X X 

Muggins Mountains N/A X X 

North Gila Mountains N/A X X X 

Palo Verde Point Area N/A X X X 

Sears Point Mesas N/A 

Senator Wash North N/A 

Walters Camp N/A 

Page 4-58 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

G. FROM MINERAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

1. Community Pits 

Under all alternatives there would be potential direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources 

from the implementation of community pits (Table 2-31). Alternative B and the Proposed Plan 

have the greatest number of acres identified for community pits, with 800 and 700 acres 

respectively. Under Alternative C, 400 acres are identified for community pits, and Alternatives 

A and D identify 100 acres of land. As stated in Chapter 2 Section 2.19, depending on the results 

of the site-specific NEPA evaluation, community pit proposals and acreages could be modified 

to reduce or eliminate direct impacts to cultural resources. If cultural resources cannot be 

avoided, they would be mitigated pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. Community pits have 

the potential to benefit cultural resources by focusing salable minerals activities, which would 

reduce impacts to cultural resources that are located elsewhere on the landscape. 

2. Withdrawals 

To provide protection for important heritage sites and other resource values, 9,100 acres of the 

proposed Sears Point, Big Marias, and Dripping Springs ACECs would be proposed for 

withdrawal from mineral entry under the Proposed Plan. Under Alternatives C and D, 5,400 

acres of the proposed Sears Point and Dripping Springs ACECs would be proposed for 

withdrawal from mineral entry. Under Alternatives A and B, 3,700 acres in the Sears Point 

ACEC, which is the existing withdrawal at Sears Point, would remain withdrawn (Table 4-2). 

The Big Marias ACEC designation would be recommended for withdrawal, if the current 

Reclamation withdrawal is revoked (2,900 acres). Some other Reclamation withdrawn lands in 

the planning area are First Form withdrawals, which are withdrawn from mineral location, 

providing increased protection to cultural resources. 

H. FROM WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS MANAGEMENT 

The BLM would seek to maintain existing opportunities to experience naturalness within lands 

that have been identified for wilderness characteristics management. The maintenance of 

naturalness on these public lands would be accomplished through the relocation, mitigation, or 

restoration of authorized surface-disturbing activities. These measures may result in indirect 

benefits to cultural resource values. Public lands that have been identified to maintain wilderness 

characteristics where indirect beneficial impacts to cultural resources may occur vary by 

alternative as follows: Alternative A, 0 acre; Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, 48,400 acres; 

Alternative C, 91,400 acres; and Alternative D, 301,200 acres. 

4.7.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts on cultural resources could occur as a result of natural events (e.g., 

wildfires, floods, etc.). These would primarily affect unknown sites and/or areas with high 

potential for cultural resources. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-59 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.7.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

Land disposals could result in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of cultural resources. 

Any action that reduces the integrity of cultural resources, particularly those important for 

scientific use, could result in an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of cultural resources. 

4.8 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Impacts to paleontological resources can be characterized as those designations or actions that 

result in loss, degradation, destruction, or benefits to vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences 

of invertebrate or plant fossils. Avoidance is the preferred method to prevent loss, but other 

mitigation can reduce and resolve adverse effects to significant localities, including records and 

literature searches, sampling or survey by a qualified paleontologist, or other types of 

paleontological research. Under all alternatives, adverse impacts to paleontological resources 

would be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent possible through Management Actions 

and BMPs. 

Literature and data sources for the analysis of potential impacts to paleontological resources 

include the following: 

 Policy and Position Statements, Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee (The 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2006); 

 Paleontological Resource Monitoring Strategies for the NPS (USDOI NPS 2003); and 

 Bare Bones Guide to Fire on Cultural Resources (Winthrop 2004). 

The Chapter 2 Paleontological Resources Management section includes an Administrative 

Action stating that BLM would develop a paleontology sensitivity map to delineate Class 1 (low 

sensitivity), 2 (moderate sensitivity), 3 (moderate sensitivity), and 4 (high sensitivity) lands in 

the planning area. All land use actions with a potential to impact vertebrate fossils or noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils would be screened against this map. Until this 

sensitivity map is created, there is greater likelihood for damage to paleontological resources 

from ground-disturbing actions and allocations, such as proposed communications sites, ROW 

Corridors, community pits, Open OHV Management Areas, habitat restoration, water 

catchments, range improvements, and others. 

4.8.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

The potential impacts (direct and indirect) to paleontological resources are categorized below as 

those resulting in loss/degradation or protection/beneficial. 

Page 4-60 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

A. LOSS/DEGRADATION 

1. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Manual forms of vegetation treatment have the potential to adversely impact the stability of 

paleontological resources and could result in exposure and loss (Koch and Santucci 2003). 

Fires could expose sensitive paleontological resources that may be subject to scorching or 

cracking. Prescribed fire may have adverse impacts on paleontological resources through 

potential destruction of materials, disturbance of sites, and loss of sites. Wildland fires would 

have a potential for more impacts than prescribed fire, because wildland fires tend to have 

greater intensities and durations. 

2. From Recreation Management 

Recreationists may adversely impact paleontological resources by exposure or damage during 

activities such as hiking, biking, OHV, and equestrian use, and recreational collection. In 

addition, fossil theft, vandalism, and intentional disturbance of paleontology sites by the public 

are a possible adverse impact (Koch and Santucci 2003). 

3. From Travel Management 

OHV use has the potential to adversely impact paleontological resources through damage to 

slopes, soils, and vegetation that could affect formations through directly destroying surface 

fossils, wearing down rock formations, or accelerating soil erosion. Areas allocated as Open 

OHV Management Areas would receive a higher level of use and would therefore be more 

susceptible to impacts on potentially occurring paleontological resources. The continued use of 

inventoried routes could result in impacts to paleontology if the routes occur in areas with high 

or moderate paleontological sensitivity. 

4. From Lands and Realty Management 

BLM land use authorizations that involve surface disturbing activities may result in adverse 

impacts to paleontological resources. Construction activities such as powerlines, pipelines, 

communications sites, and roads could result in destruction, degradation, and loss in areas with 

potential for paleontological resources (The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2006). 

Paleontological resources may occur on the lands identified for disposal under any of the 

alternatives. If disposal of lands with paleontological resources occurs, the disposal would result 

in a loss of these resources. 

5. From Mineral Resource Management 

Mining activities for the production of leasable and locatable minerals and excavation, and 

removal of salable mineral materials have the potential to disturb or destroy paleontological 

resources. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-61 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

B. PROTECTION/BENEFICIAL 

1. From Special Designations 

Management guidance and directions for special designations in BLM land use planning 

including those for designated Wilderness Areas and ACECs, as shown in Table 2-1, could also 

provide coincidental benefits to paleontological resources. 

2. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Management directions for proposed WHAs, as identified in Table 2-6, would benefit plant and 

wildlife species and could also provide coincidental benefits to paleontological resources. 

Conservation measures within WHAs and management actions to limit disturbance activities 

would also provide protection to any paleontological resources found within these areas. 

3. From Travel Management 

Closed OHV Management Areas would have coincidental beneficial impacts by protecting 

known and unknown paleontological resources from impacts of OHV use. 

Designation of areas as limited or closed to OHV use, and limiting OHV travel to inventoried 

routes until the route designation process is complete, would provide a clearly delineated travel 

network, reduce route proliferation, and facilitate law enforcement. This would generally have 

the beneficial impact of controlling impacts of OHV use on paleontological resources. 

4. From Visual Resource Management 

VRM Class I and II areas would have coincidental beneficial impacts by protecting known and 

unknown paleontological resources because there would be less development in these areas. 

5. From Cultural Resources Management 

Areas proposed as SCRMAs, as identified in Table 2-22, would be managed such that short-term 

and/or long-term benefits to paleontological resources would also be likely to occur. The 

emphasis to protect cultural values within SCRMAs would also provide protections to potential 

paleontological resources found within these areas. 

6. From Mineral Resources Management 

There are beneficial impacts to paleontological resources from mineral resource activities 

through discovery of fossils during exploration and extraction of minerals. 

7. From Wilderness Characteristics Management 

The BLM would seek to maintain existing opportunities to experience naturalness within lands 

that have been identified for wilderness characteristics management. The maintenance of 

naturalness on these public lands would be accomplished through the relocation, mitigation, or 

restoration of authorized surface-disturbing activities. These measures may result in indirect 

benefits to paleontological resource values. Public lands that have been identified to maintain 

wilderness characteristics where indirect beneficial impacts to paleontological resources may 

Page 4-62 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

occur vary by alternative as follows: Alternative A, 0 acre; Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, 

48,400 acres; Alternative C, 91,400 acres; and Alternative D, 301,200 acres. 

4.8.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

Table 4-12 shows a comparison of the alternatives for the number of acres of ground-disturbing 

activities that have a potential to adversely affect paleontological resources and the number of 

acres included in designations and allocations that have a potential to benefit paleontological 

resources. 

Table 4-12 

Proposed Activities Impacting Paleontological Resources by Alternative (acres) 

Loss/Degradation 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

Adverse Impacts 

Back Country Byways 0 220 76 0 21 

Communications Sites 200 300 300 200 300 

Community Pits 100 800 400 100 700 

Land Disposals 19,100 46,900 10,500 8,200 11,900 

Open OHV Management Areas 400 3,800 2,400 400 400 

ROW Corridors 74,600 129,900 129,900 91,300 121,700 

VRM Class III and IV 1,135,000 608,400 589,100 500,800 535,100 

Total Acres* 1,154,300 685,400 634,600 521,300 580,400 

Beneficial Impacts 

ACECs 6,700 6,700 28,900 491,900 28,900 

Closed OHV Management Areas 

(non-wilderness) 1,200 3,200 3,500 66,000 5,100 

SCRMAs 0 21,200 29,900 22,200 28,500 

VRM Class II 15,200 541,800 561,100 624,800 618,600 

WHAs 538,100 977,100 1,035,300 770,400 1,039,200 

Wilderness 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 

Wilderness Characteristics 0 48,400 91,400 301,200 48,400 

Withdrawal acres (nonwilderness) 6,500 3,600 5,400 8,300 12,000 

Total Acres* 591,100 1,006,400 1,078,500 1,026,900 1,064,900 

OHV = off-highway vehicle; SCRMA = Special Cultural Resource Management Area 

VHA = Vegetation Management Area; VRM = Visual Resource Management

*Non-overlapping total 

4.8.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts could occur as a result of natural events (e.g., wildfires, floods, 

etc.). Impacts could also occur from wildlife (primarily deer and bighorn sheep), livestock, wild 

horse, and burro behavior and travel patterns. These would primarily affect unknown sites and/or 

areas with high potential for paleontological resources. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-63 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.8.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

Land disposals could result in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of paleontological 

resources. Unknown paleontological resources could be located on disposed lands. 

4.9 VISUAL RESOURCES 

This section provides a discussion of the methodology and criteria used to assess impacts to 

visual resources that could occur as a result of implementing the alternatives. The assessment of 

impacts would utilize the Visual Contrast Rating component of the BLM’s VRM System. 

The overall goal of the BLM’s VRM system is to minimize visual impacts and ensure that 

measures are applied to mitigate potentially adverse visual impacts. The Visual Contrast Rating 

System is a formal process utilized by BLM to identify and analyze the potential visual impacts 

of projects and management-related activities. The basic analysis in this rating system focuses on 

the degree to which a project would contrast with the existing landscape causing adverse impacts 

to the aesthetic quality of the area.This depends on the visual contrast created between a given 

surface-disturbing activity and the existing landscape. Visual contrast is measured by comparing 

the project/activity’s features with the major features in the existing landscape. The basic design 

elements of form, line, color, and texture are used to make this comparison and describe the 

resulting visual contrast. 

The analysis of potential impacts to visual resources was based on review of existing literature 

and the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. Literature sources include but are not 

limited to the following: 

 BLM Manual Section 8400—VRM. BLM’s policy is that it has a basic stewardship 

responsibility to identify and protect visual values on all BLM lands. The manual provides 

specific direction in inventorying, evaluating, and determining impacts to visual resources. 

 Information Bulletin No. 98-135. 

 IM No. 98-164. 

4.9.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential impacts (direct and indirect) to visual resources are categorized below into 

enhancement/beneficial, loss, and degradation/alteration. Impacts from management actions and 

decisions would in effect be self-mitigating, in that the final approval of actions would be based 

on meeting the visual quality objectives of the VRM Class in which they take place. Design 

guidelines to avoid, minimize, or reduce visual impacts are included in Chapter 2, Section 2.13, 

BMPs. 

Page 4-64 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

A. LOSS 

1. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Vegetative treatments include thinning, mechanical removal, herbicide application, or 

conversion; management of non-native and invasive species in the Limitrophe Division of the 

lower Colorado River, revegetation and other landscape restoration efforts, riparian area 

management, fire management and fuels reduction. Vegetation treatment activities may result in 

short-term adverse impacts to visual resources until treatments take effect (temporary loss of 

vegetative cover). 

2. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Activities include development of wildlife waters, fences, forage enhancement for wildlife, and 

associated elements. These actions could result in an adverse alteration to the visual landscape 

unless designed to blend in with the surrounding landscape. 

3. From Travel Management 

Within designated Open OHV Management Areas, motorized travel is not limited to existing or 

inventoried routes, and visitors may travel cross-country wherever they choose. Increased soil 

disturbances and plant trampling would be expected within the entire acreage of proposed Open 

OHV Management Areas. This could affect visual resources by impacting the aesthetic quality of 

the on-site vegetation and desert landscape. 

4. From Lands and Realty Management 

Actions that may have an adverse impact to visual resources through the loss of vegetative cover 

and development of facilities include: agricultural leases; ROW use and development; ROW 

Corridor alignments, sites and associated structures; communications facility sites and associated 

structures; and siting, construction, and appearance of other facilities, signs, buildings and 

structures. 

Disposal of BLM lands would potentially have an adverse impact on visual resources depending 

on the use of land after it leaves Federal ownership. Disposal of VRM Class II lands could result 

in the conversion of areas of relatively high visual quality to land uses and associated impacts 

that would reduce the visual quality of those lands. This would be particularly true if the disposal 

lands were converted to land uses requiring mass grading. 

5. From Mineral Resource Management 

Potential mineral extraction or mining operation could cause adverse impacts to visual resources 

through the loss of vegetative cover and soils, as well as a modification to the natural topography 

and landscape of an area. Due to the harsh climatic conditions and lack of rainfall within the 

planning area, revegetation efforts are largely unsuccessful in upland desert environments, 

causing long-term impacts to visual resources. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-65 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

B. DEGRADATION/ALTERATION 

1. From Special Designations 

Potential adverse visual impacts could result from Back Country Byways because these 

designations could trigger increased use and associated surface disturbance and litter. However, 

Back Country Byways in the planning area would be located on previously existing roads or 

OHV routes and therefore would not alter the existing character of the landscape. 

Construction activities related to the installation of the proposed NRT extension, Anza Trail, and 

their associated trailhead facilities would cause temporary adverse impacts to visual resources. 

Continued maintenance of these trails and their trailheads would create permanent adverse 

impacts to visual resources. Use of standardized BMPs during construction and trail layout and 

design would strive to minimize impacts to visual resources as much as possible. 

2. From Recreation Management 

Concentrated visitor use of designated camping and day-use areas, along with the installation of 

recreation facilities and signs, could result in adverse impacts to visual resources of these areas. 

Impacts may include the loss of vegetative cover, increased litter, and increased vehicle and 

human presence. As the population in the planning area continues to increase, recreational 

activities on BLM-administered lands are also likely to increase, which would result in additional 

impacts to visual resources. 

3. From Lands and Realty Management 

Wind and solar energy generating facilities would only be authorized in VRM Classes III and IV. 

Construction associated with these activities would not impact VRM Classes I and II. 

C. ENHANCEMENT/BENEFICIAL 

1. From Special Designations 

Management actions (allowable uses) for special designations in BLM land use planning 

including those for designated Wilderness Areas, NHTs, NRTs, National Scenic Byways, and 

ACECs, as shown in Table 2-1, could also provide coincidental benefits to visual resources. No 

new Wilderness Areas would be proposed; existing Wilderness would continue to be managed 

under VRM Class I objectives. 

2. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Vegetative treatments would generally be implemented to restore or enhance the natural 

conditions of the public lands, and would have long-term beneficial impacts to visual resources 

independent of VRM designations. 

3. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Management directions for proposed WHAs would benefit plant and wildlife species and could 

also provide coincidental benefits to visual resources from limiting BLM-authorized actions that 

cause surface disturbances, which fragment or degrade habitat and aesthetic quality. 

Page 4-66 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4. From Travel Management 

Within designated Closed OHV Management Areas, no motorized travel would be allowable. 

Visual resources would be maintained or enhanced within the proposed Closed OHV 

Management Areas. 

5. From Cultural Resource Management 

The view sheds of important cultural resources would be maintained when the settings 

significantly contribute to the resources’ scientific, public, traditional, or conservation values. 

This management approach to cultural resources within the planning area would also have 

concurrent beneficial impacts to visual resources. 

Areas proposed for designation as SCRMAs would be managed such that benefits to visual 

resources would also occur because management actions for these designations limit or mitigate 

disturbance and modification of the landscape to maintain site context and aesthetic quality. 

6. From Wilderness Characteristics Management 

The BLM would seek to maintain existing opportunities to experience naturalness within lands 

that have been identified for wilderness characteristics management. The maintenance of 

naturalness on these public lands would be accomplished through the relocation, mitigation, or 

restoration of authorized surface-disturbing activities. These measures may result in the 

maintenance and/or improvement of visual resource values. Public lands that have been 

identified to maintain wilderness characteristics where indirect beneficial impacts to visual 

resource values may occur vary by alternative as follows: Alternative A, 0 acre; Alternative B 

and the Proposed Plan, 48,400 acres; Alternative C, 91,400 acres; and Alternative D, 301,200 

acres. 

4.9.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

The range in differences in potential impacts to visual resources is reflected by Table 4-13, 

which shows the number of acres that each alternative would designate to the four VRM Classes. 

The Proposed Plan comprises 786,300 acres as Classes I and II. This represents approximately 

60 percent of the planning area. 

Table 4-13 

VRM Land Use Designations by Alternative (acres) 

VRM Class 

Lands Actions by Alternative 

A B C D E 

I 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 167,800 

II 15,200 541,800 561,100 624,800 618,600 

III 1,135,000 552,300 567,500 496,400 512,400 

IV 0 56,100 21,600 4,400 19,200 

Total (acres) 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-67 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.9.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts would potentially occur as a result of uncontrollable natural events 

(e.g., floods and storm events) that create visual contrast levels exceeding the visual quality 

objectives of a given land area. 

Unavoidable impacts would potentially occur as a result of non-discretionary activities of 

cooperators or co-managers of BLM-administered lands. BLM and Reclamation co-manage 

public lands along the lower Colorado River. Reclamation is mandated to complete work within 

the Colorado River floodway as needed to ensure water delivery and flood protection. 

Reclamation’s actions which could adversely impact visual resources on these co-managed lands 

include maintaining the levee system, placing rip-rap boulders along the shoreline, quarrying 

construction materials from nearby pits, placing dredged sediments from the river in upland 

areas, and regulating the water levels within the river and Senator Wash Reservoir. 

4.10 WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

BLM IM No. 2003-275-Change 1 provides guidance for the analysis of impacts to lands 

identified by BLM as having wilderness characteristics. Any actions that have the potential to 

detract from the public’s ability to experience naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined 

recreation are considered impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The analysis of potential impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics was based on review of 

existing literature and the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. 

4.10.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential direct and indirect impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics are categorized 

below into those that may degrade or enhance opportunities to experience naturalness, solitude, 

and primitive and unconfined types of recreation. 

A. DEGRADATION 

1. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Non-native and invasive species treatments and wildland fire suppression and management 

activities all have the potential to temporarily detract from the public’s ability to experience 

naturalness and solitude within lands with wilderness characteristics. 

2. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

The construction of wildlife water catchments and wildlife forage enhancement projects would 

temporarily detract from the public’s ability to experience naturalness and solitude in lands with 

wilderness characteristics. These types of projects would not cause significant long-term impacts 

Page 4-68 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

to naturalness and solitude, either because they are temporary disturbances or because 

construction of the water catchments is designed to blend seamlessly into the existing landscape. 

3. From Recreation Management 

Increasing visitor use throughout the entire planning area decreases individuals’ ability to 

experience solitude in lands with wilderness characteristics. These impacts are more prominent 

during the cooler winter months, when there is an influx of winter visitors recreating throughout 

the planning area. The ability to experience solitude and naturalness are also decreased during 

hunting seasons, when there are generally more people discharging firearms throughout the 

planning area. 

4. From Travel Management 

Unpaved OHV routes minimally impact the naturalness of lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Existing OHV routes also increase the likelihood of meeting or hearing other public land visitors, 

which detracts from the public’s ability to experience solitude and naturalness. However, the 

routes provide essential access into these lands for the public to experience naturalness, solitude, 

and primitive and unconfined recreation. 

5. From Mineral Resource Management 

Potential mineral extraction or mining operation could cause adverse impacts to the public’s 

ability to experience naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation in lands with 

wilderness characteristics. These impacts would primarily come from the use of motorized and 

mechanized equipment and the creation of tailing piles, pits, access roads, and structures. These 

activities generally remove vegetation and surface soils, and increase noise, dust, and vehicular 

traffic in the immediate area of operations. These impacts would be mitigated through standard 

BMPs identified in Chapter 2. 

B. ENHANCEMENT/BENEFICIAL 

1. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Non-native and invasive species treatments and wildland fire suppression and management 

activities would be expected to provide long term beneficial impacts to the naturalness of lands 

with wilderness characteristics. 

2. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Compatible wildlife management activities within Wilderness Areas, including the maintenance 

and enhancement of existing wildlife water catchments, generally assist in preserving the 

Wilderness’ ecological values. In addition, wildlife water enhancement projects generally aim to 

naturalize the appearance of the catchments, which reduces man’s imprint and increases 

naturalness within wilderness. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-69 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.10.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

Differences in potential impacts to the public’s ability to experience naturalness, solitude, and 

primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities in lands with wilderness characteristics are 

quantified for each alternative as shown in Table 4-14. 

Table 4-14 

Lands Proposed to be Managed to Maintain Wilderness Characteristics 

Differences by Alternative (acres and miles) 

Element Alternative 

A B C D E 

Inventoried routes in lands with wilderness 

characteristics (miles) 0 32 80 469 32 

Roads per square mile in lands with wilderness 

characteristics (miles) 0 0.400 0.563 1.002 0.400 

Lands proposed to be managed to maintain 

wilderness characteristics (acres) 0 48,400 91,400 301,200 48,400 

ROW Corridors in lands with wilderness 

characteristics (acres) 0 0 0 3,600 0 

Lands with wilderness characteristics under 

Military Training Route Airspace (acres) 0 37,700 57,000 250,200 37,700 

A. FROM SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Under Alternative D, a substantial portion of the proposed lands with wilderness characteristics 

would overlap with the proposed Palomas Plain ACEC. This protective ACEC designation 

would compliment the maintenance and enhancement of naturalness and primitive types of 

unconfined recreation, and would benefit lands with wilderness characteristics. 

B. FROM VEGETATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

Treatment of non-native invasive species could affect the experiences found in lands managed 

for wilderness characteristics. For example, treatments are under consideration for Sahara 

mustard in sand dunes north of the Town of Quartzite. Under Alternative D, more parcels of land 

with wilderness characteristics contain non-native invasive species. 

C. FROM FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

The proposed Palomas Plain WHA would overlap with lands with wilderness characteristics 

under Alternatives B, C, and the Proposed Plan. The stated Desired Future Conditions of this 

WHA would generally compliment the maintenance and enhancement of naturalness, and would 

benefit lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under Alternatives C and D, additional lands were identified to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. The potential impacts to naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined 

Page 4-70 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

recreation from seasonal hunting and wildlife habitat improvement projects, as described in 

Section 4.10.1 above, would likely be more common. 

D. FROM LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT 

Under Alternative D, 3,600 acres of a proposed ROW Corridor north of the Town of Quartzsite 

would be located on lands proposed to be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. This 

would degrade the primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities and opportunities to 

experience naturalness in this area, if visible structures were placed within ROW authorizations. 

E. FROM MINERAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

Alternative C proposes to manage 43,000 more acres of public land to maintain wilderness 

characteristics than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. Alternative D proposes to manage 

252,800 more acres of public land to maintain wilderness characteristics than Alternative B and 

the Proposed Plan. The potential impacts to naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined 

recreation from mining and mineral leasing activities, as described in Section 4.10.1 above, 

would likely be more common. 

4.10.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

A. FROM MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS 

Over flights of military aircraft is common throughout the planning area, as most BLM lands are 

located beneath designated Military Training Routes. Military training operations and weapons 

testing can also be heard from BLM lands that are adjacent to or near YPG. These activities 

generate noise which would detract from the public’s ability to experience naturalness and 

solitude in lands with wilderness characteristics. 

B. FROM MINERAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

Potential mining claim activities and operations would cause long-term negative impacts to the 

public’s ability to experience naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation in 

lands with wilderness characteristics. These impacts would primarily come from the use of 

motorized and mechanized equipment and the creation of tailing piles, pits, access roads, and 

structures. These activities generally remove vegetation and surface soils, and increase noise, 

dust, and vehicular traffic in the immediate area of operations. 

Under all alternatives, unless lands are specifically withdrawn from mineral entry, the lands 

would remain open to mineral entry and claimants would have the right to legal access and 

development of their mining claims. These rights include the use of approved equipment and 

machinery which may impact the solitude and naturalness of the area to the recreating public. 

Mineral material sales are discretionary actions and BMPs would be used to minimize impacts to 

the recreating public. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-71 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.11 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

4.11.1 WILDERNESS 

The primary potential impacts to Wilderness within the planning area may occur from range and 

wildlife habitat improvement, maintenance projects, and access routes provided for inholdings. 

The provisions of the Wilderness Act would continue to be upheld including the prohibition of 

commercial activities, motorized access, and infrastructure developments. 

The analysis of potential impacts to designated Wilderness Areas was based on review of 

existing literature and the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. Literature sources 

include but are not limited to the following: 

 Wilderness Act of 1964; 

 Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990; 

 California Desert Protection Act of 1994; and 

 BLM Regulations for Wilderness Management at 43 CFR 6300, BLM Manuals 8560-8561, 

and BLM Handbook H-8560-I. 

A. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential impacts to Wilderness include any actions that may degrade an area's naturalness or 

untrammeled appearance, reduce opportunities to participate in primitive and unconfined types 

of recreation, or decrease the liklihood to experience solitude. 

1. Degradation 

a. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Potential short- and long-term effects could result from non-native and invasive species 

management and/or treatment, and wildland fire suppression activities and management 

responses. To minimize potential impacts to Wilderness, MIST identified in the Interagency 

Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations would be applied when suppressing wildland fires in 

Wilderness Areas. 

b. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Development of wildlife and range improvements, including wildlife waters, could impact the 

naturalness of Wilderness. These activities would also temporarily degrade the project area's 

untrammeled appearance, temporarily reduce opportunities to participate in primitive and 

unconfined types of recreation, and temporarily decrease the likelihood to experience solitude. 

The maintenance and/or installation of additional structures to support pre-existing rights would 

need to be in accordance with VRM Class I guidance, the Wilderness Act of 1964, and any 

applicable Wilderness management plan in effect for that area. 

Page 4-72 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

c. From Recreation Management 

Potential short-term effects on solitude could result from nearby hunting activities or discharge 

of firearms. Recreational use could degrade the soils, landscape, and natural features of 

Wilderness within the planning area. 

d. From Lands and Realty Management 

Nonconforming but accepted uses permitted by the Wilderness Act and subsequent laws, such as 

ROW Corridors that existed before the Act, have the potential to degrade Wilderness, but would 

be managed in a manner that would prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the area’s 

wilderness character. Nonconforming uses are the exception rather than rule; therefore, emphasis 

would be placed on maintaining wilderness character. 

Pre-existing access rights to inholdings could impact the naturalness and solitude of Wilderness. 

Potential short-term impacts on naturalness and solitude would result from dust emissions and 

noise from vehicle travel along nearby routes. 

e. From Mineral Resource Management 

Potential short- and long-term effects on naturalness, solitude, and primitive unconfined 

recreation would result from activities at mining claims adjacent to or near Wilderness that result 

in noise disturbance and dust emission. 

f. From Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing activities and facilities, such as fence construction and livestock waters, 

impact the naturalness of Wilderness. These activities would also temporarily degrade the 

planning area's untrammeled appearance, temporarily reduce opportunities to participate in 

primitive and unconfined types of recreation, and temporarily decrease the likelihood to 

experience solitude. The maintenance and/or installation of additional structures to support preexisting rights would need to be in accordance with VRM Class I guidance, the Wilderness Act 

of 1964, and any applicable Wilderness management plan in effect for that area. 

2. Enhancement 

a. From Vegetation Resources Management 

Actions to remove non-native invasive vegetation through non-mechanical means would benefit 

Wilderness by restoring the naturalness of the landscape in these areas. 

b. From Recreation Management 

SRMAs and RMZs have been proposed to identify and enhance targeted recreational 

opportunities and experiences. There is a potential for beneficial impacts to Wilderness as a 

result of these allocations and subsequent management for them because some recreational use 

pressure may be re-concentrated onto other areas. 

c. From Lands and Realty Management 

Purchasing inholdings within Wilderness Areas from willing sellers would benefit Wilderness by 

consolidating ownership of these areas. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-73 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

B. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Military training overflights of aircraft would impact the naturalness and solitude of Wilderness. 

Adverse impacts from noise and visual environment would occur, causing degradation in the 

values of Wilderness Areas. 

Human and drug smuggling activities and the associated Border Patrol law enforcement actions 

that respond to these illegal activities have the potential to cause increased helicopter and vehicle 

traffic, litter, trampling, and noise. These unavoidable adverse impacts would affect the public’s 

opportunity to experience the solitude, naturalness, and untrammeled nature of these resources, 

such as the Wilderness Areas. 

4.11.2 NATIONAL TRAILS 

There is one NHT (Anza Trail), and one NRT (Betty’s Kitchen Trail) within the planning area. 

The primary impacts to these trails would be any actions that would compromise the ability of 

the areas to meet desired future conditions or detract from their intrinsic qualities. 

The analysis of potential impacts to National Trails was based on review of existing literature 

and the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. 

A. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential impacts to National Trails are categorized below into those that may degrade or 

enhance intrinsic qualities. 

1. Degradation 

a. From Vegetation Resources Management 

Any vegetation treatments, such as hazardous fuel reduction activities, that are undertaken to 

restore the natural condition of lands adjacent to the trails may have temporary adverse impacts 

by reducing vegetative cover and overall scenic values. 

b. From Lands and Realty Management 

Land use authorizations that include construction activities may have adverse impacts on trails. 

Portions of the Anza Trail located within the Gila River Valley have many new developments 

occurring in the vicinity of the trail. These developments and the expansions of the urban 

environment would have adverse impacts to the scenic value of the trail system. 

Authorizations within designated ROW Corridors that cross the trail system may cause adverse 

impacts to the scenic value of trails. 

Land disposals could have adverse impacts on trail corridors. Disposal actions may have an 

adverse impact on trail alignment, requiring a change or reduction in the trail system. 

Limited public lands along the Anza Trail would limit BLM management activities. 

Page 4-74 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

c. From Mineral Resource Management 

Mineral activities could adversely impact the enjoyment of trail systems. Mineral activities may 

have adverse impacts by reducing or removing portions of the trail system. 

2. Enhancement/Beneficial 

a. From Special Designations 

The maintenance and protection of relevant and important natural and cultural resource values 

within the Gila River Terraces and Trails ACEC (under Alternative D) and the Sears Point 

ACEC (under all alternatives) would also help to retain important resource values along the Anza 

Trail. 

The responsible development of the Sears Point ACEC interpretive area along the Anza Trail 

would enhance opportunities along the trail for cultural resource viewing and appreciation. 

b. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Any vegetation treatments that would be undertaken to restore the natural condition of trails may 

be beneficial to the overall scenic value of trails. 

c. From Visual Resource Management 

Potential scenic quality benefits would result from implementing visual management objectives. 

d. From Cultural Resources Management 

Any cultural resource inventory, monitoring, protection, and interpretation projects that would be 

undertaken at significant heritage sites along the Anza Trail would be beneficial to the overall 

values of the trail corridor. 

e. From Mineral Resource Management 

Withdrawal of mineral activities would have a beneficial impact on trail systems. 

B. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

From Visual Resource Management 

VRM classes vary by alternative for National Trails (Table 4-15). 

Table 4-15 

National Trails per VRM Class by Alternative (miles) 

VRM Class 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

VRM Class I 0 0 0 5 0 

VRM Class II 0 17 12 7 12 

VRM Class III 21 9 9 9 9 

VRM Class IV 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 21 26 21 21 21 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-75 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

C. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to trails would occur from natural events (as with other resources), 

including floods and wildland fire. 

West of the Mohawk Mountains, BLM administers a very small amount of land within the 

congressionally-designated Anza Trail corridor. On lands in this area where the BLM has no 

jurisdiction, private land owner rights and the operation and maintenance of irrigation district 

canals would take precedence over the installation and management of a recreational Anza Trail. 

This may limit the BLM’s ability to develop use prescriptions, interpretive facilities, and riparian 

restoration projects that would enhance visitor experiences along this portion of the Anza Trail. 

East of the Mohawk Mountains, BLM manages much more land within the congressionallydesignated Anza Trail corridor, although BLM land is still intermingled with a substantial 

amount of private and Arizona State Trust land. The alignment of the Anza Trail would be 

impacted by the willingness of these other land owners to provide easements and ROWs for a 

recreational trail through their property. BLM has proposed to create a cooperative agreement to 

establish a recreational Anza Trail to the best of all interested stakeholders’ collective abilities. 

The extension of the Betty’s Kitchen NRT proposed under Alternative B would be located within 

the Mittry Lake Wildlife Area, which BLM cooperatively manages with AGFD and Reclamation 

under a lease from the USFWS. The alignment and visitor use limitations of the proposed NRT 

extension would be dependent upon the minimization of any impacts to wildlife habitat, the 

primary purpose for which the Mittry Lake Wildlife Area is managed. 

The Anza Trail could be negatively impacted by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers releases of flood 

water from Painted Rock Dam, which regulates water levels within the Gila River floodplain. 

The on-the-ground alignment of a recreational Anza Trail would attempt to minimize the 

potential of water releases negatively impacting the trail and trail facilities. 

Noise and dust generated from Reclamation activities at their quarry pit located near Laguna 

Dam could negatively impact visitor experiences along the Betty’s Kitchen NRT and its 

proposed extension. 

4.11.3 NATIONAL BYWAYS 

There are up to seven National Back Country Byways and one National Scenic Byway under 

consideration in the range of alternatives within the planning area. The primary impacts to the 

proposed National Byways would be from actions that would compromise or detract from the 

byways’ intrinsic qualities, which have been identified in Chapter 2. These intrinsic byway 

qualities, which are considered unique, irreplaceable, or distinctly characteristic of the planning 

area, include scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, and natural resources. 

The analysis of potential impacts to National Byways was based on review of existing literature 

and the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. Literature sources include but are not 

limited to the following: 

 Back Country Byway Designation reports and plans; and 

Page 4-76 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

 Summary of Quantifying the Economic Impacts of Scenic Byway Designation (America’s 

Byways Resource Center 2001). 

A. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential impacts to National Byways are categorized below into those that may degrade or 

enhance intrinsic qualities. 

1. Degradation 

a. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Invasive species may be introduced into proposed National Byways by vehicle travel. Vegetation 

treatments may occur along proposed National Byways to restore and enhance the natural 

conditions of the surrounding public lands. These actions would have temporary adverse impacts 

to the byways, such as limiting public use during equipment operation, prescribed burns, and 

herbicide applications, and decreasing visibility and scenic values during and immediately after 

implementation. 

b. From Recreation Management 

The designation of Back Country Byways may increase visitor use on the proposed routes. 

Increased visitation has the potential to cause more user conflicts along the routes between OHV 

riders, campers, and hunters. These conflicts would be more prominent during the winter hunting 

seasons, when there are a high number of both campers and hunters within the planning area 

c. From Travel Management 

The proposed Martinez Lake Open OHV Management Area is located adjacent to the Red Cloud 

Road Back Country Byway proposed under Alternative B. Visitor use within the Open OHV 

Management Area would cause increased disturbances to soils and wildlife habitat, which would 

adversely impact the scenic and natural qualities along this small portion of the Back Country 

Byway. However, these impacts would be minimal, as the proposed Open OHV Management 

Area is adjacent to the Back Country Byway for only one mile, and the entire Back Country 

Byway is 50 miles long. 

Increased visitor use on proposed Back Country Byways would increase the likelihood of the 

public developing undesignated pull-offs so that OHVs traveling in opposite directions would be 

able to pass each other and for dispersed camping purposes. These impacts would be allowable 

under BLM Arizona Policy (BLM Arizona IM No. 2004-005-007), which enables the public to 

pull off of OHV routes up to 100 feet from the centerline for these purposes. Increased 

monitoring and maintenance of the proposed Back Country Byways by BLM and interested 

partners would reduce the likelihood of new OHV routes developing from the byways. 

d. From Lands and Realty Management 

Underground utility lines would have temporary adverse impacts to scenic qualities of proposed 

National Byways. These impacts would be most prevalent during installation and maintenance of 

the utility lines, but would otherwise be largely unnoticeable. Power lines, such as those 

paralleling Highway 95 and the western Kofa NWR boundary, cause long term adverse impacts 

to the scenic qualities of the proposed National Byways. ROW Corridors also cross other 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-77 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

proposed National Byways at various points along the routes. As population growth in the 

western U.S. continues to grow, there is an anticipated increase in the number of utility lines and 

communications sites throughout the planning area, which would cause additional impacts to the 

scenic qualities of the proposed National Byways. 

e. From Mineral Resource Management 

Surface disturbance associated with BLM-authorized locatable minerals activities near National 

Byways would have adverse impacts on scenic values, as would the development of BLM 

community pits near National Byways. 

2. Enhancement/Beneficial 

a. From Special Designations 

Proposed Back Country Byways traversing ACECs and running alongside of designated 

Wilderness would provide additional interpretation opportunities to educate the public about the 

importance of the resources within these special designations. This would enrich and diversify 

the recreational opportunities along the proposed Back Country Byways. 

b. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Vegetative treatments could cause long-term beneficial impacts to the scenic, natural, and 

recreational qualities of the proposed National Byways by reducing the occurrence of non-native 

invasive species and encouraging the growth of native plants. 

c. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Range and wildlife improvements, such as habitat restoration and water catchments would 

increase the potential for wildlife viewing along the proposed Back Country Byways. This would 

improve the scenic and natural values for which the byways were proposed. 

d. From Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Wild horses and burros found near the proposed Red Cloud Road Back Country Byway and 

Highway 95 Scenic Byway would have beneficial impacts by providing visitors with wild horse 

and burro viewing opportunities. 

e. From Visual Resource Management 

The scenic values along proposed National Byways would be protected most within VRM Class 

II areas, which only allow a minimal amount of contrasts to the existing landscape. The scenic 

values of the byways within VRM Class III and IV areas would have less protection, although 

contrasts to the existing landscape from project proposals would still be mitigated. The scenic 

values of proposed byways traversing non BLM-administered lands would have no protection 

under the BLM's VRM System. Several areas adjacent to proposed Back Country Byways are 

proposed as VRM Classes I and II. This designation and the associated management objectives 

would have beneficial impacts to Back Country Byways through protection and enhancement of 

scenic values. 

Page 4-78 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

f. From Cultural Resource Management 

Cultural resource public use sites, which are components of byway designations, would have a 

beneficial effect on Back Country Byways by providing visitors with cultural resource viewing 

opportunities. 

B. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

1. From Special Designations 

Under Alternative B, C, and the Proposed Plan the Agua Caliente Back Country Byway travels 

across the Sears Point ACEC. Under Alternatives B and C the Gold Nugget Back Country 

Byway travels across the Dripping Springs ACEC. Otherwise, there is no overlap between 

proposed special designations (ACECs, Wilderness, NHTs, and NRTs) and Back Country 

Byways by alternative. 

2. From Visual Resource Management 

VRM classes vary by alternative for proposed National Byways (Table 4-16). 

Table 4-16 

Miles of National Byways on BLM-administered Lands and within VRM Classes by Alternative 

Actions Affecting National Byways A B C D E 

National Byways on BLM-administered land 0 153 97 0 44 

National Byways on non BLM-administered land 0 68 43 0 43 

National Byways within VRM Class II 0 79 11 0 0 

National Byways within VRM Class III 0 70 78 0 41 

National Byways within VRM Class IV 0 3 8 0 4 

C. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to Back Country Byways would occur from natural events (as with 

other resources), including floods and wildland fire. 

Other land management agency activities and decisions could adversely impact the identified 

intrinsic qualities of the proposed National Byways. In the Proposed Plan, a total of 43 miles, or 

approximately 30 percent, of the proposed National Byways are located on non-BLMadministered lands. The YPG collectively manages 42 miles of the proposed Red Cloud Road 

Back Country Byway and Highway 95 Scenic Highway. Any decisions made by YPG to install 

permanent facilities within the view shed of these routes would detract from the visual qualities 

of the proposed National Byways. YPG military operations and testing would detract from the 

scenic and natural qualities of these byways, however, many visitors are extremely interested in 

such activities. In general, military operations along the byways would highlight the diversity of 

Federal agency missions within the planning area and could be viewed as an asset to the 

proposed byways intrinsic qualities. A portion of the proposed Red Cloud Road Back Country 

Byway which travels along the levee road of the lower Colorado River may be incompatible with 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-79 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Reclamation’s mission. Military activities occurring over and near Back Country Byways may 

have both beneficial and adverse impacts on the visitor experience. 

4.11.4 AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

The primary potential impacts to ACECs within the planning area may occur from any activity 

that may disturb the purposes for which the ACEC was designated and the desired future 

conditions for the areas. Management actions that may cause these impacts include vegetation 

treatments, range and wildlife habitat improvement and maintenance projects, OHV and route 

use, construction activities, minerals management, lands and realty authorizations, and 

recreational activities. 

Beneficial impacts would occur from the protection of cultural resources and the protection and 

restoration of wildlife habitats. 

The analysis of potential impacts to ACECs was based on review of existing literature and the 

expertise of BLM resource specialists at the YFO. Literature sources include but are not limited 

to the following: 

 Gila River Cultural Area ACEC Management Plan (USDOI BLM 1990c); 

 Big Marias Cultural Resources Management Plan (USDOI BLM 1984); 

 Anthropogenic Degradation of the Southern California Desert Ecosystem and Prospects for 

Natural Recovery and Restoration (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999); and 

 LCR MSCP, Final Programmatic EIS/Environmental Impact Report (USDOI Reclamation et 

al. 2004). 

A. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential impacts to ACECs are categorized below into those that may degrade or enhance the 

values for which the ACEC areas are considered relevant and important. 

1. Degradation 

a. From Special Designations 

The Anza Trail corridor is common to all alternatives, and would traverse the Sears Point ACEC 

and the Gila River Terraces and Trails ACEC. Increased recreational use along this trail corridor 

could impact sensitive resource values within ACECs. Potential impacts would be offset with 

increased interpretation, protection, and management in sensitive areas. 

b. From Vegetation Resource Management 

Potential short-term effects would result from non-native and invasive species management 

and/or treatment. These impacts would be mitigated through BMPs and environmental review 

and analysis. 

Page 4-80 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

c. From Wildland Fire Management 

Short-term adverse impacts could occur to natural and cultural resources during prescribed fire 

management. ACECs that have relevant and important cultural resource values would be 

especially susceptible to adverse impacts from prescribed fire, which could potentially damage 

or destroy archaeology sites and associated artifacts, including petroglyph panels; destroy 

organic materials such as bone, plant, and animal fibers, and wooden elements of structures; and 

destroy or chemically alter materials used to date sites, such as charcoal. It is possible to 

determine the predicted temperature and duration of a fire through an area, and possibly to 

modify burn plans to minimize effects to cultural resources (Winthrop 2004). 

Wildland fire suppression activities and management responses would have short-term adverse 

impacts on resources within ACECs. Impacts from mechanical fire suppression activities would 

include potential destruction of significant cultural and natural resources. The Chapter 2 

management actions for Wildland Fire Management states that the desired conditions and 

management prescriptions for ACECs would be considered in implementing fire management 

activities. 

d. From Recreation Management 

Visitor use may cause adverse impacts to the ACECs’ identified cultural and natural resource 

values. Potential user conflicts may occur within ACECs between cultural resource viewers and 

hunters/target shooters. 

e. From Travel Management 

Potential short- and long-term impacts would occur from route use within ACECs. Impacts 

would include disturbance, erosion, loss of vegetation, potential wildlife mortality from vehicle 

encounters, and increased visitation to sensitive resource areas (including cultural and wildlife). 

Unauthorized cross-country travel can inadvertently damage ACEC values through surface 

disturbance or provide new vehicular access to previously remote areas. Limiting OHV access to 

inventoried routes until the route designation process is complete would help to mitigate this 

issue. However, continued use of inventoried routes in areas of high cultural resource site density 

and the ability to park within a 200 foot corridor along those routes may increase the potential 

for damage to significant cultural resources inside ACECs. The amount of damage to cultural 

sites from vehicles pulling up to 100 feet off of inventoried routes is expected to be greater in 

areas like ACECs, which contain a higher density of important cultural resources. The Proposed 

Plan provides greater protection to cultural and natural resources by not allowing vehicles to pull 

off 100 feet on either side of a road within ACECs. 

When hikers, bikers, and equestrian users stray from established trails, impacts would likely 

occur to indigenous cultural resources like intaglios, cleared areas in the desert pavement, and 

trail networks. Bikes and horses in particular have the potential to cause adverse impacts to 

cultural resource values and Native American traditional use values that are located inside 

ACECs. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-81 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

f. From Lands and Realty Management 

ROWs authorized within designated ACECs may cause adverse impacts to the resources within 

the ACEC. Management of ACECs would limit ROW development and impacts would be 

minimized through site-specific mitigation measures and BMPs. 

Land use authorizations that include construction activities may have long-term impacts to 

ACECs. Impacts would include the loss of vegetation and disturbance to wildlife habitat, 

disturbance to natural systems or processes, and potential impacts to cultural resources. 

g. From Mineral Resource Management 

Potential short- and long-term adverse effects would result from mining activities within ACECs. 

Portions of ACECs that are not withdrawn from mineral entry and are still subject to mining 

have a higher likelihood for damage to the ACEC’s relevant and important natural and cultural 

resource values. 

2. Enhancement 

a. From Vegetation Resource Management 

The relevant and important natural resource values for each ACEC would be enhanced through 

vegetation management. Chapter 2 provides for the maintenance and improvement of vegetation 

diversity in accordance with USDA NRCS Ecological Site Guides. Also, treatment for hazardous 

fuels and non-native invasive species would be allowed in these areas. 

b. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Wildlife and range improvement facilities, including wildlife waters, in ACECs where wildlife is 

one of the area’s relevant and important values (such as the Palomas Plain ACEC) could have 

long-term beneficial impacts as they would provide essential resources for wildlife populations 

in the area. 

c. From Recreation Management 

SRMAs and RMZs were allocated to identify and enhance targeted recreational opportunities 

and experiences. There is a potential for beneficial impacts to significant cultural resources as a 

result of these allocations and subsequent management for them. The Blythe Intaglios, Dripping 

Springs, and Sears Point Heritage RMZs overlap with important heritage resource areas inside 

the Big Marias, Dripping Springs, and Sears Point ACECs respectively. These three Heritage 

RMZs would be managed to enhance the preservation and interpretation of cultural resource 

values in these areas. 

d. From Travel Management 

Limiting OHV use to existing inventoried routes until designated would reduce surface 

disturbance and route proliferation within ACECs. 

Limiting equestrian use within ACECs to existing inventoried trails until designated would 

protect identified significant and relevant resources, such as cultural and historic properties, 

sensitive soils, and vegetation, from additional impacts from cross-country equestrian use. 

Impacts from other non-motorized types of trail uses, such as hiking and mountain biking, would 

potentially be reduced if users restrict their activities to the identified trail. 

Page 4-82 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

e. From Lands and Realty Management 

Land acquisitions from willing sellers would have a positive impact on ACECs by consolidating 

ownership in areas with important resource values. To protect resource values within all ACECs, 

new land use authorizations would be discouraged and only authorized when it is necessary for 

resource protection and/or when no reasonable alternative exists. Except for prior existing rights, 

no surface occupancy for discretionary actions like ROWs would be allowed within ACECs, 

which reduces the amount of damage that proposed lands and realty actions would have on areas 

with sensitive resources. 

f. From Mineral Resource Management 

Existing and proposed withdrawals from mineral entry within ACECs (such as the Big Marias, 

Dripping Springs, and Sears Point withdrawals) would have beneficial impacts to sensitive 

resources. Except for prior existing rights, no surface occupancy for discretionary actions like 

oil and gas leases and mineral material disposals would be allowed within the Dripping Springs 

and Sears Point ACECs, which reduces the amount of damage that proposed minerals actions 

would have on areas with sensitive resources. Within all ACECs, new mineral material disposal 

sites would not be authorized, and protection of resource values take precedence over 

leasable/locatable minerals. 

g. From Cultural Resources Management 

Generally, management of cultural resources within ACECs would only enhance and maintain 

those values for which the ACEC is designated. Allocating individual cultural sites within 

ACECs to public use, traditional use, experimental use, conservation for future use, or 

discharged from management has the potential to either enhance or degrade an ACEC’s relevant 

and important values. Under the Proposed Plan there are three Public Use cultural sites within 

ACECs: the Sears Point central mesas in the Sears Point ACEC, which has been managed for 

public use since at least 1990; the Blythe Intaglios inside the Big Marias ACEC; and the 

Dripping Springs site within the Dripping Springs ACEC. Allocating these three cultural sites to 

Public Use provides for visitor recreational experiences in high use areas while protecting 

cultural sites found within the ACECs. 

B. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

1. From Special Designations 

Impacts may potentially occur to ACEC values from increased vehicle use along Back Country 

Byways. Under Alternative C, the Gold Nugget Byway crosses the Dripping Springs ACEC. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and the Proposed Plan, 2.3 miles of the Agua Caliente Byway crosses 

the Sears Point ACEC. Byways would be managed to minimize impacts to relevant and 

important resource values inside ACECs. No Back Country Byways would be located within 

ACECs under Alternatives A and D. 

2. From Fish and Wildlife Management 

Some of the proposed ACEC areas overlap with WHAs. The desired future conditions of the 

ACECs and WHAs would complement each other and provide guidance for management of 

these areas for their values. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-83 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

3. From Travel Management 

Alternative D proposes a total of 58,600 acres of Closed OHV Management Areas within 

ACECs and would provide the most protection to these areas, which have been identified 

significant and relevant resource values, from motorized vehicle use (Table 4-15). Alternative C 

and D propose a 600-acre Closed OHV Management Area and the Proposed Plan proposes a 

400-acre Closed OHV Management Area within the proposed Dripping Springs ACEC for desert 

bighorn sheep and cultural resource protection. Alternative D and the Proposed Plan propose a 

1,400-acre Closed OHV Management Area within the Sears Point ACEC. Alternative D also 

proposes two Closed OHV Management Areas totaling 56,600 acres within the proposed 

Palomas Plain ACEC. 

4. From Lands and Realty Management 

Several proposed ROW Corridors intersect with proposed ACECs. A total of 1,900 acres of 

ROW Corridors would be located under Alternatives B, C and the Proposed Plan within the Big 

Marias ACEC. In Alternative D, 10,300 acres of ROW Corridors would be located in the 

Palomas Plains ACEC and 1,900 acres of ROW Corridors would be located in the Gila River 

Terraces and Trails ACEC (Table 4-17). 

5. From Mineral Resource Management 

Alternatives C and D would provide additional protections for ACEC values by expanding the 

withdrawal in the Sears Point ACEC from 3,600 acres to 4,800 acres. The Proposed Plan would 

provide additional protections for ACEC values by expanding the withdrawal in the Sears Point 

ACEC from 3,600 acres to 8,500 acres. In addition, Alternative C, D, and the Proposed Plan 

would establish a 600-acre withdrawal in the Dripping Springs ACEC. Under Alternatives A, D, 

and the Proposed Plan, Reclamation lands within the Big Marias ACEC (2,900 acres) that are 

withdrawn from mineral entry would protect important natural and cultural resource values in 

those areas. 

6. From Wilderness Characteristics Management 

The BLM would seek to maintain existing opportunities to experience naturalness within lands 

that have been identified for wilderness characteristics management. The maintenance of 

naturalness on these public lands would be accomplished through the relocation, mitigation, or 

restoration of authorized surface-disturbing activities. Under Alternative D, these measures may 

result in the maintenance and/or improvement of values recognized for the proposed Palomas 

Plain ACEC. Under the Alternative D, a majority of the 429,200-acre Palomas Plain ACEC 

proposal would overlap with lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics, which would 

provide indirect benefits to the proposed ACEC’s recognized values. Proposed ACECs and 

public lands that have been proposed to maintain wilderness characteristics do not overlap under 

any of the other PRMP/FEIS alternatives. 

Page 4-84 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-17 

Impacts to ACECs from OHV Area Designations, ROW Corridors, and Withdrawals within 

ACECs by Alternative (acres) 

ACECs 

Alternatives 

A B C D E 

Closed OHV Management Areas within ACECs 

Big Marias 0 0 0 0 0 

Dripping Springs N/A N/A 600 600 400 

Gila River Terraces and Trails N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 

Limitrophe N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 

Palomas Plains N/A N/A N/A 56,600 N/A 

Sears Point 0 0 0 1,400 1,400 

Walters Camp N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 

Total 0 0 600 58,600 1,800 

ROW Corridors in ACECs* 

Big Marias 0 1,900 1,900 0 1,900 

Dripping Springs N/A N/A 0 0 0 

Gila River Terraces and Trails N/A N/A N/A 1,900 N/A 

Limitrophe N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 

Palomas Plains N/A N/A N/A 10,300 N/A 

Sears Point 0 0 0 0 0 

Walters Camp N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 

Total 0 1,900 1,900 12,200 1,900 

Withdrawals in ACECs* 

Big Marias 2,900 0 0 2,900 2,900 

Dripping Springs N/A 0 600 600 600 

Gila River Terraces and Trails N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 

Limitrophe N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 

Palomas Plains N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 

Sears Point 3,600 3,600 4,800 4,800 8,500 

Walters Camp N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 

Total 6,500 3,600 5,400 8,300 12,000 

*BLM acres only 

C. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts to ACECs would occur from: 

 Under Alternative D, potential impacts from the USIBWC flood capacity project could 

adversely impact the proposed Limitrophe ACEC. 

 Reclamation decisions on upstream Colorado River water may decrease water levels within 

the proposed Limitrophe ACEC. Decreased water levels would negatively impact the 

proposed ACEC’s wildlife and vegetative resources. 

 Uses of existing authorizations consistent with the approved terms and conditions. 

 Existing mining claims within proposed ACECs. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-85 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.12 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Besides preserving and protecting natural and cultural resources, BLM’s stewardship role 

extends to protecting public health, safety, and property. BLM is responsible for maintaining 

facilities and infrastructure; reducing health and safety risks to employees and the public; and 

protecting public lands from illegal dumping of wastes, theft, destruction of Federal property, 

misuse of resources, and wildland fires. BLM has a variety of programs to protect public health, 

safety, and property. No proposals included in the PRMP/FEIS alternatives are expected to cause 

disproportionate risks or effects to the health or safety of children, as mandated by EO 13045, 

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. 

4.12.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 

Potential impacts are categorized below into Management Actions of LUP decisions that may 

have an adverse impact on public health and safety. Under all alternatives, the impacts as stated 

would be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent possible by BMPs and management 

actions. 

A. ADVERSE 

1. From Lands and Realty Management 

Equipment within communications sites creates electromagnetic fields and other types of radio 

waves which may be harmful to the recreating public from long-term exposure (Federal 

Communications Commission 1999). 

2. From Mineral Resource Management 

Historical mining activity has resulted in many unreclaimed hardrock mines. BLM works with 

Federal and State partners to identify and evaluate the need for cleanup of sites that are polluting 

watersheds or causing other kinds of environmental degradation. BLM also works to remedy 

physical safety hazards at AML1 sites and to warn visitors to the public lands about the many 

dangers that abandoned mines can pose. Abandoned mines throughout YFO pose a serious threat 

to public health and safety through open shafts as well as potential hazardous materials sites. 

3. From Public Health and Safety 

a. Unexploded Ordnance 

The planning area has a long history of military use, including historic use by General Patton. 

Contemporarily, the source of UXO is YPG, and within the planning area UXO may be 

encountered in densities that increase with proximity to YPG. 

b. Border Issues 

Border issues impact public health and safety in a variety of serious and sometimes unpredictable 

ways. Illegal activities include the smuggling of drugs and people, which can lead to violence. 

Page 4-86 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Appropriate law enforcement presence would be critical to limit negative impacts to the general 

public and BLM staff. 

c. Hazardous Materials 

Potentially hazardous materials occur on public lands through unauthorized dumping and waste 

and litter left by immigrants. These materials may cause impacts to both natural resources and 

public health and safety. 

d. Law Enforcement 

BLM's law enforcement program would continue to be responsible for protecting public safety 

and resources, which it does in partnership with State and local law enforcement agencies. 

B. BENEFICIAL 

1. From Recreation Management 

Two sets of supplementary rules have been established by the YFO to regulate public occupancy, 

use, and conduct within the LTVAs and seven other developed recreation fee sites. These 

supplementary rules address a variety of public health and safety protection measures, including 

disorderly conduct, the use of firearms and weapons, and alcoholic beverages. The enforcement 

of these rules by the BLM ensures that the YFO’s nine recreation fee sites would continue to 

provide safe, family-oriented recreation opportunities within the planning area. The YFO 

continuously monitors and updates these Supplementary Rules on an as-needed basis according 

to the guidance set forth in 43 CFR 8365.1-6. In addition, the various amenities within the 

YFO’s nine recreation fee sites, such a restrooms, refuse containers, and waste water treatment 

facilities, ensure that the high amounts of public use in these areas do not create adverse impacts 

to visitors’ health and safety. 

2. From Fire Management 

Every summer the BLM, along with several other adjacent land management agencies, institute 

fire restrictions within the YFO to reduce the chances of human-caused wildfires. These 

restrictions prohibit the use of campfires, fireworks, flares, or other incendiary devises. These 

restrictions protect public health and safety, especially for visitors along the lower Colorado 

River, where tremendous amounts of hazardous fuels exist from monotypic stands of salt 

cedar/tamarisk. In addition, the YFO would continue to implement an aggressive fire 

management program, including hazardous fuel reduction and fuel break projects, near 

developed recreation fee sites to protect visitor public health and safety. 

4.12.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

A. FROM SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

The Limitrophe is proposed as an ACEC under Alternative D, this would designate 4,500 acres 

which is located on the International Boundary with Mexico. This area is a known traffic route 

for illegal immigrants and smuggling. The ACEC designation could benefit proper management 

of the area and address public health and safety concerns. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-87 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

B. FROM COORDINATED MANAGEMENT AREAS 

The Limitrophe would be allocated as a 4,500 acre CMA under Alternative B and the Proposed 

Plan. Public health and safety would be emphasized under this management scenario. 

C. FROM WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT 

Moving the HMA west of Highway 95 under Alternatives B, C, D and the Proposed Plan would 

indirectly benefit public health and safety management by removing the hazard the horses and 

burros located in the HMA create if they cross the highway and impede or endanger traffic. 

Moving the HMA under these alternatives also reduces the number of HMA acres that are within 

lands with a high likelihood for UXO, which protects both the animals and the people working 

with them. Under Alternative A, the HMA would not change, and the hazards to the public, 

BLM employees, and the animals would continue to exist. 

D. FROM CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

The Limitrophe Region, proposed as a SCRMA under Alternative C, would allocate 1,400 acres 

for cultural resources management. Impacts to public health and safety should not be 

compromised by this action. 

4.13 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

Management activities and land use decisions made in implementing the YFO PRMP/FEIS 

would have effects on local and regional social and economic conditions. The resource 

capabilities or uses that have the greatest potential to affect the social and economic environment 

include: 

 Livestock Grazing Management 

 Mineral Resource Management 

o Leaseable 

o Locatable 

o Salable 

 Recreation Management 

o Recreation Fee Programs 

 Travel Management 

o OHV Management Areas 

 Lands and Realty Management 

o Agricultural Leases 

o Communications Sites 

o ROWs 

Page 4-88 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

o Other Lands and Realty Authorizations 

o Renewable Energy (solar or wind) 

The analysis of impacts to social and economic conditions focused on these resource uses and 

are discussed below in their respective subsections. 

Impacts to social conditions were identified as those management and land use decisions that 

would potentially affect the social aspects of: 

 Changes in use and lifestyle; 

 People’s interaction with the landscape; 

 Community perceptions of quality of life; 

 Attitudes and beliefs regarding the local environment, its uses, and sense of place; 

 Potential demand on BLM-administered land and resources; and 

 Limiting or enhancing community growth. 

Impacts to economic conditions were identified as those management and land use decisions that 

would potentially affect the economic aspects of: 

 Revenue, 

 Employment/Unemployment, 

 Personal Income, and 

 County Tax Base. 

Economic conditions were analyzed with the IMPLAN Input-Output System for data from Yuma 

and La Paz counties. IMPLAN enables the user to develop Input-Output models for regions 

comprising one or more counties, states, or zip code areas. Following are the terms used to 

determine impacts on economic conditions. 

 Output—sales generated within the local economy (the planning area). The total output of the 

economy has three sub-components: direct sales, indirect sales, and induced sales. 

o Direct sales - occur when a recreational visitor to the Yuma-La Paz economy 

purchases a meal in a local area restaurant. 

o Indirect sales - occur when businesses make purchases from other businesses. 

For example, this occurs when a restaurant purchases supplies (e.g., from food 

wholesalers) or services (e.g., linen cleaning services). In turn each of the 

indirect businesses must also make purchases from their suppliers. 

o Induced sales - are generated by the purchases of employees and owners of 

the direct and indirect businesses as they spend their incomes. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-89 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

 Value-Added—the amount of value created within the economy. In this study it is the 

amount of value created within the Yuma-La Paz planning area economy. There are four subcomponents of value-added. 

o Employee compensation - wages and salaries of workers who are paid by 

employers, as well as the cost of benefits such as health and life insurance, 

retirement payments, and non-cash compensation. 

o Proprietary income - payments received by self-employed individuals as 

income from the private businesses they own. 

o Other property type income - Payments to individuals in the form of rents 

received on property, royalties from contracts, and dividends paid by 

corporations are included here as well as corporate profits earned by 

corporations. 

o Indirect business taxes - excise taxes, property taxes, fees, licenses, and sales 

taxes paid by businesses. These taxes occur during the normal operation of 

businesses but do not include taxes on profit or income. 

4.13.1 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK 

GRAZING MANAGEMENT 

A. SOCIAL IMPACTS FROM LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

MANAGEMENT 

The following are the different types of livestock grazing permittees/leasees and the number of 

each in the planning area: 

 Corporate Rancher permit/lease (none); 

 Dependent Family Rancher permit/lease—one permittee, one allotment; 

 Diversified Family Rancher permit/lease—one permittee, two allotments; 

 Non-dependent Rancher permit/lease (none); 

 Non-dependent Working Ranch permit/lease—two (Lazy V and Bishop), two allotments; 

 Non-dependent Retired Ranching permit/lease—none; and 

 Non-dependent Small Ranch permit/lease—11 permittees, 11 allotments. 

Non-dependent ranch permits or leases are held by individuals who do not depend on grazing as 

a central source of income. 

Social impacts to grazing permittees as a result of implementation of the PRMP/FEIS would 

likely be minimal as the portions of the field office proposed to be made unavailable for grazing 

have not been grazed for as many as 30 years. There would likely be no noticeable difference in 

lifestyle to the ranching community or the public at large. 

Page 4-90 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Impacts to people’s interaction with the landscape, community perceptions of quality of life, and 

attitudes and beliefs regarding the local environment, its uses, and sense of place would also 

likely be minimal because of the small number of livestock and the minor effects of livestock 

grazing in the planning area as a whole. 

The potential demand on BLM-administered land and resources for livestock grazing would 

likely decline as the population in the planning area increases. Future demand is likely to shift 

from livestock grazing uses to recreation and other consumer uses. 

Livestock grazing would continue to have little or no effect on enhancing community growth or 

community activities. 

B. ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

MANAGEMENT 

Livestock grazing is a relatively small program within the planning area that affects only a few 

ranching entities. Currently, there are five allotments with livestock on a total of 428,170 acres of 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area (Table 4-18). 

Over the past five years, an average of 1,958 head of cattle has been grazed annually. Grazing 

has been predominantly cow-calf operations. Based on the 2003 Arizona Agricultural Statistics, 

175 calves per 1,000 head is average. This yielded an estimated 342.65 calves per year on BLMadministered land. According to “BEEF TALK” in Livestock News (September 28, 2005), the 

five year rolling average for calf weaning weights was 588 pounds. The Arizona Agricultural 

Statistics indicates a price per pound of $.995. Thus, the dollar value of cattle grazed on BLMadministered lands is believed to be 342.65 calves x 558 pounds x $.995 per pound = $190,243 

annually (direct dollar value) (Table 4-19). The direct employment impact of 1,958 head of cattle 

grazed on BLM-administered lands is 1.46 jobs and the total (direct, indirect, and induced) is 

3.44 jobs (Table 4-19). 

The dollar value (direct) for 10,000 acres of livestock grazing within the planning area is $4,443 

($190,243 divided by 428,170 acres equals 0.4443. Multiply 0.4443 times 10,000 acres equals 

$4,443). The direct employment value is .03 jobs (Table 4-20). Impacts of livestock grazing 

within BLM-administered lands are relatively small compared to the overall economy and 

employment in Yuma and La Paz counties. 

During the last five years, an average $29,405 dollars in grazing fees were collected by BLM for 

the planning area (Table 4-21). The annually adjusted grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 

base value of $1.23 per AUM for livestock grazing on public lands in western states. The figure 

is then adjusted according to three factors; current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle 

prices, and the cost of livestock production. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-91 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-18 

Perennial/Ephemeral Allotments Available for Grazing by Alternative (acres) 

Allotment Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Number Name 

Total 

Acres Acres AUMs Acres AUMs Acres AUMs Acres AUMs 

030121 Calhoun 41,744 41,744 1,728 41,744 1,728 41,744 1,728 0 0 030221 Crowder- Weisser 234,645 234,645 15,758 234,645 15,758 234,645 15,758 0 0 03028 Eagletail 188,230 188,230 1,400 188,230 1,400 188,230 1,400 0 0 

Eagletail A 119,643 119,643 0 119,643 0 0 0 0 0 

030471 K Lazy B 123,712 123,712 1,861 123,712 1,861 123,712 1,861 0 0 050011 Bishop 28,069 28,060 516 28,069 516 28,069 516 0 0 03064 Palomas 109,408 109,408 0 109,408 0 0 0 0 0 03075 Scott 119,257 119,257 0 119,257 0 0 0 0 0 03088 Ehrenberg 57,091 57,091 0 57,091 0 0 0 0 0 03096 Weisser 64,674 64,674 0 64,674 0 0 0 0 0 03097 Martinez 66,044 66,044 0 66,044 0 0 0 0 0 05000 Hyder Ranch 10,247 10,247 960 10,247 960 0 0 0 0 05003 Trust #1347 1,440 1,440 144 1,440 144 0 0 0 0 05006 White Wing Ranch 523 523 36 523 36 0 0 0 0 05036 Palomas Ranch 4,577 4,577 424 4,577 424 0 0 0 0 05044 Caliente Farms 2,718 2,718 180 2,718 180 0 0 0 0 05053 Dateland Ranch 16,325 16,325 900 16,325 900 0 0 0 0 

Total 1,188,347 1,188,347 23,907 1,188,347 23,907 616,400 21,263 0 0 

1. Represent current active grazing allotments, totaling 428,170 acres. The remaining allotments have been i

the last five years and some have not been grazed in 30 years.

Page 4-92 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-19 

Economic Analysis of Livestock Grazing on 428,170 Acres 

Averaging 1,958 Head Annually 

Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Dollar Value $190,243 $134,133 $34,588 $358,964 

Employment 1.46 1.56 0.43 3.45 

Labor Income $11,197 $40,578 $12,250 $64,025 

Property Income $4,431 $18,224 $6,867 $29,522 

Tax Revenue $5,430 $4,952 $2,323 $12,705 

Value Added $21,058 $63,754 $21,440 $106,252 

Table 4-20 

Economic Analysis of Livestock Grazing per 10,000 Acres of Grazing 

Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Dollar Value $4,443 $3,133 $808 $8,384 

Employment .03 .04 .01 .08 

Labor Income $262 $948 $286 $1,496 

Property Income $103 $426 $160 $689 

Tax Revenue $127 $116 $540 $783 

Value Added $492 $1,490 $986 $2,968 

Table 4-21 

Grazing Fees Collected from 2001 to 2005 for Planning Area 

Year Amount 

2001 $27,340 

2002 $27,340 

2003 $27,133 

2004 $28,960 

2005 $36,251 

C. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

1. Alternatives A and B 

Under Alternatives A and B, no changes to current allotments would occur (see Table 4-18). The 

current number of acres (1.3 million) of BLM-administered lands would continue to be available 

for livestock grazing. Grazing fees would continue to be collected but may vary depending on 

forage availability and the costs of livestock production. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-93 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

No changes to social conditions would be expected to occur. Revenue, employment/ 

unemployment, personal income, and county tax base levels would remain relatively the same 

with regard to livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands. 

2. Alternative C and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan, allotments would be reduced from 16 to five. The 

five allotments are those that currently have active livestock grazing (the 11 allotments 

unavailable for grazing use under these alternatives do not currently have active livestock 

grazing). Those ranchers who currently graze livestock on allotments would be allowed to 

continue that activity. 

Allotments that have not had livestock grazing activity in the last five years (most have not had 

grazing in the last 30 years) would become unavailable for grazing use. Therefore, social impacts 

to ranchers on allotments no longer available for livestock grazing use under Alternative C and 

the Proposed Plan would likely be minimal. Their interaction with the landscape, perceptions of 

quality of life, and attitudes and beliefs regarding the local environment, its uses, and sense of 

place would also likely be minimal as no significant change in their lifestyle would occur. 

AUMs permitted under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan would be reduced from 23,907 to 

21,263. This represents an 11 percent reduction. The number of acres available for grazing 

would be reduced by 48 percent, from 1.2 million acres to 616,400 acres. The allotments/acres 

proposed to be made unavailable for livestock grazing in Alternative C and the Proposed Plan 

have not been grazed for as many as 30 years. The 428,170 acres currently grazed would not be 

affected. No significant changes in grazing fee revenues would be anticipated. Therefore, under 

these alternatives, there would likely be no noticeable economic changes. Revenue, 

employment/unemployment, personal income, and county tax base levels would remain 

relatively the same with regard to livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands. 

3. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, no allotments would be available for livestock grazing in the planning area, 

a 100 percent reduction. Ranchers who currently obtain grazing allotments would be impacted 

because all BLM-administered lands would be unavailable for livestock grazing use. 

Adverse social impacts to ranchers on the 16 allotments no longer available for livestock grazing 

under Alternative D would be significant. This alternative would remove the opportunity to 

continue the ranching livelihood, particularly within the five allotments that currently have active 

grazing. Their interaction with the landscape, perceptions of quality of life, and attitudes and 

beliefs regarding the local environment, its uses, and sense of place would also likely be 

impacted as a significant change in their lifestyle would occur. Adverse social impacts may be 

significant at an individual rancher level but would likely not be significant at the county level as 

the ranching industry comprises a relatively small contribution to the overall economy. 

Under Alternative D, adverse economic impacts would also likely occur. Revenues would no 

longer be generated by livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands (see Table 4-19). Revenues 

from grazing fees would be eliminated, a loss of an average $29,405 dollars per year. 

Page 4-94 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Personnel working in jobs related to the YFO livestock allotments would no longer be needed, 

resulting in loss of employment and personal income. The economic impacts would constitute a 

loss of $358,964 in total output and 3.44 jobs (including direct, indirect, and induced) within the 

planning area per year. These impacts would be 0.8 percent of total output and 1.5 percent of 

jobs for cattle ranching and farming (using 2003 data, Table 3-35) each year. 

Adverse economic impacts would occur primarily within small ranching communities. Adverse 

economic impacts would be minimal overall at the county level as ranching is a relatively small 

industry and would have an insignificant impact on county revenue, employment, personal 

income, and tax bases. 

D. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavailable allotments would result in unavoidable loss of income and employment to the 

livestock grazing industry in the planning area. 

4.13.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MINERAL 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

A. SOCIAL IMPACTS FROM MINERAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT 

Mineral resources within the planning area support community needs both inside and outside of 

the planning area. As populations increase in and around the planning area, the demand for 

mineral resources would also increase. 

Despite these potential increases in demand, no impact to or change in community lifestyle is 

anticipated. Potential adverse impacts may occur to the way people interact with the landscape. If 

mineral resource demand increases, recreationists may have an adverse reaction to the disturbed 

landscapes created by mining and mineral extraction activities. The perception of the mining 

community and their interaction with the landscape may also be adversely impacted by land use 

allocations or designations that withdraw lands from mineral entry. 

Community perceptions regarding quality of life may be adversely impacted by population and 

mineral resource demand increases. The perception may be that the quality of life would 

decrease or decline as the population increases if BLM does not continue to provide mineral 

resources. The public perception may be that there would always be materials available from 

public lands to meet their demand. 

Conflicting demands for resource uses would likely also increase. Demand for open space to 

improve quality of life would likely conflict with the demand for mineral resources. The number 

of proposed community pits varies by alternative. Community pits could help consolidate salable 

mineral extraction to a smaller number of locations thus consolidating impacts to other resources. 

Both beneficial and adverse social impacts from mineral resource management would likely 

occur. Beneficial impacts would occur from the continued and expanded availability of locatable, 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-95 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

leasable, and salable mineral resources to the community. Potential beneficial impacts would 

occur from mineral entry withdrawals to recreationists seeking undisturbed landscapes. 

Adverse impacts may occur from increased demand as communities in the planning area grow, 

limiting mineral resources available to the public. Mineral entry withdrawals could also have an 

adverse impact on certain members of the public, specifically those interested in mining claims 

or mineral extraction activities. 

B. ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM MINERAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT 

The mining industry is a relatively small part of the planning area’s total economy, with an 

estimated 202 jobs and $15.77 million in income (value added) for Yuma and La Paz counties in 

2003. Overall, the mining industry has declined in the planning area since the 1970s. 

The planning area contains sources of various minerals that could continue to be developed and 

utilized now and in the future. The demand for salable minerals (e.g., sand and gravel) would be 

expected to increase due to increasing development within the planning area. 

Casual use mining for locatable minerals (e.g. gold, silver, copper) is very active in the planning 

area. There are currently approximately 20 active mining notices (also for locatable minerals) in 

the planning area. Mining activity could be expected to increase if commodity prices make 

mining more economical. 

Mineral resource management on BLM-administered lands within the planning area includes 

permits for sand/gravel mining. Currently, approximately 454,485 cubic yards per year are taken 

by private leaseholders while approximately 296,067 cubic yards per year are taken by public 

agencies at no charge. In addition, YFO has proposed contracts with Yuma County for 160,000 

cubic yards per year at no charge. Based on prices from Valley Sand and Gravel, the market 

value of a cubic yard of sand/gravel is $18. Private leaseholders pay $0.83 per cubic yard. At 

454,485 cubic yards x $0.83 per cubic yard = $377,223 annually. 

Based on this information, a total of approximately 750,552 cubic yards/year of sand/gravel are 

mined from BLM-administered lands in the planning area (454,485 by private leaseholders + 

296,067 by public agencies). The current market value of this extraction is 750,552 cubic yards x 

$18 per cubic yard = $13,509,936 annually (direct dollar value) (Table 4-22). The direct 

employment impact of sand and gravel mined on BLM-administered lands is 129 jobs and the 

total (direct, indirect and induced) is 186.3 jobs (Table 4-22). 

The information presented in Table 4-23 may be used to determine the economic impact of the 

pending 160,000-cubic-yard-per-year agreement between YFO and Yuma County. For example, 

160,000 cubic yards of material extraction per year divided by 1,000 cubic yards yields a factor 

of 160.The direct employment value is 0.17 jobs or 0.24 total jobs (including direct, indirect, and 

induced) (Table 4-23). Thus, the total employment impact of the agreement, for example, would 

be 160 x 0.24 (from Table 4-23), equaling 38 jobs created. Similar calculations may be made for 

other variables. Economic contributions of sand and gravel mining within BLM-administered 

Page 4-96 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

lands are relatively small as compared to the overall economy and employment of Yuma and La 

Paz counties. 

Table 4-22 

Economic Analysis of Mineral Material (Sand and Gravel) Extractions 

on BLM-administered Lands in Planning Area

Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Dollar Value $13,509,936 $1,138,028 $3,792,596 $18,440,560 

Employment 129.00 10.60 46.70 186.30 

Labor Income $5,288,100 $388,991 $1,343,242 $7,020,333 

Property Income $4,072,686 $189,593 $752,991 $5,015,270 

Tax Revenue $403,529 $48,867 $254,693 $707,089 

Value Added $9,764,315 $627,451 $2,350,926 $12,742,692 

Table 4-23 

Economic Analysis of Mineral Material (Sand and Gravel) Extractions 

Per 1,000 Cubic Yards

Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Dollar Value $18,000 $1,516 $5,053 $24,569 

Employment .17 .01 .06 .24 

Labor Income $7,046 $518 $1,790 $9,354 

Property Income $5,426 $253 $1,003 $6,682 

Tax Revenue $538 $65 $339 $942 

Value Added $13,010 $836 $3,132 $16,978 

C. IMPACTS TO MINERAL RESOURCES FROM LANDS AND 

REALTY MANAGEMENT 

There would be potential for social and economic impacts to Mineral Resources from Lands and 

Realty Management actions - specifically withdrawals. Land withdrawals would reduce the 

opportunity for mineral discovery and extraction. 

There are new withdrawals proposed in the range of alternatives that have a potential to affect 

mineral development. There are also existing withdrawals in Wilderness and ACECs that would 

be maintained under all alternatives. 

If Reclamation relinquishes their second form withdrawal in the Big Marias ACEC, YFO would 

propose to withdraw 2,900 acres of the ACEC from mineral entry under Alternatives A, D and 

the Proposed Plan. In addition, the Big Marias ACEC contains 1,600 acres of the Big Maria 

Mountains Wilderness, which is currently withdrawn from mineral entry. This area has low 

potential for leasable minerals, low potential for metallic locatable minerals, moderate potential 

for non-metallic locatable minerals, and moderate potential for salable minerals. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-97 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternatives C, D, and the Proposed Plan, 600 acres would be withdrawn from mineral 

entry for the Dripping Springs ACEC. This area has low potential for leasable minerals, high 

potential for metallic locatable minerals, moderate potential for non-metallic locatable minerals, 

and moderate to high potential for salable minerals. Also, under Alternatives C and D, 4,800 

acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry in the expanded Sears Point ACEC. Under the 

Proposed Plan, the Sears Point withdrawal would be expanded to 8,500 acres. 

In addition, under all alternatives, all non-Federal lands acquired within the Gila River Cultural 

ACEC boundary established and withdrawn by Public Land Order 7212 would be managed 

under the current existing withdrawal. This area has low potential for leasable minerals, low 

potential for metallic locatable minerals, low to moderate potential for non-metallic locatable 

minerals, and low to moderate potential for salable minerals. 

D. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

1. Alternatives A and D 

Under Alternatives A and D, one community pit would continue to be proposed for public use. 

This pit (Ehrenberg South Pit) would consist of 100 acres with 1,000,000 cubic yards of material 

potentially available. No additional pits would be proposed under these alternatives. 

Adverse social impacts may occur from increased demand of mineral resources as the planning 

area communities grow. Alternative A and D may not meet public demand for mineral resources. 

Revenue, employment/unemployment, personal income, and county tax base levels would 

remain relatively the same with regard to mineral resource management on BLM-administered 

lands as no significant changes in mineral resource availability would occur. 

2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, a total of six community pits would be made available for public use 

(including the one community pit in Alternatives A and D). These pits would consist of 800 

acres with 1,000,000 cubic yards of material available in each pit, for a total of 6,000,000 cubic 

yards. Alternative B would result in a six fold increase in available salable materials compared to 

Alternatives A and D. 

Beneficial social impacts would occur from the continued and expanded availability of mineral 

resources (an increase in community pits) to the community. 

The public’s (primarily those that are interested in obtaining sand and gravel materials) 

interaction with the landscape would likely increase with the increase in community pits. This 

public may also have a more positive perception of quality of life, and attitudes and beliefs 

regarding the local environment, its uses, and sense of place due to the increase in resource 

availability. 

Under Alternative B, adverse social impacts may occur from increased extraction of sand and 

gravel materials in the planning area. Recreationists that enjoy remote and primitive settings may 

be adversely impacted. Increased extraction from more community pits may also result in 

Page 4-98 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

increased vehicle use of roadways, possibly resulting in adverse impacts to recreational visitors 

in the area. Proposed mineral entry withdrawals could also have an adverse impact on the public, 

specifically those interested in mining claims or mineral extraction activities. 

Under Alternative B, beneficial economic impacts would occur regarding revenue, employment, 

personal income, and county tax bases. The information presented in Table 4-23 may be used to 

determine the economic impact of the additional 5,000,000 cubic yards of material available for 

public use. By dividing 5,000,000 cubic yards by 1,000 yields a factor of 5,000. Thus, the 

employment impact to the mining industry in the planning area would likely be 5,000 x .17 

equaling 850 jobs created. Using data from Table 3-35 (202 jobs in the mining industry in 2003), 

this would result in a 4-fold increase in mining industry related jobs since 2003. The value added 

to the economy of Yuma and La Paz counties could be calculated by 5,000 x $21,484 equaling a 

$107,420,000 increase. 

3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, a total of three community pits would be made available for public use 

(including the one community pit in Alternatives A and D). These pits would consist of 400 

acres with 1,000,000 cubic yards of material available in each pit, for a total of 3,000,000 cubic 

yards. Alternative C would result in a 3 fold increase in available salable material compared to 

Alternatives A and D, but half of the available salable material compared to Alternative B. 

Beneficial and adverse social impacts would be similar to those mentioned for Alternative B, but 

at a lesser scale. Under Alternative C, half the number of community pits would be made 

available (three under Alternative C and six under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan). 

This alternative would also result in beneficial economic impacts to revenue, employment, 

personal income, and county tax bases. The employment impact of the additional 2,000,000 

cubic yards of material available for public use would be 2,000 x .17 equaling 340 jobs created. 

Using data from Table 3-35 (202 jobs in the sand and gravel industry in 2003), this would result 

in a 68 percent increase in mining industry related jobs since 2003. The value added to the 

economy of Yuma and La Paz counties could be calculated by 2,000 x $21,484 equaling a 

$42,968,000 increase. 

4. Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, a total of five community pits would be made available for public use 

(including the one community pit in Alternatives A and D). These pits would consist of 700 

acres with 1,000,000 cubic yards of material available in each pit, for a total of 5,000,000 cubic 

yards. The Proposed Plan would result in a 5 fold increase in available salable material compared 

to Alternatives A and D, but about 3/4 of the available salable material compared to 

Alternative B. 

Beneficial and adverse social impacts would be similar to those mentioned for Alternative B, but 

at a slightly lower scale. This alternative would also result in beneficial economic impacts to 

revenue, employment, personal income, and county tax bases. The employment impact of the 

additional 4,000,000 cubic yards of material available for public use would be 4,000 x .17 

equaling 680 jobs created. Using data from Table 3-35 (202 jobs in the sand and gravel industry 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-99 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

in 2003), this would result in a 3 fold increase in mining industry related jobs since 2003. The 

value added to the economy of Yuma and La Paz counties could be calculated by 4,000 x 

$21,484 equaling a $85,936,000 increase. 

E. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

Once a mineral resource is extracted it cannot be recovered in the planning area. 

Non-reactive gravel is a unique resource in the planning area that would be lost once depleted 

and would not be replaceable (unique deposit type). This resource (non-reactive gravel) may be 

provided by BLM for the proposed Palo Verde Nuclear Plant Expansion. 

4.13.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF RECREATION 

MANAGEMENT 

YFO manages two types of recreation fee programs, provides access to dispersed and 

undeveloped water and land-based recreation opportunities, and administers two recreation 

concession leases on the lower Colorado River within the planning area. YFO provides a wide 

range of recreation opportunities in an environmentally responsible manner consistent with 

maintaining public health and safety and BLM goals and objectives. 

Recreational activities and services have become major industries in the planning area and have a 

significant impact on social and economic conditions. The local tourism industry is currently one 

of the major industries in the planning area and would likely continue to be important in the 

future. The industry is heavily supported by public lands and the recreational opportunities they 

provide. Changes to recreational opportunities within BLM-administered lands in the planning 

area could have impacts, both beneficial and adverse, to social and economic conditions. 

A. SOCIAL IMPACTS FROM RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

Local and regional social trends include increases in population, influxes in population from 

winter visitors during half of the year, expanding urban interfaces, overall aging of the 

population, and increasing participation rates in outdoor recreation activities. 

The demand for recreational opportunities on public lands in the planning area is expected to 

continue to increase, both as a result of the increasing population and the growing numbers of 

winter and summer visitors. Demand for access to the same or similar land and water resources 

between various generally incompatible activities (e.g., hiking and OHV use) and the number of 

participants in these activities would be expected to remain stable or increase. 

Increasing demand for recreation opportunities creates pressure for BLM to provide additional 

recreation resources. Such resources include areas for hiking, biking, equestrian use, camping, 

picnicking, day-use and long-term stays (as in the LTVAs). Demands also increase for facilities 

(such as bathrooms), and interpretative and visitor service programs. Any land use decision or 

Page 4-100 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

activity made would have impacts on recreation and therefore social conditions in the planning 

area. Additional planning, management, staffing, and funding would be required to achieve the 

goals for recreation management in the planning area. 

Hiking, biking, equestrian use, camping, hunting, picnicking, and wilderness travel provide a 

tremendous social benefit to the public land visitor. Hiking and biking trails provide the public 

with recreational opportunities that improve their physical fitness and promote healthy lifestyles. 

Public land visitors who regularly take advantage of these non-motorized trail opportunities are 

generally healthier than those who do not. Groups of public land visitors often use equestrian 

and OHV trails as a part of formal and informal club activities. These opportunities provide 

visitors with a sense of community and belonging with those who enjoy experiencing the public 

lands in the same manner. 

Designating specific areas for camping and day-use activities generally concentrates visitor use. 

This concentration of visitor use, along with the installation of recreation facilities and signs, 

promotes a sense of community and improved environmental stewardship of the public lands. A 

distinct sense of community is enjoyed by visitors at two LTVAs, as most of the campground 

users are retired and enjoy extended desert camping experiences. 

The administration of two recreation concession leases provides the public with a wider range of 

more modern recreation amenities than the YFO is able to provide unassisted (e.g. electricity, 

fuel, food, laundry facilities, etc.). This enables a wider range of people to enjoy public lands, as 

not everyone is willing or able to camp primitively. 

Potential beneficial social impacts would occur with an increase in recreational opportunities and 

in a more diverse recreation spectrum. The allocation of SRMAs would provide the public with 

YFO’s proposed approach to recreation management over the life of this RMP. Social impacts 

from recreation management allocations are based on the following assumptions: (1) recreational 

sites and opportunities within Destination SRMAs would be primarily marketed and managed as 

regional or national public land destinations, (2) recreational sites and opportunities within 

Community SRMAs would be primarily marketed and managed for use by local community 

residents, (3) recreational opportunities within Undeveloped SRMAs would be managed to 

maintain a wide variety of unconfined activities across wide expanses of public land, (4) 

management within RMZs would focus on providing for identified recreational activities and 

achieving stated desired future conditions, (5) management within ERMAs would be limited to 

those actions needed to protect resource values and public health and safety. Under the Proposed 

Plan, the following benefits would occur through these types of allocations: 

1) Greater Yuma Community SRMA. As a Community SRMA, these public lands would be 

managed primarily for the use of local community residents. This SRMA would be primarily 

focused on creating an interconnected system of recreational trails which would link local 

residents with their public lands and other communities. The promotion of non-motorized 

recreational trails within this SRMA would promote healthier lifestyles within the 

community. The vital connection of a future trail system within this SRMA would be the 

establishment of a recreational Anza Trail. This interpretive-based recreational trail would 

not only promote healthier lifestyles, but encourage greater understanding and appreciation 

of the community’s natural and cultural history. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-101 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

2) Gila River Valley Undeveloped SRMA. As an Undeveloped SRMA, these public lands 

would be managed to retain their undeveloped nature. The SRMA would be focused on 

establishing a less developed Anza Trail which would provide recreational trail connectivity 

between the City of Yuma and the adjacent BLM Lower Sonoran Field Office. The proposed 

Sears Point ACEC would also be within this SRMA, and the sensitive cultural and natural 

resources within this proposed ACEC would be cause to minimize the amount of human 

manipulation in the area to protect resources. These areas are generally not experiencing the 

same dramatic rates of encroachment from development in surrounding communities as other 

portions of the planning area; an undeveloped approach to recreation management would be 

one way to preserve visual and cultural landscapes in perpetuity for the public to enjoy. 

3) Yuma East Undeveloped SRMA. As an Undeveloped SRMA, these public lands would be 

managed to retain their undeveloped nature. This area is a highly valued hunting resource, 

and any impacts to wildlife or their habitat would directly impact the hunter’s visitor 

experiences. An undeveloped approach to recreation management within this proposed 

SRMA would be one way to ensure that children can continue to have the same hunting 

opportunities and experiences as their parents. 

4) La Posa Destination SRMA. As a Destination SRMA, these public lands would be managed 

as a national destination. Every winter, thousands of winter visitors from all over the U.S. 

and Canada come to the Town of Quartzsite, Arizona to enjoy the mild climate, sense of 

community, and recreational opportunities on the public lands. The destination-based 

recreation management approach would manage the visitor use through effective 

interpretation and working partnerships. 

5) Ehrenberg-Cibola Destination SRMA. As a Destination SRMA, these public lands would be 

managed as a regional destination. During the summer months, visitors flock to the Colorado 

River from metropolitan centers in Arizona and southern California. The destination-based 

recreation management approach would manage visitor use through effective interpretation 

and working partnerships. 

Potential adverse social impacts may occur as a result of increased visitor use of recreational 

areas and concessions. Areas sustaining higher and more intensive use may require more 

restrictive management. 

B. ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

Recreation associated with winter visitors provides a large economic impact to the planning area. 

In order to determine visitor impacts, multiple studies were consulted: 

 Fourteenth Bi-Annual Yuma Winter Visitor Study (Norton 2005); 

 Winter Resident Survey, Quartzsite (Arizona State University 2002 and 2003); 

 Arizona Business, Volume 50, Number 6, (Hogan 2003); and 

 YFO Recreation and Visitor Services Business Plan (USDOI BLM 2007a). 

Page 4-102 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-103 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Winter Resident Survey, Quartzsite (Arizona State University 2002 and 2003); 

 Arizona Business, Volume 50, Number 6, (Hogan 2003); and 

 YFO Recreation and Visitor Services Business Plan (USDOI BLM 2007a). 

Based on YFO data, 75 percent of site visits for 2004 were by individuals living more than 2 

hours away. While the planning area has summer visitors, expenditure, length of stay, and group 

size data were not available. Consequently, Table 4-24 refers only to compiled winter visitor 

data. 

For Yuma County, the Norton Study estimated 56,000 winter visitors for 2004-2005. Total 

expenditures were estimated at $131,235,000. Median expenditures per visitor per month were 

roughly $1,000. For La Paz County, Arizona Business provided an estimate of 2,720 winter 

visitors in mobile homes and RV parks. With two people to a household and mobile home/RVs 

representing 50 percent of the winter visitors, 10,880 winter visitors are estimated for La Paz 

County. 

Based on the two Quartzsite surveys, 5,440 households (i.e. 2,720 mobile homes/RV park plus 

2,720 other accommodations) spent an average of three weeks in La Paz County and spent an 

average of $125 per week, the total La Paz expenditure would be 5,440 x three weeks x $125 per 

week or $2,040,000. 

Using estimated expenditures for Yuma County ($131,235,000) and those for La Paz County 

($2,040,000), estimated expenditures for winter visitors in the planning area from 2004 to 2005 

were $133,275,000, for 61,440 winter visitors (56,000 in Yuma County and 5,440 in La Paz 

County). Using the IMPLAN model for the planning area, the economic analysis of recreation 

management from winter visitor use for 2004 to 2005 is presented in Table 4-24. 

Using the analysis data in Table 4-25, the dollar value per 1,000 winter visitor is $2,169,189 

($133,275,000 direct dollar value divided by 61,440 winter visitors multiplied by 1,000). Based 

on Table 4-25, the total employment value (direct, indirect, and induced) is 46.5 jobs. Using this 

information, the economic impact of an increase or decrease in winter visitors can be calculated. 

For example, an increase in recreation and visitor services on BLM-administered lands that leads 

to a 6,000 winter visitor increase would have a total (direct, indirect, and induced) economic 

impact of $19,901,628 (3,316,938 total dollar value multiplied by six) and a total employment 

impact of 279 jobs (46.5 total employment multiplied by six). 

Table 4-24 

Economic Analysis of Winter Visitors 

La Paz and Yuma Counties

Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Dollar Value $133,275,000 $28,679,425 $41,838,230 $203,792,655 

Employment 2,091 310 460 2,861 

Labor Income $34,774,588 $7,783,355 $10,011,623 $52,569,566 

Property Income $10,613,066 $3,701,978 $5,599,089 $19,914,133 

Tax Revenue $5,637,018 $1,041,914 $2,092,184 $8,771,116 

Value Added $51,024,672 $12,527,247 $17,702,896 $81,254,815 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Page 4-104 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Table 4-25 

Economic Analysis of 1,000 Winter Visitors 

La Paz and Yuma Counties

Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Dollar Value $2,169,189 $466,788 $680,961 $3,316,938 

Employment 34.0 5.0 7.5 46.5 

Labor Income $565,993 $126,682 $162,950 $855,625 

Property Income $172,738 $60,254 $91,131 $324,123 

Tax Revenue $91,748 $16,958 $34,052 $142,758 

Value Added $830,479 $203,894 $288,133 $1,322,506 

1. Recreation Fee Programs 

a. SRPs 

SRPs are authorizations which allow specific recreational uses of public lands and related 

waters. They are issued to manage visitor use, protect natural and cultural resources, and provide 

a mechanism to accommodate commercial recreational uses. Fees collected for SRPs issued by 

YFO for uses in the planning area totaled $407,400 in Fiscal Year 2004 and $469,296 in Fiscal 

Year 2005. SRPs would remain an important part of the YFO recreation program. SRPs for 

commercial, organized, or competitive uses would continue to be issued in accordance with 

FLPMA, NEPA, and BLM policy and fees would be charged. 

b. Amenity Recreation Fees 

Amenity Recreation Fees are daily or annual passes, for which fees are charged, that allow the 

public to access and use BLM recreation facilities. Amenity Recreation Fees in the planning area 

totaled $219,399 for Fiscal Year 2004 and $223,750 in Fiscal Year 2005 (these amounts included 

concession leases). These amenities fees were charged for the use of recreational areas that 

maintain specified levels of development and facilities, such as designated campgrounds, picnic 

areas, boat launches, and bathroom facilities. 

Concessions in the planning area provide recreation opportunities for a diversity of recreationists 

and serve as a commercial operation on public land that generates income. Concession activities 

would continue according to the terms and specifications of the various leases. Some leases 

would be renewed and additional new leases may be issued as necessary to support recreation 

programs in the planning area. In Fiscal year 2005, the Hidden Shores RV Village had 34,050 

visitors and Walters Camp had approximately 4,482 visitors. In Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, 

$111,393 and $114,124, respectively, were collected in fees for these two concessions, these 

amounts are incorporated into Recreation Amenity Fees (above). 

C. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, recreation management would continue to comprise of recreation fee 

programs, recreation concession leases, and free recreational opportunities. SRMAs would not be 
 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-105 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

allocated under this alternative (Table 4-26). New recreation concession leases would be issued 

within the planning area under this alternative on a case-by-case basis. LTVAs would remain the 

same. 

Table 4-26 

SRMA and ERMA Allocations by Alternative (Acres) 

Alternatives 

Category A B C D E 

Destination SRMA 0 697,100 494,300 250,500 455,700 

Community SRMA 0 587,300 64,900 35,600 123,200 

Undeveloped SRMA 0 0 559,300 642,700 571,600 

ERMA 0 33,500 199,500 389,200 167,500 

No significant changes to social conditions would be expected to occur under Alternative A. 

However, increases in population would likely continue and result in an increasing demand for 

recreational opportunities. YFO would continue to experience more pressure to provide greater 

recreational resources, including facilities and visitor programs. Adverse impacts to the public’s 

lifestyle, interactions with the landscape, sense of place, and attitudes may occur if demands on 

public lands could not be meet under Alternative A. 

Revenue, employment/unemployment, personal income, and county tax base levels would 

remain relatively the same with regard to recreation management on BLM-administered lands. 

2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, recreation management would have a greater emphasis on developed and 

motorized recreation opportunities and less on remote settings and primitive recreation. Proposed 

SRMAs under the destination allocation would be emphasized in Alternative B with the most 

number of acres (697,100). The greatest number of acres (587,300) proposed for Community 

SRMAs are also in Alternative B. No Undeveloped SRMA acres are proposed. Alternative B 

also proposes 33,500 acres of ERMAs. New recreation concession leases would be issued within 

the planning area under this alternative on a case-by-case basis. No changes to LTVAs would 

occur under this alternative. 

Social conditions would likely be impacted under this alternative. Alternative B places an 

emphasis on appropriate human use and influences along with the widest array of uses on BLMadministered lands. Less emphasis would be placed on remote settings and primitive recreation 

and more opportunities would be available for visitors interested in developed and motorized 

recreation. The highest number of Destination and Community SRMAs are proposed under this 

alternative. In addition, no Undeveloped SRMAs and the lowest number of ERMA acres are 

proposed under Alternative B. 

Beneficial social impacts would occur from SRMA allocations under Alternative B. Beneficial 

impacts would occur to public land visitors interested in developed and motorized recreational 

opportunities. The allocation of the Greater Yuma Destination SRMA and its associated Red 

Cloud Road, Laguna Mountains, Gila Mountains, and Sears Point Heritage RMZs would 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Page 4-106 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

promote recreational opportunities to a wider variety of public land users. The allocation of the 

Yuma East Community SRMA, and its associated Clanton Hills Road and Red Raven Road 

RMZs, would promote recreational use of this area to surrounding local communities. The 

promotion of these recreational opportunities would increase human interactions with the 

landscape and provide beneficial impacts to visitors' perceptions of their quality of life. Positive 

attitudes and beliefs regarding the local environment, its uses, and sense of place for new users 

would likely increase with additional developed recreational facilities. 

Negative social impacts would also occur from SRMA allocations under Alternative B. Public 

land visitors seeking remote settings and more undeveloped forms of recreation may experience 

adverse impacts due to the marketing strategies of the Greater Yuma Destination SRMA and the 

Yuma East Community SRMA. These recreationists may experience increasing conflicts with an 

increasing number of visitors participating in developed and motorized forms of recreation. 

These conflicts would adversely impact the traditional public land visitors’ sense of place and 

attitudes towards public land management. These impacts would be most pronounced within the 

Red Cloud Road, Laguna Mountains, Gila Mountains, Clanton Hills Road, and Red Raven Road 

RMZs, where recreational opportunities are generally not marketed by the BLM as regional or 

local destinations. 

Alternative B would likely result in beneficial economic impacts to revenue, employment, 

personal income, and county tax bases. The emphasis on developed and motorized recreational 

opportunities would likely result in an increase in visitors to BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area, particularly developed facilities. Beneficial economic impacts would be difficult 

to calculate until programs and developments have been established. Overall, beneficial 

economic impacts that result from this alternative would not likely be minimal to the economy 

and employment of La Paz and Yuma counties. 

3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, resources would be managed with decisions that have a balanced array of 

multiple uses, providing for both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. Under 

this alternative, 494,300 Destination, 64,900 Community, and 559,300 Undeveloped SRMA 

acres are proposed (see Table 4-26). This alternative also proposes 199,500 acres of ERMAs. No 

new recreation leases would be issued under Alternative C. LTVAs would remain the same 

under this alternative. 

Recreation allocations proposed under Alternative C would provide a more balanced range of 

recreation marketing strategies than Alternative B. This would ensure that recreational 

opportunities are appropriately marketed for those seeking to participate in both developed and 

undeveloped activities on the public lands. 

Because major investments in recreation facilities are generally excluded within Undeveloped 

SRMAs, the allocation of the Yuma East Undeveloped SRMA would promote the continuation 

of dispersed and undeveloped forms of recreation that have traditionally occurred there. 

Alternative C does not propose to allocate any RMZs associated with Back Country Byway 

proposals within the Yuma East Undeveloped SRMA. These proposals would prevent negative 

impacts to traditional public land users' sense of place by maintaining visitor freedom to choose 

where to go and what to do. 
 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-107 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Alternative C proposes to allocate the Gila Mountains and Laguna Mountains RMZ within the 

Greater Yuma Community SRMA. The inclusion of these two RMZs in a Community SRMA 

would focus marketing and environmental education efforts to the surrounding local 

communities where a majority of the existing visitors are coming from and provide the BLM 

with the ability to adequately manage the increasing amounts of motorized and non-motorized 

trail use through the installation of trailhead facilities. 

Actively managing the existing recreational activities of these areas explicitly for local 

community users would result in beneficial impacts to local visitors’ perceptions of quality of 

life, sense of place, and attitudes and beliefs regarding the local environment and its uses. The 

management of non-motorized trail based activities within these RMZs would also provide 

opportunities for local community residents to improve their physical fitness and make healthier 

lifestyle choices. 

Some negative impacts to social conditions may occur from the recreation allocations proposed 

under Alternative C. Alternative C proposes to allocate the Southern Desert Communities RMZ 

within the Gila River Valley Undeveloped SRMA. Visitors to this RMZ primarily come from the 

rapidly expanding community of Wellton, Arizona. Major investments in recreation facilities are 

generally excluded within Undeveloped SRMAs. Due to the increasing amounts of motorized 

trail use within the RMZ, the inclusion of this RMZ in an Undeveloped SRMA may limit the 

BLM's ability to actively manage recreation through the use of facilities. A lack of active 

management in this area may cause the degradation of the RMZ’s natural resources and the 

recreational opportunities dependent upon them, which would result in negative impacts to local 

visitors’ perceptions of quality of life, sense of place, and attitudes and beliefs regarding the local 

environment and its uses. 

Alternative C would likely result in beneficial economic impacts to revenue, employment, 

personal income, and county tax bases. The emphasis on a balance of multiple uses would likely 

result in an increase in visitors to BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Beneficial 

economic impacts would be difficult to calculate until programs and developments have been 

established. Overall, beneficial economic impacts that result from this alternative would likely be 

minimal to the economy and employment of La Paz and Yuma counties. 

4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, a greater emphasis would be placed on preservation of natural and cultural 

resources through limited public use. This alternative proposes greater opportunities for 

dispersed non-motorized recreation and fewer motorized and developed recreation opportunities. 

Under this alternative, 250,500 acres of Destination SRMAs are proposed and the lowest number 

of Community SRMA acres (35,600) is proposed. The highest number of acres (642,700) for 

Undeveloped SRMAs is found under Alternative D. The highest number of acres (398,200) for 

ERMAs is also found under Alternative D (see Table 4-26). LTVAs would remain unchanged 

under this alternative. 

Under Alternative D, visitors seeking remote, primitive, and non-motorized recreation would 

experience beneficial impacts. Visitors interested in the preservation of natural and cultural 

resources would have an improved perception of the quality of life, and attitudes and beliefs 

regarding the local environment, its uses, and sense of place would likely be more positive. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Page 4-108 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

Some negative impacts to social conditions may occur from the recreation allocations proposed 

under Alternative D. Alternative D proposes to allocate the Southern Desert Communities, Gila 

Mountains, and Laguna Mountains RMZs within the Gila River Valley Undeveloped SRMA. 

Visitors to these RMZs primarily come from the local communities surrounding Wellton, 

Arizona. Major investments in recreation facilities are generally excluded within Undeveloped 

SRMAs. Due to the increasing amounts of motorized and non-motorized trail uses within these 

RMZs, their inclusion in an Undeveloped SRMA may limit the BLM's ability to actively manage 

recreation through the use of trailhead facilities. A lack of active management in these areas may 

cause the degradation of the RMZs’ natural resources and the recreational opportunities 

dependent upon them, which would result in negative impacts to local visitors’ perceptions of 

quality of life, sense of place, and attitudes and beliefs regarding the local environment and its 

uses. 

Revenue, employment/unemployment, personal income, and county tax base levels under 

Alternative D would remain similar to current conditions. LTVAs would remain the same, the 

number of visitors would not likely increase as the population and winter visitors increase. 

Overall, no significant increases or decreases would be expected to occur as a result of recreation 

management on BLM-administered lands under this alternative. 

5. The Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan seeks to provide an optimal balance between authorized resource uses, and 

the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources within the planning area. Under 

this alternative, 455,700 acres (will change according to La Posa SRMA boundary change) of 

Destination SRMAs, 123,200 acres of Community SRMA, 571,600 acres of Undeveloped 

SRMAs, and 167,500 acres of ERMA (will change according to La Posa SRMA boundary 

change) are proposed. No changes to LTVAs would occur under this alternative. The social and 

economic impacts of implementing the recreation allocations proposed under the Proposed Plan 

would be similar to those described under Alternative C. One difference is that the Southern 

Desert Communities RMZ would be allocated within the Greater Yuma Community SRMA, 

providing the BLM with more flexibility to manage increasing amounts of trail use through the 

installation of trailhead facilities. 

The Proposed Plan proposes to continue existing overnight camping restrictions for public lands 

surrounding the YFO’s two LTVAs and proposes to institute new overnight camping restrictions 

within portions of ACECs. While these restrictions would reduce the acreage available for 

overnight camping, a majority of the 1.3 million acres of public land under the BLM’s 

jurisdiction would continue to be available for this use. 

The Proposed Plan proposes to continue prohibiting the use of firearms within the YFO’s nine 

designated recreation fee sites. These restrictions reduce the acreage available for recreational 

shooting; however, a majority of the 1.3 million acres of public land under the BLM’s 

jurisdiction would continue to be available for this use. 
 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-109 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

4.13.4 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF TRAVEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Travel management duties on BLM-administered lands in the planning area include designating 

OHV Management Areas (Open, Limited, and Closed Areas) and providing a wide variety of 

trail-based recreation opportunities, such as hiking, equestrian, mountain biking, and OHV trails. 

The planning area has experienced an increased demand for OHV and other motorized recreation 

opportunities. Travel routes provide safe and legal access for visitors to recreate on public lands. 

A. SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

YFO is the largest supplier of land and trails available for OHV use in the planning area. Most of 

the planning area is available for at least some level of OHV use. Currently, about 169,000 acres 

are closed to OHV use, of the approximately 1.3 million acres managed by the YFO. OHV trails 

provide a tremendous social benefit to the public land visitor. 

OHV regulations and changes in designations specific to certain areas would likely have little 

impact on visitors from outside the region. New visitors would continue to have a variety of 

OHV opportunities available, which would become their frame of reference for OHV activities 

during subsequent visits. Minimal impact to social conditions would likely occur from OHV 

management decisions or designations affecting new visitors. 

Frequent users and local individuals and/or groups may react positively or negatively if certain 

favorite areas are not as open to satisfy their specific OHV use and history in the planning area. 

BLM’s responsibility is to provide for multiple uses while protecting resources. Striking that 

balance may not satisfy every person’s wants completely. Impacts to local users and/or groups 

may be significant individually but would not likely have an overall significant impact on the 

social condition of the planning area. A variety of areas offering different OHV experiences, 

from which visitors and local residents may choose, would continue to be available. 

The designation of Closed OHV Management Areas would result in the loss of motorized 

recreational trail opportunities, which would directly impact visitors’ use of the public lands. The 

overwhelming majority of Closed OHV Management Areas (167,800 acres) are a part of the 

congressionally-designated National Wilderness Preservation System. The Wilderness Act of 

1964 mandates BLM to enforce the prohibition of motorized vehicles on these designated lands. 

The designation of Open OHV Management Areas would provide the public with recreational 

opportunities where concentrated OHV use exists and the resource base can accommodate such 

use. The designation of such areas is part of the National Management Strategy for Motorized 

OHV Use on Public Lands (USDOI BLM 2001). By meeting the recreational demands of the 

OHV community, the YFO would provide these visitors with a sense of place on their public 

lands where they can enjoy cross-country OHV use in a sustainable fashion.
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Page 4-110 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

B. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

It is not anticipated that any of the alternatives would have a significant impact on local 

economies in the planning area. Numerous opportunities would continue to be available for OHV 

enthusiasts as well as public users that enjoy non-motorized recreation. 

C. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

1. Alternative A 

Alternative A represents the current management systems, policies, and practices. Under 

Alternative A, OHV Management Areas would continue to be designated as follows: 400 Open, 

169,000 acres Closed, and 1,148,600 acres Limited (Table 4-27). 

Table 4-27 

OHV Management Area Allocations by Alternative (Acres) 

OHV Management Alternative 

Areas A B C D E 

Total Open 400 3,800 2,400 400 400 

Total Closed 169,000 171,000 171,300 233,800 172,900 

Total Limited 1,148,600 1,143,200 1,144,300 1,083,800 1,144,700 

Total Acres 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 1,318,000 

Beneficial social impacts may occur from the continued availability of Open and Limited OHV 

Management Areas. The public’s interaction with the landscape would likely continue to 

increase as more recreationists use trails and routes as the population in the planning area grows. 

Closed OHV Management Areas would continue to benefit recreationists seeking non-motorized 

opportunities. Under Alternative A, motorized trail use would continue to be limited to existing 

routes (roads, trails, and drivable washes). This would ensure that there is no net loss of 

motorized recreational trails available for public use on lands administered by the YFO and no 

adverse impacts to traditional motorized uses. 

Adverse social impacts would occur from increased recreational use of trails and routes under 

current policies and practices (Alternative A). These impacts include such things as: 

 Proliferation of motorized routes and trails throughout the planning area, 

 Unmanaged public access to sensitive resources, 

 A lack of visitor services and education with the intent to create a better user ethic, and 

 Confusion by the public as to what trails are open and available for use. 

The public’s perception of quality of life, and attitudes and beliefs regarding the local 

environment, its uses, and sense of place may be adversely affected by these impacts. 
 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-111 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Revenue, employment/unemployment, personal income, and county tax base levels would 

remain relatively the same with regard to travel management on BLM-administered lands as no 

significant changes in current management would occur. 

2. Alternative B 

Alternative B would provide the widest array of public uses and motorized access. Under this 

alternative, OHV Management Areas would be designated as follows: 3,800 Open, 171,000 

Closed, and 1,143,200 Limited (see Table 4-27). This alternative has the most acres of Open 

OHV Management Areas. 

Under Alternative B, beneficial social impacts would likely occur, particularly to those public 

users interested in OHV recreation. The interaction of OHV recreationists with the landscape 

would increase with an increase in Open OHV Management Areas. Their perception of quality 

of life, and attitudes and beliefs regarding the local environment, its uses, and sense of place 

would also likely improve with additional OHV opportunities. Recreationists seeking nonmotorized opportunities would benefit from the increase in Closed OHV Management Areas. 

Management actions proposed under this alternative would reduce route proliferation problems, 

manage public access to sensitive resources, improve visitor services with the intent to create a 

better user ethic, and provide signs and information on trails that are open to visitor use. These 

management actions would result in beneficial social impacts to visitors by improving the 

recreational uses of the public lands, increasing environmental education, and providing 

additional visitor services. 

Some adverse social impacts would occur from travel management decisions proposed under 

Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan. Limiting motorized trail use to existing inventoried 

routes versus existing routes may disrupt traditional motorized use patterns on the public lands. 

This is due to the fact that routes missing from the YFO route inventory maps would no longer 

be available for motorized public use. This impact may be temporary in nature, as future YFO 

travel management plans would provide interested members of the public with additional 

opportunities to identify routes missing from the YFO route inventory. In addition, Alternatives 

B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan would prohibit motorized vehicles from pulling off 100 feet on 

either side of a route’s centerline along the Anza Trail and within proposed ACECs and 

SCRMAs for resource protection purposes. While this prohibition within ACECs and SCRMAs 

still allows the reasonable use of a route’s shoulder for overnight camping purposes, it may still 

potentially disrupt traditional camping uses within these areas as they are proposed under each 

alternative. 

Revenue, employment/unemployment, personal income, and the county tax base levels would 

likely experience a slight increase due to potential increases in OHV recreationists. The potential 

increase would be minimal compared to the overall economy and employment in Yuma and La 

Paz counties. 

3. Alternative C 

Alternative C provides a more balanced approach and the expected environmental impacts are 

similar to those of the Proposed Plan. Under this alternative, OHV Management Areas would be 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Page 4-112 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 

designated as follows: 2,400 Open, 171,300 Closed, and 1,144,300 Limited (see Table 4-27). 

This alternative is similar to Alternative B. 

Social and economic impacts as a result of Alternative C would be similar to those discussed 

under Alternative B above. 

4. Alternative D 

Alternatives A and D propose the least amount of open areas, and fewer motorized and 

developed recreation opportunities. Under Alternative D, OHV Management Areas would be 

designated as follows: 400 Open, 233,800 Closed, and 1,083,800 Limited (see Table 4-27). This 

alternative would have the same number of acres designated as Open as Alternative A and the 

most acres designated as Closed. 

Beneficial social impacts would likely be similar to those discussed under Alternative B. OHV 

users would likely not experience the same level of beneficial impacts due to the lower number 

of acres designated as Open OHV Management Areas. Management actions outlined in 

Alternative B would also occur under Alternative D, resulting in an improved experience overall. 

Adverse social impacts from implementing existing inventoried route limitations and 100-feetpull-off limitations would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B above. 

Revenue, employment/unemployment, personal income, and county tax base levels would 

remain relatively the same with regard to travel management on BLM-administered lands as no 

significant changes in current availability would occur. 

5. The Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan provides a balance between the needs of public access, the existing 

transportation network, and the protection of sensitive resources. Under this alternative, OHV 

Management Areas would be designated as follows: 400 Open, 172,900 Closed, and 1,144,700 

Limited (see Table 4-27). Adverse social impacts from implementing existing inventoried route 

limitations and 100-feet-pull-off limitations would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B above. 

Revenue, employment/unemployment, personal income, and county tax base levels would 

remain relatively the same with regard to travel management on BLM-administered lands as no 

significant changes in current availability would occur. 

4.13.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF LANDS AND 

REALTY MANAGEMENT 

Resource capabilities and uses associated with lands and realty management include but are not 

limited to, land disposal and acquisition actions, withdrawals, agricultural leases, ROWs, and 

renewable energy authorizations, enhanced community expansion and the social environment. 

These are affected by local and regional social trends including continued and projected 

increases in population and retirement migration to the area, increases in participation rates in 

outdoor recreation activities, and increased demand for OHV and other motorized recreation 

opportunities. The large number of winter visitors to the area has also had a profound effect on 
 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-113 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

local communities and their social environment, and has increased demand for LTVA 

development. 

A. SOCIAL IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT 

As communities expand and populations grow, there is an increased need for access across 

public lands for roads, utilities, and other infrastructure. The demand on public lands to meet 

community needs include but are not limited to, land disposals for residential and business 

purposes, and for R&PP leases/patents for public and recreational facilities. 

The communities in the planning area may perceive that the quality of life would 

decrease/decline as the population increases if YFO does not provide realty services. Increased 

population may create conflicting demands of use (open space versus amenities and utilities). As 

the population becomes more affluent, it demands better and more recreational opportunities 

(e.g., Hidden Shores RV Village Concession area). 

In communities surrounded by public lands, growth may be limited if lands are not made 

available for disposal to meet increased public demand for residential and business development. 

Disposal of public lands may cause impacts by the potential removal of lands historically used 

for recreation from the public domain. 

Land acquisitions of private land from willing sellers can be used to enhance recreational 

opportunities for the public by acquiring strategically located properties and opening them to the 

general public to meet recreational needs (e.g., Gilmore’s Camp). Acquisitions of private land 

benefits various Federal programs and results in long-term enhancement from BLM 

administration. Many acquired lands are at risk of development or overuse in areas with sensitive 

natural or cultural resources.

ROWs may enhance access to the public lands for recreational opportunities. In addition, ROWs 

may provide infrastructure for the needs of the recreating public (e.g., powerlines, water, and 

sewer lines). However, ROW authorizations may negatively impact the recreational 

opportunities by encumbering the lands and viewsheds. 

Designated ROW Corridors and communications sites allow for the installation of additional 

facilities to provide services to the communities as they grow. This enhances the social 

environment by allowing additional infrastructure to meet public demand needs.

B. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY 

MANAGEMENT 

Economic impacts for lands and realty management focused on communications sites, ROW 

grants, leases, and permits. Income for agricultural, communications sites, and mineral, 

residential, and ROW leases in the last five years are presented in Table 4-28 below. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-28 

Lands and Realty Income from 2001 to 2006 

Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Agricultural 

Leases/Permits $435,373 $465,569 $438,670 $579,985 $487,652 $165,907* 

Communications Use 

Authorizations 

$83,533 $112,457 $93,792 $101,526 $127,168 $154,967

 Mineral Leasing Act 

ROWs 

$13,777 $7,874 $19,690 

2004 and 2005 rent 

monies were included 

in regular rent income 

$17,799 

Residential Leases $59,500 $59,608 $59,608 $60,908 $61,900 $54,500 

ROW Rental Income $52,632 $71,354 $70,290 $8,566 $105,096 $96,550 

* Income reflects partial year; exchange completed in 2006 for California agricultural permits. 

1. Agricultural Leases 

YFO currently leases approximately 1,044 acres of land in Arizona and California for 

agricultural use (approximately 227 acres in California and Approximately 817 acres in 

Arizona). 

Between 2005 and 2006, YFO disposed of approximately 2,087 acres of leased agricultural land 

in California. In addition, an 80-acre parcel of leased agricultural land in California is being 

considered by Congress for exchange legislation. Income for agricultural leases on the disposed 

2,087 acres is no longer being generated. Any loss of agicultural lands would decrease 

agricultural lease income. Total fair market value of the 2,087 acres exchanged was over 

$6,000,000. 

The last agricultural lease appraisal for the California agricultural leases was completed in 1998. 

Due to the processing of an exchange, the California agricultural leases were not appraised 

between 1998 and 2007. An appraisal was recently completed for the Arizona agricultural leases. 

An appraisal will be requested for the remaining California agricultural leases in 2007. 

2. Communications Sites 

Currently, YFO administers 11 communications sites encompassing 232 acres in the planning 

area. Sites range in size from one acre to 80 acres with multiple users on some sites. Federal, 

State, and local agencies within YFO provide public services and are exempt from rent. In Fiscal 

Year 2006, YFO received approximately $154,967 in revenue for these sites (Table 4-28). 

Based on the Palo Verde Gap proposal, communications sites require roughly $10,000 per year 

per site for maintenance. The IMPLAN model was used to develop an economic analysis of the 

communications sites for annual maintenance (Table 4-29). The 11 existing sites require 

approximately $110,000 in maintenance costs on an annual basis (Table 4-30). 

Page 4-114 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-29 

Economic Analysis of Communications Sites; 

Annual Maintenance

Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Dollar Value $110,000 $17,694 $50,324 $188,018 

Employment 2.0 0.2 0 .6 2.8 

Labor Income $107,402 $18,189 $29,716 $155,307 

Property Income $53,312 $8,168 $16,658 $78,138 

Tax Revenue $12,905 $2,332 $5,634 $20,871 

Value Added $173,619 $28,689 $52,008 $254,316 

The proposed Palo Verde Gap Communications Site would have economic impacts associated 

with development costs ($500,000), construction costs ($750,000), and maintenance costs 

($10,000 annually). Using the IMPLAN model, the economic analysis of the first year is 

presented in Table 4-30. 

Table 4-30 

Economic Analysis of First Year of the Proposed Palo Verde Gap Communications Site 

Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Dollar Value $1,260,000 $295,961 $371,065 $1,927,026 

Employment 12.3 3.8 4.4 20.5 

Labor Income $438,353 $117,091 $131,422 $686,866 

Property Income $44,734 $39,009 $73,672 $157,415 

Tax Revenue $5,050 $15,204 $24,919 $45,173 

Value Added $488,137 $171,304 $230,013 $889,454 

A second proposed communications site is called the Laguna Mountains High-Power Site. The 

site has development costs of $500,000, construction costs of $750,000 and annual maintenance 

costs of $10,000. Using the IMPLAN model, the economic analysis of the first year of the 

Laguna Mountains High-Power Communications Site is presented in Table 4-31. 

Table 4-31 

Economic Analysis of First Year of the 

Proposed Laguna Mountains High-Power Communications Site 

Direct Indirect Induced Total 

Dollar Value $1,462,500 $343,447 $430,813 $2,236,760 

Employment 13.3 4.1 4.1 21.5 

Labor Income $509,001 $135,878 $152,583 $797,462 

Property Income $51,803 $45,219 $85,327 $182,349 

Tax Revenue $5,864 $17,644 $28,931 $52,439 

Value Added $566,668 $198,741 $266,841 $1,032,250 

After site development, the potential economic impact of the Laguna Mountain Communications 

Site would be larger than the Palo Verde Gap Communications Site due to higher maintenance 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-115 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

expenditures. In rough terms, the potential direct, indirect, and induced economic impact of the 

Laguna Mountain Communications Site would be 25 percent greater than the Palo Verde Gap 

Communications Site on an annual basis. The change in communication abilities of the area has 

the potential to impact visitor services and the social experience of the recreational settings in 

terms of the communications abilities of YFO staff, law enforcement and emergency services, 

and the visitors themselves. 

3. Rights-of-Way 

YFO authorizes ROWs on BLM-administered public lands in the planning area. In Fiscal Year 

2006, approximately $96,550 is expected in rental fees, with an average of $7.51 per acre on 

12,856 acres (i.e. $96,550 ÷ $7.51) in ROWs. With an average ROW of 200 feet, this amounts to 

530 miles of ROWs. In addition, YFO provides ROWs to other government agencies at no 

charge. Roughly 300 miles are provided within BLM-administered lands, yielding 7,272 acres 

based on the 200 foot average width. The foregone revenue would be $54,612 per year (i.e. 

7,272 acres x $7.51). 

4. Other Lands and Realty Authorizations 

a. R&PP leases 

R&PP leases would continue in force for their respective terms. Renewals and development of 

new leases would be acted upon according to the law and policy currently in effect. Some R&PP 

lands may change ownership in compliance with the R&PP Act. 

b. Disposal and Acquisition 

Changing needs and demands for goods and services produced using public lands would 

continue to evolve. At times, it may become desirable to dispose of certain lands that cannot be 

efficiently or effectively managed by BLM. Other governmental entities may also require 

additional space for expansion or development of public facilities such as parks, schools, waste 

disposal sites, water treatment plants, or other facilities. It may be desirable for YFO to acquire 

additional lands to better manage existing property or fulfill various other purposes. Acquisition 

and disposal of lands is a valuable management tool that continues to help the BLM accomplish 

its mission. All public lands would be retained containing any developed or maintained 

recreation facilities. 

Acquiring lands in identified areas could benefit a number of recreation activities including 

access by connecting public land parcels. Where land disposals take place on the outskirts of 

communities, recreational use in these areas would be forced to relocate, potentially having 

greater impact for other resources. 

YFO would continue to have the ability to sell or exchange public lands identified for disposal. 

Most lands identified for disposal are on the outskirts of the growing communities within the 

planning area. Disposing of these lands through sale would result in a direct net loss of 

recreational opportunities on the public lands, most of which are conveniently located nearby 

local residences. Disposing of these lands through exchange would not cause a net loss of 

recreational opportunities on the public lands, as other lands elsewhere would come under the 

jurisdiction of YFO which would provide the public with other recreational opportunities. 

Page 4-116 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Disposing of public lands through both sale and exchange would most likely force existing 

recreational uses to relocate to other areas. The relocation of these recreational uses would then 

begin impacting the resources on other BLM-administered lands. 

c. Use Authorizations 

Use authorizations, including those in ROW and transportation corridors, are not anticipated to 

have impacts on social and economic conditions until potential projects are identified. Corridors 

may continue to be used for other activities. Allowing development of utility distribution systems 

would potentially have beneficial impacts on communities in the planning area by adding to the 

availability and dependability of utilities to the area. NEPA analysis of each proposed project 

would determine potential impacts to social and economic conditions. 

C. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES 

1. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, leases, permits, and easements would continue to be authorized on a caseby-case basis. ROWs and renewable energy proposals would also continue to be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. Under this alternative, 19,100 acres would continue to be available for 

disposal (Table 4-2). Alternative A would continue the existing three ROW Corridors (200 

miles) and continue designation of six communications sites (and five undesignated 

communications sites) (all low power sites). 

No significant changes to social conditions would be expected to occur under Alternative A. 

Revenue, employment/unemployment, personal income, and county tax base levels would 

remain relatively the same with regard to lands and realty management on BLM-administered 

lands. 

2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, leases, permits, and easements would continue to be authorized on a caseby-case basis. ROWs and renewable energy proposals would also continue to be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. Under this alternative, 46,900 acres of public land would be available for 

disposal (Table 4-2). This alternative proposes the most acres for disposal. 

Alternative B proposes an increase of ROW Corridors from three to 10, for a total of 500 miles. 

Designated communications sites would increase to 13, including 12 low power sites and one 

high power site (Table 4-2). 

Under Alternative B, adverse impacts to social conditions may occur due to the increase in 

public land disposals (these lands may no longer be available for public use), and an increase in 

ROW Corridors and communications sites. The increase in ROW Corridors and communications 

sites may adversely impact the public’s perception of the recreational experience, particularly 

those that enjoy solitude and primitive areas as these sites and corridors may create increased 

motorized use and diminish the scenic quality. Beneficial impacts to social conditions would also 

likely occur due to the increase in utility availability to the public and improved communication 

capabilities. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-117 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Economic impacts of Alternative B would be primarily beneficial to revenue, employment, 

personal income, and county tax bases. An increase in land use authorizations would result in an 

increase in BLM revenues as well as an increase in employment related to construction and 

maintenance of authorized facilities in the planning area (Tables 4-30 and 4-31). 

3. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, leases, permits, and easements would continue to be authorized on a caseby-case basis. ROWs and renewable energy proposals would also continue to be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. Under this alternative, 10,500 acres of public land would be available for 

disposal (Table 4-2). 

Alternative C proposes an increase of ROW Corridors from three to 10, for a total of 500 miles. 

Designated communications sites would be increased to 11, including 10 low power sites and 

one high power site (see Table 4-2). 

Impacts to social and economic conditions under Alternative C would be similar to those 

discussed under the Alternative B with the exception of disposal, which Alternative B proposes 

considerably more acres available for disposal. 

4. Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, leases, permits, and easements would continue to be authorized on a caseby-case basis. ROWs and renewable energy proposals would also continue to be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. Under this alternative, 8,200 acres of public land would be available for 

disposal (Table 4-2). 

Alternative D proposes an increase of ROW Corridors from three to five, for a total of 400 miles. 

Designated communications sites would be increased to eight (all low power sites) (Table 4-2). 

No significant changes to social conditions would be expected to occur under Alternative D, this 

alternative would have similar impacts as those discussed under Alternative A. Revenue, 

employment/unemployment, personal income, and county tax base levels would remain 

relatively the same with regard to lands and realty management on BLM-administered lands. 

5. The Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, leases, permits, and easements would continue to be authorized on a 

case-by-case basis. ROWs and renewable energy proposals would also continue to be considered 

on a case-by-case basis. Under this alternative, 11,900 acres of public land would be available 

for disposal (Table 4-2). 

The Proposed Plan proposes an increase of ROW Corridors from three to eight, for a total of 465 

miles. Designated communications sites would be increased to 10, including nine low power 

sites and 1 high power site (Table 4-2). 

Impacts to social and economic conditions under the Proposed Plan would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative C (above). 

Page 4-118 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Environmental justice was addressed in EO 12898, issued in 1994. The goal was to preclude 

Federal actions from creating disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income populations. 

Economic data upon which to base possible environmental justice effects (i.e., the geographic 

distribution of minority and income populations and their changes over time) were presented in 

Chapter 3. 

The economic data and discussion in Chapter 3 did not reveal evidence of environmental justice 

issues. That is, implementing any of the proposed alternatives would not result in 

disproportionate adverse plan-related effects on minority or low-income groups. No substantial 

changes to ethnic communities or low-income neighborhoods were detected. There is no 

indication that any of the alternatives would have substantial adverse economic effects on any 

particular ethnic or low-income group as compared to others. 

BLM management actions and land use decisions are primarily driven by the resource base and 

the public involvement process. Unlike other entities involved in siting facilities or land uses 

within a community or region, BLM makes resource decisions relying most heavily on where the 

particular resources occur (e.g., mineral deposits, vegetative communities) and where visitor uses 

have occurred in the past (e.g., mining activities, OHV use, and camping areas). 

4.15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

NEPA and the CEQ regulations require Federal agencies to consider the cumulative impacts of 

their actions. Cumulative impacts may be defined as the incremental impact of the proposed 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency or person undertakes those actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

The future foreseeable actions would include the following: 

 Population growth in and next to the planning area, which would increase residential and 

commercial development on private lands; 

 Continued grazing; 

 Potential minerals development; 

 Increased recreational uses on BLM-administered lands; 

 Increased border initiatives and safety related activities; 

 Activities on lands under the jurisdiction of other Federal and State agencies; and 

 Ongoing and future military withdrawals, operations, and land use authorizations within the 

planning area. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-119 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

The alternatives could affect several resources and resource uses, including soils, air quality, 

water resources, and social and economic conditions. Urbanization, mineral development, and 

increased outdoor recreational use of private and State lands in the planning area are likely to 

continue throughout the life of the RMP. Cumulative impacts on wildlife might include the loss 

of wildlife habitat, including Sonoran and Mojave Desert tortoise, endangered species, migratory 

birds, bats, fish habitat, and migration corridors in the planning area on adjacent Federal, State, 

and private lands. Cumulative impacts for specific resources and resource uses are presented 

below. 

4.15.1 AIR QUALITY 

Growth in the planning area is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. With the continued 

use and development of BLM neighboring lands, dust is likely to persist as a problem in the 

planning area into the foreseeable future. Air resources on public lands may be affected by offsite use, agricultural activities, and development regardless of the RMP alternative selected. 

Because off-site sources are the major contributors to dust within the planning area, there would 

be negligible differences in cumulative impacts to air resources from the BLM activities 

proposed under each PRMP/FEIS alternative. 

The lower Colorado River corridor serves an expanding clientele of boating recreationists. The 

public boater can access and impact air resources on public lands from many jurisdictions 

beyond the control of BLM. Of primary concern is noise pollution to sensitive shoreline and 

aquatic habitats from individual vessels or groups of vessels that exceed established noise limits. 

The ever increasing concentration of vessels on the river and reservoir on most summer 

weekends creates a cumulative noise level that is potentially harmful to human hearing and may 

be harmful to wildlife as well. 

Growth beyond public lands is likely to continue to impact the quality of air resources on both 

the land and the water. In the long term, fugitive dust, particulates, noise, and engine exhaust 

contaminants would increase with population. In addition, proposed industrial developments 

within the planning area, such as a new oil refinery in Yuma County, would contribute additional 

cumulative impacts to air quality. 

The cumulative impact of the existing and future Transportation Network is difficult to 

anticipate. The paving of roadways that are currently gravel will continue to improve air quality 

with regards to PM10. Regional development would increase emissions and generate dust that 

would impact visibility. If popularity of OHV use increases, OHV traffic will increase and 

particulates and dust in popular recreational areas may exceed standards during periods of 

extensive use. 

Certain military operations within the planning area have the potential to create periods of 

increased dust and PM10 emissions. Land clearing for military infrastructure, including training 

sites and tank routes, may also increase the incidence of airborne dust within the planning area. 

Future land withdrawals for the purpose of military use would potentially increase the types of 

direct impacts to air quality from additional route traffic and ammunition testing. 

Page 4-120 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.15.2 WATER RESOURCES 

Cumulative impacts to water resources resulting from population growth, increased recreational 

use, construction, and other activities within and surrounding the planning area would continue 

and are likely to increase in the future. Because municipalities and water districts are the major 

water users within the planning area, there would be negligible differences in cumulative impacts 

to water resources from BLM actions proposed by alternative. Water resources on public lands 

may be affected by off-site use, recreation activities, development, and agricultural uses 

regardless of the RMP alternative selected. Water resources are likely to become increasingly 

scarce, and both public and private interests will need to focus efforts on conservation of this 

precious resource. 

The lower Colorado and Gila rivers are expected to continue serving increases in visitor use. 

Recreational activities would continue to have potential adverse impacts on water quality 

throughout the planning area. 

Reclamation is the Federal agency charged with regulating the delivery of lower Colorado River 

water to farmers, municipalities, Mexico, and other water users. Reclamation projects, such as 

the Drop 2 Reservoir Project in Imperial County, California, could potentially reduce 

groundwater levels within the Limitrophe reach of the river and increase water salinity levels 

below Imperial Dam. As population growth and water demands in the region continue to 

increase, cumulative impacts to water resources from similar types of activities within and 

adjacent to the planning area would likely increase. However, Reclamation would continue to 

manage and mitigate any antipated impacts to water resources to meet State, Federal, and 

international water quality standards. 

Military operations and potential future withdrawals have the potential to impact water resources 

and desert woodland washes. Operation of aircraft near Senator Wash could increase the 

likelihood of accidental fluid spills and leaks, however, BMPs would minimize this threat. 

Cross-jurisdictional training operations could impact water resources that involve river crossings. 

4.15.3 SOIL RESOURCES 

Growth in the planning area would likely contribute to the modification of soil characteristics. A 

growing portion of soil resources would likely be compacted or paved by various activities 

throughout the area, regardless of public or private ownership. Public resources may ultimately 

sustain impacts through increased channel erosion rates throughout the watershed with sediment 

deposition in waterways. Landscape level erosion cannot be predicted due to lack of soil survey 

data. Alternatives D and the Proposed Plan would have the least adverse impacts to soil 

resources and therefore would have the fewest cumulative effects to soil resources. VRM 

designations and designation of only 400 acres Open OHV Management Areas under Alternative 

D and the Proposed Plan would reduce cumulative effects to soils. Alternative B has the potential 

to increase the cumulative impacts to soil resources in the planning area by proposing the most 

community pits, ROW Corridors, acreage of Open OHV Management Areas, and 

communications sites; Alternative B also proposes the smallest acreage of ACECs, SCRMAs, 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-121 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

lands to maintain wilderness characteristics, Closed OHV Management Areas, lands proposed 

for mineral withdrawal, and protective VRM designations. 

The cumulative effects of energy development, transmission and storage are likely to increase 

throughout the life of the plan. As the growing western population demands more energy, the 

YFO will continue to attempt to accommodate these needs. Public lands would be marked with 

increased infrastructure and maintenance roads, which will likely increase the proliferation of 

OHV travel. The cumulative effect of energy development is significant for the fact that it 

impacts large areas of land for long durations of time. These projects also cumulatively degrade 

both soil and air quality from increased erosion and criteria pollution emissions. These 

cumulative impacts to soil resources within the planning area may increase as a result of an 

increased demand for renewable energy, such as wind and solar developments. 

The cumulative effect of energy development on soil resources could vary by alternative. The 

need for energy development, transmission, and storage would not change as a result of this plan. 

However, the designation of ROW Corridors could affect the ability to confine impacts, thereby 

reducing degradation of uncontrolled energy growth in the planning area. Alternatives B and C 

would designate 129,900 acres of ROW Corridors. Alternative A would only designate 74,600 

acres. Alternative D would designate 91,300 acres of ROW Corridors. The Proposed Plan would 

create 121,700 acres of ROW Corridors, which would control the cumulative effects of energy 

transmission and development by directing large utilities into areas that are already impacted by 

linear utility projects. Standard mitigation for utility projects would reduce cumulative effects to 

soil resources. 

Travel Management policies under Alternative A enable a high density of dirt trails and access 

through sensitive soils, including desert washes. Under all other alternatives, including the 

Proposed Plan, the BLM would designate all roads and trails within the planning area, which 

may reduce the cumulative impacts to soil resources from motorized travel. The development 

and public use of recreational sites in the planning area have compacted and denuded significant 

soil resources causing long-term erosion, sedimentation, decreased vegetative diversity, and loss 

of habitat productivity. Open camping and firewood collection has led to diminished organic soil 

matter, decreased vegetative vigor, soil compaction in roads and campsites, and increased wind 

and water erosion rates. Establishment of SRMAs and special designations provides a future land 

use planning framework for a large portion of the planning area that would better define soil 

resource issues, mitigation, and remedies. 

Expanded military ground operations would directly impact soil resources through compaction, 

erosion, and degradation of desert pavements. Expanded aerial military operations such as 

munitions testing would displace soils within impact zones and around the infrastructure needed 

to service those areas. However, the condition of soil resources outside of impact zones may 

improve due to decreased public accessibility and use. 

4.15.4 VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Vegetation resources on public lands may be affected by off-site use and development regardless 

of the RMP alternative selected. Impacts affecting soil resources would also affect vegetation 

resources in the planning area. Direct impacts of OHV use or cross-country travel has been well 

Page 4-122 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

documented and includes destruction of soil stabilizers, soil compaction, reduced rates of water 

infiltration, increased wind and water erosion, noise, decreased abundance of wildlife 

populations, and destruction of vegetation. Compaction of desert soil reduces the root growth of 

desert plants and makes it harder for seedlings to survive. Differences between alternatives may 

not be discernable for cumulative impacts to vegetative resources. However, Alternative D could 

offer some protective effects to the vegetative resource due to closing the entire planning area to 

personal use campfire wood collection, more acres closed to OHV, and more acres designated as 

ACECs. 

Excessive motorized travel over time causes a decrease in plant life not only from trampling but 

also from proliferation of dust particles. Dust that is accumulated on plants can cause 

transpiration failure and eventual death of the plants (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). Effects to 

soils, over time, cause erosion of soils, loss of topsoil, and compaction of soils. These impacts 

bring changes in the types of vegetation that can be sustained within these landscapes. 

Vegetation changes on the landscape over time change the diversity of the wildlife utilizing the 

area. 

Due to the interest in securing our national borders and combating illegal immigration, drug 

trafficking and associated crime, it is likely that large-scale vegetation treatments will be 

performed within the planning area. Collectively these treatments pose a significant cumulative 

impact within the planning area. Specific vegetation treatments and border security infrastructure 

(such as fences, lights, gates and roads) could impact natural vegetation communities, especially 

within the riparian zone. In the arid southwest, these riparian areas are critical to the survival of 

many species, and the Limitrophe area, where several security related actions are planned, is a 

part of the neotropical migratory flyway. Special status wildlife including the southwestern 

willow flycatcher could be cumulatively impacted by loss of migratory habitat. 

Any projects that ultimately lower the groundwater table adjacent to the Colorado River would 

have serious negative impacts on native vegetation and BLM restoration projects. Cottonwood 

and willow trees throughout the lower Colorado River would likely die or lose much of their live 

foliage depending on the degree of groundwater lowering. There would not be any differences 

between the alternatives to cumulative effects of riparian vegetation, because water pumping is 

done by private landowners or municipalities. 

Military operations and withdrawals could negatively effect vegetation through the blading of 

access roads, training sites, and vehicular routes. Impact zones would additionally suffer 

vegetation loss from the explosion of ammunitions. The threat of wildfire in impact zones and 

adjacent lands would increase due to ammunitions testing, which would further impact the 

productivity of slow-growing native trees and cacti. 

4.15.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE 

With the continued use and development of BLM neighboring lands, cumulative impacts to fish 

and wildlife habitat are likely to persist as a problem in the planning area into the foreseeable 

future. Biological resources on public lands may be affected by off-site use and development 

regardless of the RMP alternative selected. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-123 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

The impacts from increased local emissions from vehicles including boats are well documented 

on humans. The overall impacts to wildlife species, specifically endangered species, are 

unknown. Direct impacts of OHV use or cross-country travel has been well documented, and 

includes destruction of soil stabilizers, soil compaction, reduced rates of water infiltration, 

increased wind and water erosion, noise, decreased abundance of wildlife populations, and 

destruction of vegetation. 

OHV traffic impacts desert tortoises and affects the amount and quality of forage available to the 

tortoises when they emerge from hibernation. Roads and highways pose several direct and 

indirect threats to tortoise populations. Roads and highways are considered the greatest 

cumulative threat to desert tortoise populations. As barriers, roads inhibit dispersal and 

subsequent gene flow between subpopulations and metapopulations. In providing access to 

tortoise populations, roads and highways foster such threats as development, vandalism, and 

collecting. Increased diversity and productivity of vegetation resulting from enhanced 

hydrological conditions along roadway edges attracts tortoises and thereby places them at a 

greater risk of direct mortality from both predators and motorized vehicles. Roadkills are a 

substantial source of mortality not only for desert tortoise but for other wildlife as well (Boarman 

et al. 1997). 

The paving and expansion of road networks could negatively impact wildlife due to increased 

volume of vehicle travel at higher speeds. Much of the habitat described as desert wash 

woodlands are sustained by sheet flow from the neighboring desert pavement complexes. As 

these desert pavements are interrupted by roadway development, flow patterns are disturbed. 

Rain events are more likely to pool up and evaporate in roadway depressions and tracks or 

collect beside the right-of-way. Flows may be permanently interrupted and no longer feed certain 

wash woodlands. 

The presence of humans, their activities, and noise reduce the value of aquatic vegetation to fish, 

shorebirds, waterfowl, and wildlife. Increased dispersed camping and/or day use may cause loss 

of such vegetation, which could affect deer, migratory birds, shorebirds (including the Yuma 

clapper rail), and waterfowl. 

LCR MSCP incorporates long-term ecological restoration to mitigate for water delivery impacts. 

Depending on the density and degree of restoration, measures undertaken as part of the LCR 

MSCP would likely benefit wildlife due to the increase in quantity or quality of wildlife habitat. 

Military training at recreation sites such as Squaw Lake and Oxbow involving amphibious 

vehicles and activities may negatively affect wildlife, including razorback sucker. Temporary 

disturbance of fish may occur during training exercises, and vehicles sunken due to accidents 

may release hazardous materials to the habitat. 

The threat of wildfire would increase on public lands adjacent to the impact zones of 

ammunitions testing sites. Wildfires could potentially reduce the amount and quality of habitat 

for reptiles, songbirds, and other native wildlife. 

USIBWC boundary marking and channeling involves removing vegetation, which would 

negatively impact wildlife, migrating and breeding birds. Removal of habitat would eliminate 

Page 4-124 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

stop-over habitat for migrating birds, which may reduce the chances of migrating birds reaching 

their wintering or breeding grounds. A reduction of breeding bird habitat (for example, doves) 

would reduce breeding bird populations. 

The actions of other agencies could have positive and negative impacts on the Sonoran 

pronghorn population indirectly affecting YFO management of public land. Currently occupied 

habitat, not managed by YFO, is being impacted by border enforcement actions. Border 

enforcement impacts affect YFO’s management of BLM-administered Sonoran pronghorn 

historic unoccupied habitat. The potential reintroduction of Sonoran pronghorn onto the Kofa 

NWR could affect YFO if they disperse onto BLM-administered land. 

The establishment of the planned Area Service Highway between Interstate 8 and Mexico will 

likely cause negative impacts to flat-tailed horned lizard populations in the planning area through 

additional fragmentation of habitats and populations. 

Disposal of State lands within historic flat-tailed horned lizard habitat would likely adversely 

affect flat-tailed horned lizards. State land holds significant, high-quality, flat-tailed horned 

lizard habitat in Arizona. Disposing of State lands would likely further fragment flat-tailed 

horned lizard populations, and negatively impact flat-tailed horned lizard on Federal lands that 

are adjacent to State lands. Young and Young (2005) found that negative impacts to flat-tailed 

horned lizard populations from development can extend hundreds of meters from urban or 

agricultural development. 

4.15.6 WILD HORSE AND BURRO 

The lower Colorado River provides a crucial portion of habitat for wild horses and burros in the 

planning area, particularly during the summer months. With community expansion and more 

extensive use of developed recreational facilities, wild horse and burro habitat could become 

severely limited. 

Under all alternatives, the populations of wild horses and burros would remain at the AML2 

levels established in the 1980 Cibola-Trigo HMA Plan, and therefore the proposals in this 

PRMP/FEIS would not contribute to a State- or nation-wide decrease in wild horse and burro 

populations. 

4.15.7 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

As the population grows in the planning area, there is an ever-increasing risk of accidental fires 

to start. Border safety issues may also increase the potential risk for accidental fires. 

Ammunitions testing by the military, coupled with the spread of invasive weeds and native 

annuals, could potentially increase the likelihood of wildfire occurrences throughout the planning 

area. 

Cumulative effects to wildfire management would not be changed as a result of Alternatives A 

through D or the Proposed Plan. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-125 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.15.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Incremental loss of cultural resources would continue due to natural processes and inadvertent or 

intentional damage from casual use mineral exploration and various recreational activities (e.g., 

OHV use, camping, horseback riding, shooting). Important cultural resource sites and SCRMAs 

tend to overlap with mining claims, established ROW Corridors, and popular recreation 

destinations along the Colorado and Gila River corridors and in mountain foothills. Cumulative 

impacts to cultural resources may occur due to an increase in demand for these multiple uses 

within areas that are known to contain important cultural resource values. 

Together, all of the developments that are currently proposed within the planning area 

cumulatively affect the visual setting and integrity of feeling for cultural resources on BLM 

lands. Major ROWs, particularly power line corridors, have an effect on the viewsheds for 

important cultural sites on the landscape. Future developments, including energy and 

transportation ROWs, material pits, and community expansion, have the potential to directly 

impact, damage, or destroy cultural resources. The net loss of these cultural resources from 

development affects the overall cultural resource values of the landscape. Generally, there are 

more BLM-authorized developments proposed under Alternative B than the other alternatives. 

Alternative B would have the greatest cumulative effect on cultural resources, and Alternative D, 

which focuses on resource protection, would have the least amount of impacts from 

developments. Under the Proposed Plan, there would be eight ROW Corridors, 10 

communications sites, and five community pits with a potential to cumulatively affect cultural 

resources on the public lands. 

The transfer of lands out of Federal ownership by both the BLM and other Federal agencies also 

has the potential to cumulatively affect cultural resources in the planning area. The WelltonMohawk Transfer Act of June 20, 2000 (Public Law 106-221) authorized the Secretary of the 

Interior to convey certain acquired, withdrawn, and public lands to the WMIDD. Under the FEIS 

for this transfer of lands from Reclamation to the WMIDD, parcels of land inside the boundaries 

of four proposed SCRMAs would be relinquished from Federal ownership. Approximately 395 

acres are identified for transfer in the Muggins Mountains SCRMA, 340 acres in the Laguna 

Mountains SCRMA, 444 acres in the Ligurta Area SCRMA, and 303 acres in the North Gila 

Mountains SCRMA. There is a potential for increased development on these lands once they 

leave Federal ownership, which could indirectly affect the cultural resources inside these 

SCRMA proposals. In addition to lands identified for transfer out of Federal ownership by 

agencies other than BLM, Alternatives A and B identify 19,100 and 46,900 acres for disposal, 

respectively. These two alternatives would have a greater cumulative impact on cultural 

resources than the Proposed Plan, which identifies 11,900 acres of BLM land for disposal. 

4.15.9 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources may occur through natural processes and 

inadvertent or intentional damage from OHV use, casual use mineral exploration, rock-hounding, 

and recreational collecting of common invertebrate and plant fossils. Unmonitored rockhounding and recreational fossil collecting at known fossil localities have the potential to destroy 

those localities before they can be scientifically recorded and studied. An increase in 

Page 4-126 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

development along the Gila River and Colorado River valleys (e.g., energy and transportation 

ROWs, mineral material pits, and new water control features) has the potential to destroy 

important paleontological resources. 

The transfer of lands out of Federal ownership by both the BLM and other Federal agencies also 

has the potential to cumulatively affect paleontological resources in the planning area. Once 

these lands are transferred, fossil localities on those lands could be damaged and/or destroyed by 

new developments. In addition to lands identified for transfer out of Federal ownership by 

agencies other than BLM, Alternatives A and B identify 19,100 and 46,900 acres for disposal, 

respectively. These two alternatives would have a greater cumulative impact on paleontological 

resources than the Proposed Plan, which identifies 11,900 acres of BLM land for disposal. 

4.15.10 VISUAL RESOURCES 

Cumulative impacts to visual resources would potentially occur where BLM-administered lands 

are co-managed with other government agencies or are adjacent to non-BLM lands. Nondiscretionary Reclamation activities, such as the maintenance of river levees and sand and gravel 

operations, are likely to continue impacting the visual landscape along portions of the lower 

Colorado River. Border initiatives, such as activities associated with vegetation removal, would 

continue to result in negative effects in areas where visibility, accessibility, and security concerns 

override the protection of visual resource values. In other areas where BLM lands are adjacent to 

and intermingled with those of other landowners, activities and development of adjacent lands 

would contribute to impaired views of BLM-administered lands. The disposal of BLM lands may 

result in negative impacts to visual resources through the development of these lands. However, 

these impacts would likely be minimal since most lands that would be available for disposal are 

isolated parcels surrounded by private lands that are already developed or are adjacent to 

communities that already have significant developments. In addition, the disposal of BLM lands 

through the exchange of other lands may offset any cumulative impacts to the planning area’s 

visual resources. 

The growing populations within and adjacent to the planning area are causing increased energy 

consumption and a higher demand for construction materials. The BLM is often asked to support 

this population growth through authorizations to upgrade or install utility lines and the issuance 

of mineral material contracts. The designation of ROW Corridors and the BLM’s VRM system 

seek to minimize impacts to the planning area’s desert landscapes. However, many of these types 

of projects would require the preparation of an EIS or RMP amendment, which may enable 

project proponents to override RMP–level VRM designations. Cumulative impacts to the visual 

resources of BLM lands are therefore likely to occur as these types of activities continue to 

become more common within the planning area. 

Cumulative impacts to visual resources within the planning area may be more severe under 

Alternative B, which proposes the highest number of ROW Corridors, community pits, 

communications sites, and acres of BLM land that would be available for disposal. It is not 

likely that there would be any differences in cumulative impacts to visual resources under any of 

the other PRMP/FEIS alternatives. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-127 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.15.11 WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Impacts to public lands with wilderness characteristics can be portrayed as those actions that 

result in the deterioration of opportunities to experience naturalness, solitude, and primitive 

unconfined recreation. These include actions that may decrease the natural setting of an area, 

cause increased interaction between users, or add evidence of human-induced management 

controls. Due to the remote nature of the public lands the YFO has identified to maintain 

wilderness characteristics under the Proposed Plan, it is unlikely that significant impacts to 

wilderness characteristics would occur from projects such as public utilities. Existing and future 

mining activities provide the greatest potential to negatively impact the opportunities to 

experience naturalness, solitude, and primitive unconfined recreation in lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Mining activities and the access routes to mining claims cause additional 

unnatural disturbances to the land and increase the likelihood of visitors seeing or hearing other 

human activities. The sights and sounds of adjacent military operations and overhead flight paths 

also negatively impact opportunities to experience naturalness and solitude. Future military 

withdrawals within the planning area would increase the likelihood of these types of impacts. 

Other potential impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics in the planning area include the 

spread of non-native invasive vegetation and increasing amounts of OHV use. As population 

growth in the western U.S. continues, all of these activities are likely to increasingly impact the 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Cumulative impacts to wilderness characteristics would be the most prevalent under Alternative 

D, which identifies the most acreage where wilderness characteristics would be maintained. This 

would provide the public with the greatest amount of opportunities to experience naturalness, 

solitude, and primitive and unconfined types of recreation. However, impacts to these 

experiences from mining activities, OHV use, military operations, overhead flight paths, and 

public utilities would also be more common under Alternative D because there is a larger 

acreage of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. It is not likely that there would 

be a difference in cumulative impacts to wilderness characteristics under any of the other 

PRMP/FEIS alternatives. 

4.15.12 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

A. WILDERNESS 

Traffic from undocumented immigration and smuggling activities occurs within designated 

Wilderness Areas managed by the YFO. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Border 

Patrol often respond accordingly to the issues occurring in these areas. These activities can result 

in abandoned vehicles, vehicle tracks, smuggling supply caches, and accumulations of trash and 

human waste within the Wilderness Areas and along Wilderness access routes. These manmade 

intrusions negatively impact the wilderness values of these areas, which the BLM is mandated to 

preserve and protect in a natural condition. 

Since the number of acres of Wilderness and the management prescriptions within Wilderness do 

not vary by alternative under this PRMP/FEIS, the cumulative impacts to Wilderness do not vary 

by alternative. 

Page 4-128 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

B. NATIONAL TRAILS 

Of the 47,626 acres of Federal lands currently being transferred from Reclamation to the 

WMIDD, approximately 9,700 acres are located within the Anza Trail corridor established by 

the NPS Comprehensive Management and Use Plan for the Anza Trail. The NPS plan calls for a 

continuous multi-use recreational trail within this corridor. In the future, the transfer of these 

9,700 acres out of Federal ownership may affect the location and/or public access to a 

recreational Anza Trail. Reclamation’s FEIS for the Wellton-Mohawk Title Transfer states that 

the WMIDD “will work with the NPS to facilitate a mutually agreeable plan for portions of the 

trail within the jurisdiction of the District,” and that the WMIDD “does not intend to alter public 

access to the lands proposed for transfer except on tracts that may be developed or established 

for conservation purposes” (USDOI Reclamation 2006). Under all alternatives, these efforts by 

the WMIDD would reduce the potential impacts to a future recreational Anza Trail. Since the 

designation of the Anza Trail and its management prescriptions do not vary by alternative under 

this PRMP/FEIS, the cumulative impacts to National Trails do not vary by alternative. 

C. NATIONAL BYWAYS 

The PRMP/FEIS Proposed Plan proposes to nominate and designate Highway 95 between the 

Town of Quartzsite and Yuma as a National Scenic Byway due to its scenic, historic, natural, 

and recreational qualities. There is the potential for these resource values to be impacted from a 

variety of externally initiated projects, including the widening of the road to four lanes and the 

installation of additional visible public utilities. The removal of lands along Highway 95 from 

the YFO’s jurisdiction would decrease the BLM’s ability to ensure that future projects are 

appropriately mitigated to protect the Byway’s identified resource values. Because Alternative B 

proposes the highest number and miles of National Back Country Byways, it is more likely that 

cumulative impacts to recognized byway values would occur from other BLM-authorized 

activities under this alternative. 

D. AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

The increasing pressures of urban encroachment, population growth, and increasing use of public 

lands all have impacts and effects on those areas proposed for designation as ACECs under the 

different alternatives. Developments on non-BLM-administered lands that are adjacent to or 

within ACECs have the potential to either directly or indirectly degrade relevant and important 

ACEC values. ACEC proposals that consist of noncontiguous BLM land or ACEC proposals 

surrounded by non-BLM lands would likely be more affected by these developments. 

The Gila River Terraces and Trails ACEC included under Alternative D is an example of an 

ACEC proposal that could be affected by the cumulative impacts of developments on adjacent 

lands. The BLM administers approximately 37 percent of the proposed 140,400-acre ACEC. 

Uses in this area include energy corridors, mineral material pits, agriculture, recreational OHV 

use, and population growth/community expansion. In addition, a large percentage of the lands 

identified for transfer from Reclamation to the WMIDD are located along the Gila River 

corridor, which would reduce the acreage of public lands within the proposed ACEC. The 

sensitive resources located on the remaining public lands in the area would be managed 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-129 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

according to the Proposed Plan Management Strategy found in Appendix 2-A, which would 

reduce the cumulative impacts to these values. 

Meeting the desired future conditions for the Limitrophe ACEC, which is proposed under 

Alternative D, is dependent upon the coordination of multiple stakeholders. The various border 

safety and water management projects anticipated in the foreseeable future or currently ongoing 

could cumulatively affect the relevant and important values of the Limitrophe area, including 

riparian vegetation, Native American traditional use of the area, and maintenance of the area’s 

natural setting. 

In the Big Marias ACEC, there are several overlapping uses that cumulatively affect the relevant 

and important values for this area. An important energy corridor along Highway 95, an 

established communications site in the Big Maria Mountains, water control projects along the 

Colorado River, and recreational OHV use all affect the resources in this area, particularly 

causing increased impacts to the sensitive intaglios and other cultural resources in this ACEC. 

The Dripping Springs ACEC proposal is primarily affected by population growth/community 

expansion, particularly from the direction of the Town of Quartzsite and increased recreational 

use of the area for OHV riding and hunting. 

Cumulative impacts that could affect the resource values of the Alternative D Walters Camp 

ACEC proposal primarily result from the recreational use of the area. The Walters Camp 

recreation concession lease and the population growth and community expansion on adjacent 

private lands result in an increasing number of people using BLM lands for recreational OHV 

riding. As the population surrounding the Walters Camp area increases, it is more likely that 

there would be impacts to the area’s natural and cultural resource values. 

The wildlife values within the Alternative D Palomas Plains ACEC proposal are most likely to 

be cumulatively affected by any actions that fragment or decrease the contiguous BLMadministered habitat in the Palomas Plains, which could include energy projects, transportation 

ROWs, and withdrawals, disposals, or land sales. 

The relevant and important values of the Sears Point ACEC could be cumulatively affected by 

developments that occur on private or State lands that are either within or adjacent to the ACEC. 

In addition, community expansion and population growth from surrounding communities 

increases the number of people that are visiting the ACEC area for OHV riding, hunting, and 

cultural resource viewing opportunities. 

Alternative D would designate 626,800 acres within seven ACECs. Considering the increase in 

demand for recreation, lands and realty, and minerals developments both within and adjacent to 

the planning area, this alternative would provide the greatest amount of protection for natural and 

cultural resources. Alternatives C and the Proposed Plan each would designate 44,700 acres, 

providing special management attention in the areas surrounding the Big Marias, Dripping 

Springs, and Sears Point. Alternatives A and B, which each designate 8,200 acres, provide the 

least amount of protection. 

Page 4-130 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.15.13 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Expanding use of public lands for recreational purposes and the improved access for such 

activities, livestock grazing use would likely continue to be adversely affected. Recreational 

activities include developed RV parks, home sites, businesses, and many of the visitors utilizing 

the public lands for OHV travel. These activities could disrupt existing grazing use, particularly 

as cattle are excluded from private lands as they are developed. These impacts would not vary by 

alternative. 

4.15.14 MINERAL RESOURCES 

As populations increase, the demand on public lands for goods and services will increase as well. 

Scarcity of resources such as minerals, gravel, and decorative rock will continually steer 

businesses to public lands for extraction of these resources. Mineral withdrawals will slightly 

impact the availability of minerals for extraction. Mitigation requirements to protect other 

resource values may increase costs and efforts involved in mineral extractions on public lands. 

Future military withdrawals would potentially decrease the amount of lands available for mineral 

exploration and extraction within the planning area. Mineral withdrawals proposed in some of 

the alternatives are within ACECs having low mineral potential. Cumulative effects to mineral 

resources would not change as a result of the alternatives because mineral extraction is driven by 

public demand. 

4.15.15 RECREATION 

The continuous rates of urban development are increasingly encroaching on the BLM lands 

within the planning area. Many public lands that were formerly remote and used by a small 

number of people now provide convenient “backyard” recreational opportunities that are used on 

a regular basis by an unprecedented number of visitors participating in a wider variety of 

activities. The rising recreational demands within the planning area are contributing to 

substantial shifts in the traditional use patterns of the public lands, and causing visitors to seek 

undeveloped and solitary recreation opportunities in other areas. 

The multiple-use public lands within the planning area are facing additional challenges to meet 

the infrastructure demands needed to sustain the current rates of urban development. Both the 

public and private sector are increasingly relying on the public lands for sources of mineral 

materials, such as sand and gravel, for road and building construction. The development of 

private lands is also causing an increasing number of requests for the construction of new roads 

and utility lines across the public lands to support both individual residences and communities. 

All of these actions have the potential to displace existing recreational activities and impede 

visitors’ enjoyment of their public lands. 

The YFO is receiving an increasing number of requests from military and law enforcement 

agencies to use developed recreation sites for training activities. These activities have the 

potential to temporarily displace the recreational activities these sites were created to support. 

The YFO would work with the individual agencies to limit these training activities’ potential 

impacts to the recreating public on a case-by-case basis. Lands withdrawn for military purposes 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-131 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

typically maintain access control procedures (e.g. permits) to insure public health and safety. 

Future military withdrawals within the planning area could temporarily or permanently restrict 

public access on BLM-administered lands that are currently available for public use. 

Reclamation and the WMIDD’s management of the lower Colorado and Gila Rivers within the 

planning area have the potential to impact water-based recreational opportunities within the 

planning area. Reclamation’s non-discretionary activities, such as the construction and 

maintenance of levee roads and the delivery of water rights that reduce river flows, can impede 

recreational access to the lower Colorado River. Some of Reclamation’s activities, such as the 

proposed Laguna Dam Restoration project, have the potential to enhance water-based 

recreational activities through the creation of additional open water. Present and future activities 

to be completed by Reclamation’s LCR MSCP will improve or create wildlife habitat along the 

lower Colorado River, which will enhance wildlife viewing opportunities within the planning 

area. Reclamation’s FEIS for the Wellton-Mohawk Title Transfer states that the WMIDD “does 

not intend to alter public access to the lands proposed for transfer except on tracts that may be 

developed or established for conservation purposes.” These efforts by the WMIDD would reduce 

the potential impacts to recreational use of the Gila River. 

Cumulative impacts to recreation may be more severe under Alternative D of the PRMP/FEIS, 

which would not consider expanding the number or acreage of developed recreation sites. As 

population growth within and around the planning area continues, the potential for overcrowding 

and overuse of developed recreation facilities may be more common under Alternative D. This 

may degrade or displace existing recreational opportunities and experiences within developed 

recreation sites. The BLM would consider expanding the number or acreage of developed 

recreation sites under all other PRMP/FEIS alternatives, which would prevent these types of 

cumulative impacts to recreation from permanently occurring. 

4.15.16 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Impacts to travel management (i.e. motorized and non-motorized uses of the public lands) have 

similarities to those discussed for recreation. The increasing amount of multiple-use demands on 

BLM lands, such as public utilities, road construction, and sand and gravel operations, typically 

decrease the amount of public land available for motorized and non-motorized forms of 

recreation, disrupt the existing transportation network, and impede public access to BLM land. 

The increasing amount of commercial and residential development adjacent to the public lands 

has the potential to impede public access onto BLM-administered lands. The sale of Arizona 

State Trust land to private parties or individuals can also facilitate the development of land 

adjacent to BLM lands. These impacts primarily occur when the private land being developed 

has provided historical access into the public lands, and no other access exists. The BLM would 

attempt to reduce these impacts by working with individual private developers and land owners 

to procure legal access onto the public lands as these situations occur. 

Travel management within the planning area is regulated by a variety of entities besides the 

BLM, including the YPG, BMGR, Kofa NWR, Imperial NWR, Cibola NWR, Cabeza Prieta 

NWR, Reclamation, Arizona State Lands Department, three Native American tribes (Cocopah, 

Quechan, and CRIT), and private property owners. Recreational public access within the YPG, 

Page 4-132 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

BMGR, Arizona State Lands, and three Native American reservations is either prohibited or 

regulated by permit. In 2005, the Colorado River Indian Reservation Boundary Correction Act 

(P.L. 109-47) restored approximately 15,400 acres of public land managed by BLM back to the 

jurisdiction of the CRIT. These restored lands included a number of OHV routes that had 

previously been available for public use, including one of two OHV routes crossing the Dome 

Rock Mountains and connecting the communities of Quartzsite and Ehrenberg. Additional largescale limitations to public use of existing BLM land would contribute to further cumulative 

impacts to public access within the planning area. 

Within or adjacent to the planning area, the BLM Yuma, Palm Springs, and El Centro Field 

Offices and the Kofa, Imperial, and Cabeza Prieta NWRs collectively manage approximately 

1,366,200 acres of designated Wilderness where motorized use is strictly prohibited. As such, 

non-Wilderness BLM lands provide a majority of the planning area’s existing motorized 

recreational opportunities. Alternative D of this PRMP/FEIS, which proposes to designate the 

most acreage of non-Wilderness Closed OHV Management Areas, would further reduce the 

amount of public land available for motorized uses and simultaneously increase the amount of 

public land available solely for non-motorized uses. It is not likely that there would be any 

differences in cumulative impacts to travel management under any of the other PRMP/FEIS 

alternatives. 

4.15.17 LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT 

In portions of the planning area where communities are sustaining substantial growth, it is 

anticipated that requests for land use authorizations and disposals would increase. If the 

magnitude of conflicts between wildlife habitat conservation and land-use authorizations 

increase, the availability and/or feasibility of land-use authorizations could be diminished. 

National security issues along the International Boundary and the potential expansion of military 

missions may increase the demand for land-use authorizations and military withdrawals within 

the planning area. 

Alternative D proposes the most acreage of ACECs and lands with wilderness characteristics; 

Alternative D also proposes a smaller number of ROW Corridors, communications sites, and the 

smallest acreage of public lands available for disposal. These Alternative D proposals could 

potentially contribute to a reduced capacity to meet demands for community growth within the 

planning area. Alternative B proposes the largest acreage of lands available for disposal, the most 

ROW Corridors, and the most communications sites; Alternative B also proposes the smallest 

acreage of ACECs and lands with wilderness characteristics. These Alternative B proposals 

could potentially maximize the BLM’s capacity to meet demands for community growth with the 

planning area. It is not likely that there would be any discernible differences to the cumulative 

impacts to Lands and Realty Management under Alternatives A, C, and the Proposed Plan. 

Yuma Field Office Page 4-133 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Page intentionally left blank. 

Page 4-134 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

CHAPTER 5.0 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 5 describes the consultation and coordination activities the BLM conducted while 

preparing this PRMP/FEIS. Input was obtained in a variety of ways throughout the process. Both 

formal and informal efforts were made to involve the public, other Federal agencies, Native 

American tribes, and State and local governments. The information in this chapter is 

supplemental to public meeting and cooperating agency information provided in Chapter 1. 

Sections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 describe efforts made to collaborate and cooperate with the general 

public, land owners, managers; and Federal, State and Tribal agencies in the development of this 

land use plan. Section 5.5 describes the process used to catalogue and respond to comments that 

were received on the DRMP/DEIS, including a summary of the comments and corresponding 

responses. A list of persons who have contributed to the preparation of the DRMP/DEIS and/or 

the PRMP/FEIS is included in Section 5.6. 

5.2 SPECIFIC COLLABORATIVE PLANNING 

ACTIONS 

5.2.1 MEETINGS/PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY FOR INPUT 

A. SCOPING MEETINGS 

Four public Scoping meetings/open houses were conducted from June 1 through 4, 2004, in 

Yuma, the Town of Quartzsite, and Roll, Arizona; and in Blythe, California. Interested public, 

government, internal agency staffs, and others were invited to attend the Scoping meetings. 

Information about the DRMP/DEIS process was presented and public comment and expressions 

of public concern were accepted at the meeting and throughout the Scoping period. The Scoping 

period was open from March 30 through June 30, 2004. 

B. ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION WORKSHOPS 

Four public workshops were held as part of the Alternative Development process. These 

meetings were held March 7 through 10, 2005, in the Town of Quartzsite, Yuma, and Wellton, 

Arizona; and in Blythe, California. The goal of these workshops was to engage the public in the 

alternative development process and gather input on how various issues should be addressed in 

the development of the draft alternatives. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

The workshops were held in open house format, with stations staffed by BLM and contractor 

employees to address the following four subject areas: Lands and Realty, Recreation, Natural 

and Cultural Resources, and Transportation. Poster-sized maps were prepared and displayed at 

each station. Additionally, a package of handouts was provided to each attendee. The handouts 

included a questionnaire/comment form for each topic area that attendees were asked to 

complete and return before leaving, or by the end of the comment period on April 11, 2005. 

C. DRAFT ALTERNATIVE PRESENTATION WORKSHOPS 

Five public workshops were held July 25 through 28, 2005. They were conducted in the same 

four locations as the alternative development workshops (Town of Quartzsite, Yuma, and 

Wellton/Roll, Arizona; and Blythe, California), but were held in different facilities. An 

additional meeting was also held in Tucson, Arizona. 

The workshops began with a brief overview of the RMP process and the preliminary draft 

alternatives. Following this presentation, participants were given the opportunity to circulate to 

various stations that were facilitated by YFO and contractor staff. The subject areas addressed 

included: Transportation and Public Access; Recreation; Wilderness; Visual Resource 

Management; Wilderness Characteristics; Lands and Minerals; Natural and Cultural Resources; 

and Special Designations. 

Materials provided to the public included maps that identified the impacts of the four proposed 

alternatives on specific resources throughout the planning area. The maps were displayed as 

posters along with poster-sized text that described the impacts of the proposed alternatives. The 

descriptive text was also provided to attendees as a handout, along with a meeting agenda. Staff 

collected comments on flipcharts from attendees regarding changes or additions to be considered 

in development of the final range of alternatives. 

D. DRMP/DEIS PUBLIC MEETINGS 

Five formal public meetings were held during the public comment period on the DRMP/DEIS. 

These meetings were held February 5 through 8, 2007 in Wellton, the Town of Quartzsite, 

Yuma, and Tucson, Arizona; and in Blythe, California. The meetings provided an opportunity 

for interested members of the public to learn more about the analysis contained in the 

DRMP/DEIS, as well as an opportunity for attendees to provide comments, written and oral, on 

the document. 

5.2.2 PUBLICATIONS 

A variety of publications have been generated for public information about this planning project. 

These include but are not limited to the following: 

A. NOTICES 

The official start of the YFO RMP/EIS and public scoping process began with a Notice of Intent 

to prepare an RMP and EIS published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2004 (Vol. 69, 

Number 61, Pages 16608-16609, [AZ 050-04-1610-DO; 1610]). 

Page 5-2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

A legal notice was sent to three primary newspapers to announce the Notice of Intent to prepare 

an RMP. Notices were published in the Yuma Daily Sun, Palo Verde Times, and the Arizona 

Republic. YFO intends to publish legal notices for the availability of the PRMP/FEIS. 

A Notice of Availability (NOA) was published on December 15, 2006, announcing a 90 day 

public comment period on the DRMP/DEIS. A NOA was published in April 2008 announcing 

the availability of this PRMP/FEIS. 

B. NEWSPAPERS 

A press release describing key elements of the DRMP/DEIS was sent to local papers such as the 

Yuma Daily Sun, Palo Verde Times, Bajo El Sol (Spanish language publication), and the 

Arizona Republic. Press releases were also sent to local radio and television stations. Press 

releases are prepared to announce major milestones in the project such as issue resolution, 

alternative recommendations, and the public comment period. Press releases are used to 

announce public meetings, tours, and other public activities. 

C. PLANNING BULLETINS 

Planning bulletins are prepared and mailed on a regular basis throughout the project. Bulletins 

contain information regarding the ongoing planning effort, opportunities for public involvement, 

and information regarding the community collaboration effort. Each bulletin is developed, 

reviewed, and mailed to interested parties as identified on BLM’s mailing list. 

The first Planning Bulletin, which was sent November 2004, included a summary of issues 

identified during the scoping process as well as the project schedule and next steps. 

The second Planning Bulletin distributed in August 2005 described the preliminary draft 

alternatives, how they were developed, and the management strategies proposed. 

The third Planning Bulletin distributed in December 2006 announced the publication of the 

DRMP/DEIS, summarized the alternatives considered in the DRMP, and announced dates, times, 

and locations for public meetings on the DRMP. 

The fourth Planning Bulletin was distributed prior to the April 2008 release of the NOA to 

announce the availability of this PRMP/FEIS. 

5.2.3 WEB SITE 

During development of the DRMP/DEIS, an interactive Web site was being hosted at 

<http://www.blm.gov/az/LUP/yuma/yuma_plan.htm> to communicate with and update the 

public, cooperating agencies, and BLM offices on the status of the project. Materials placed on 

the site included general background information, schedules, news/events, meetings, information 

on how to get involved, reports, and maps. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

5.2.4 MAILING LIST 

The YFO utilizes the National Mailing List System, a national database that includes local, State, 

and Federal agencies, Native American tribes, organizations, and individuals. The list has been 

updated on an as needed/as requested basis. Attendees at public meetings and workshops are 

given the opportunity to add their names to the mailing list on registration sheets. The initial 

distribution for announcements was approximately 1,300 mailings. The distribution has since 

grown to over 1,750 mailings. 

5.3 INTERRELATIONSHIPS 

The scattered nature of BLM-administered land in the planning area makes it essential for YFO 

to collaborate, cooperate, and coordinate with adjacent and intermingled land owners and 

managers in the development and implementation of this land use plan. 

5.3.1 MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATION 

BLM coordinates its fire management activities with the actions of related Federal and State 

agencies responsible for fire management. The Federal Wildland Fire Policy is a collaborative 

effort that includes the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, NPS, USFWS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the 

USGS Biological Resources Division, and State wildlife management organizations. The 

collaborative effort has formulated and standardized the guiding principals and priorities of 

wildland fire management. Collaboration of the Federal Wildland Fire Policy on a nationwide 

scale has provided common priorities and objectives for Federal land management agencies 

including protection of human life, property, and natural/cultural resources as secondary 

priorities. This policy also provides recognition of wildland fire as a critical natural process that 

should be safely reintroduced into ecosystems that are wildfire dependent across agency 

boundaries. The National Fire Plan is a collaborative interagency effort to apply the Federal 

Wildland Policy to all Federal land management agencies and partners in State forestry or lands 

departments. Operational collaboration between the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, NPS, and 

USFWS is included in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations 2003. 

This federally approved document addresses fire management, wildfire suppression, fuels 

management and prescribed fire safety, interagency coordination and cooperation, qualifications 

and training, objectives, performance standards, and fire management program administration. 

5.3.2 FEDERAL AGENCIES 

As a part of this planning effort and in implementing on-the-ground activities, BLM executes 

ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. In 2001, BLM and USFWS finalized a 

consultation agreement to establish an effective and cooperative ESA Section 7 consultation 

process. The agreement defines the process, products, actions, schedule, and expectations of 

BLM and USFWS on project consultation. One Biological Assessment was prepared to 

determine the effect of the DRMP/DEIS Preferred Alternative on all relevant listed, proposed, 

and candidate species, and associated critical habitat. The Biological Assessment exposed all 

expected environmental effects, conservation actions, mitigation, and monitoring including 

Page 5-4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

analysis of all direct and indirect effects of plan decisions and any interrelated and 

interdependent actions. As this plan’s decisions are implemented, BLM would initiate more sitespecific consultation on actions determined through environmental analysis to potentially affect 

species listed or candidate species for listing under the ESA. 

Reclamation and other cooperators completed the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program in 2005. The LCR MSCP is a coordinated, comprehensive, long-term 

multi-agency effort to conserve and work toward the recovery of endangered species, and to 

protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the lower Colorado River. All participating USDOI 

officials are directed to cooperate and implement such agreements to achieve the important 

species conservation actions identified within the LCR MSCP. BLM is a partner in the LCR 

MSCP, and the YFO has been involved and will continue to strive to achieve LCR MSCP goals 

and objectives that are within the scope of BLM’s mission. YFO will continue to identify 

opportunities to work with Reclamation on implementing program projects, and, to the 

maximum extent practicable, give those projects priority. 

Examples of partnering relationships that the YFO either has now or may pursue with other 

Federal agencies include but would not be limited to the following. 

 For Special Designations (Back Country Byways, ACECs, NHTs, and/or Wilderness) and 

CMAs: BLM El Centro, Palm Springs, Lake Havasu and Lower Sonoran Field Offices; 

USFWS at Cibola, Imperial, and Kofa NWRs; Border Patrol, YPG, NPS, USIBWC, EPA, 

Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Reclamation. 

 For fire-related issues and activities: USFWS at Cibola, Imperial, and Kofa NWRs, Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, USGS, Reclamation, NRCS, YPG, and the MCAS–Yuma. 

 For vegetation and Cooperative Weed Management: USFWS at Cibola, Imperial, and Kofa 

NWRs, NRCS, and the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. 

 For fish and wildlife and special status species: USFWS and Reclamation. 

 For livestock grazing issues: USFWS. 

 For wild horse and burro issues: USFWS at Cibola, Imperial, and Kofa NWRs, YPG, and the 

Border Patrol. 

 For recreation issues and opportunities: USFWS at Cibola, Imperial, and Kofa NWRs, YPG, 

MCAS–Yuma, BMGR, Reclamation, and possibly the FHWA. 

 For travel management: FHWA. 

 For soil resources: NRCS. 

 For water resources: Reclamation, EPA, and the USIBWC. 

 For lands and realty issues: Reclamation, Border Patrol (Department of Homeland Security), 

FHWA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, YPG, and USFWS at Cibola, Imperial, and Kofa NWRs. 

 For minerals: Reclamation, FHWA. 

 For hazardous materials: EPA. 

 For public health and safety issues: EPA, Reclamation, YPG, MCAS–Yuma, BMGR, Border 

Patrol, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

5.3.3 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

The BLM cultural resource management program operates under a Programmatic Agreement 

(USDOI BLM 1997e), which was executed by the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers on March 26, 

1997. The Programmatic Agreement legally replaces 36 CFR Part 800 as the procedural basis for 

BLM managers to meet their responsibilities under Sections 106, 110(f), and 111(a) of the 

NHPA. BLM also follows State-specific BLM-SHPO Protocols (USDOI BLM 1997f and 

1997g), which were developed to implement the Programmatic Agreement. The YFO works 

closely with the Arizona and California SHPOs to satisfy the working relationships set forth in 

the national Programmatic Agreement and the State Protocols, and to follow these specific 

procedures for consultation between the BLM and the SHPO. 

Both the Arizona SHPO and California SHPO were invited to participate in this planning effort. 

The SHPOs were invited to join the plan as cooperating agencies, and they received notification 

of agency and public meetings throughout the development of the plan. Letters seeking 

additional comments were sent to the Arizona and California SHPOs in March 2007. At a 

meeting with the Arizona SHPO on April 3, 2007, BLM gave a presentation on the range of 

alternatives and provided the SHPO with another opportunity to ask questions or to provide the 

BLM with verbal comments. Input received was incorporated into the PRMP/FEIS. As the plan’s 

decisions are implemented, YFO will continue to meet its obligations for coordination and 

consultation with the Arizona and California SHPOs. 

The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) authorizes the USDOI, 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. 

BLM must also coordinate with suitable State agencies in managing State-listed plant and animal 

species when the State has formally made such designations. 

BLM is responsible for management of wildlife habitats on public lands, while the AGFD and 

CDFG are responsible for managing wildlife populations and game harvest. Continued efforts 

would be made to coordinate with AGFD and CDFG for opportunities to enhance wildlife 

habitat, species diversity, and riparian health. Coordination occurs between the agencies on 

management plans and activities to achieve the optimum health of wildlife species and 

populations. 

The AGFD and BLM work cooperatively to manage resources throughout the State of Arizona. 

While BLM is responsible for managing wildlife habitat on BLM-administered land, the AGFD, 

through the authority of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, has public trust responsibility 

to manage fish and wildlife populations. The AGFD and BLM consider the management of fish 

and wildlife resources as a high priority, and agree to work cooperatively to achieve a shared 

goal to actively manage, sustain, and enhance those resources. The AGFD mandate to meet 

statutory trust responsibilities to manage fish and wildlife populations is supported by the BLM 

Page 5-6 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

and incorporated within the goals and objectives in BLM’s RMPs. All implementation level 

plans and site-specific projects will be evaluated and finalized through appropriate coordination, 

partnerships, and processes that reflect the spirit and intent of the Statewide MOU. 

Throughout the PRMP/FEIS, the close, cooperative nature of the relationship between BLM and 

AGFD is cited. At the writing of the PRMP/FEIS, AGFD and 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 RMP. In addition, an MOU has been 

signed giving AGFD cooperating agency status on BLM planning efforts in Arizona. 

Coordination with AGFD during development of management plans and enhancement of 

wildlife habitat, species diversity, riparian health and other activities to achieve the optimum 

health of wildlife species and populations will continue. Administrative access may be allowed 

for AGFD staff for law enforcement, natural resource management, and other purposes. 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 AGFD and BLM) 

for such purposes including, but not limited to the following: law enforcement activities, wildlife 

water supplementation (i.e., water hauling and maintenance, repair, building, or rebuilding of 

wildlife waters), collar retrieval, capture and release of wildlife, telemetry, surveys, habitat 

evaluation, habitat manipulation (forage enhancement, burning, vegetation clearing, planting, 

etc.), fence construction (enclosures/exclosures), and research activities. 

To further promote interagency coordination, a Cooperative Agreement was signed between 

BLM and AGFD, establishing a liaison position in the AGFD. This liaison is assigned 

coordination responsibility on all ongoing land use plans and spends a portion of their work 

schedule in the BLM Arizona State Office. 

Regional transportation planning and construction of roadways and highways is generally 

conducted by State or regional agencies, such as ADOT, county departments of transportation, 

and city transportation departments. When these agencies plan and develop roadways that cross 

public lands, BLM would coordinate with the responsible agency to develop design features that 

minimize the fragmenting effect of the planned roadway. BLM would work with the responsible 

agency to evaluate and incorporate safe and effective wildlife crossings to ensure species longterm viability and maintaining habitat connectivity. Where planned roadways potentially 

fragment other resources, such as (but not limited to) routes, grazing allotments, or mining 

operations, BLM would work with the responsible agency to provide continued connectivity for 

those purposes as well. 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. 

Examples of partnering relationships that the YFO either has now or may pursue with State and 

local government agencies or entities include but would not be limited to the following. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

 For Special Designations (Back Country Byways, NHTs, and ACECs): Arizona State Land 

Department, ADOT, and AGFD; CDFG, Counties of Yuma, La Paz, Maricopa, and 

Riverside, Cities of Yuma and Blythe, Towns of Cibola and Quartzsite. 

 For Coordinated Management Areas: Arizona State Land Department and AGFD; Yuma 

County and City of Yuma. 

 For fire-related issues and activities: Arizona State Land Department, ADOT, ADEQ and 

AGFD; CDFG, City of Yuma, and Counties of Yuma, La Paz, Imperial, Riverside, and 

Mohave. 

 For fish and wildlife and special status species: AGFD and ADOT; CDFG, and California 

Department of Transportation. 

 For livestock grazing issues: Arizona State Lands Department and AGFD. 

 For wild horse and burro issues: AGFD and Arizona Department of Public Safety; CDFG, 

and California State Police. 

 For recreation issues and opportunities: AGFD and ADOT; City of Yuma and other local 

communities. 

 For transportation management: AGFD and ADOT; CDFG and California Department of 

Transportation. 

 For cultural resources: Arizona and California SHPOs. 

 For air quality: ADEQ and the California Air Resources Board. 

 For water resources: ADWR, ADEQ, and California Department of Water Resources. 

 For lands, realty, and minerals issues: ADOT. 

 For public health and safety issues: ADEQ, Yuma County Sheriff’s Department and the City 

of Yuma Police Department. 

5.3.4 TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS 

BLM consults with tribes that have an interest in or cultural concerns related to the planning 

area. Coordination and communication includes letters, phone calls, and meetings. For this plan 

revision, YFO coordinated and consulted with the Native American tribes and groups listed 

below. 

 Ak-Chin Indian Community 

 Chemehuevi Indian Tribe 

 Cocopah Indian Tribe 

 Colorado River Indian Tribes 

 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 

 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 

 Fort Sill Apache Tribe 

 Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe 

 Gila River Indian Community 

 Havasupai Tribe 

 Hia C’ed O’odham 

Page 5-8 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 Hopi Tribe 

 Hualapai Tribe 

 Kaibab-Paiute Tribe 

 Las Vegas Paiute Tribe 

 Mescalero Apache Tribe 

 Moapa Band of Paiute Indians 

 The Navajo Nation 

 Pascua Yaqui Tribe 

 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

 San Carlos Apache Tribe 

 San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe 

 Tohono O’odham Tribal Nation 

 Tonto Apache Tribe 

 Viejas Band of Mission Indians 

 White Mountain Apache Tribe 

 Yavapai-Apache Nation 

 Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 

 Pueblo of Zuni 

5.3.5 PRIVATE LAND OWNERS AND OTHER ENTITIES 

The YFO either has now or may pursue partnering relationships with private land owners and 

other entities such as: 

 ROW permit applicants and holders; 

 Concessionaires, mining persons and companies, grazing leaseholders; 

 NRCS Resource Conservation & Development Councils, National Wildlife Federation, 

Audubon Society, Sonoran Institute, Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club, Arizona Wilderness 

Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, Natural Trails & Waters Coalition, and other non-profit 

organizations; 

 Avocational groups; 

 Colleges, universities, and other academic institutions; 

 Chambers of Commerce in Yuma, Quartzsite, and Blythe, and the Yuma Convention and 

Visitors Bureau; and 

 Irrigation Districts of Yuma, Yuma Mesa, Imperial, Palo Verde, and Wellton Mohawk, and 

the Yuma Valley Water Users’ Association. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

5.4 COOPERATING AGENCIES 

Letters were sent in January 2005 to over 75 Federal, State, and Tribal agencies inviting their 

participation as a cooperating agency. A list of agencies contacted is shown below. Several of 

these agencies signed MOUs to become cooperating agencies, which are listed in Section 1.6.1 

of Chapter 1. 

5.4.1 FEDERAL 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs–Colorado River Agency, Phoenix Area Office, Yuma Area Office 

 Bureau of Mines 

 Bureau of Reclamation–Phoenix Area Office; Yuma Area Office; Boulder City, Nevada 

Regional Office 

 Council on Environmental Quality 

 Environmental Protection Agency 

 Federal Aviation Administration 

 Federal Highway Administration 

 United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission 

 National Park Service 

o Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 

o National Trails System 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, California 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Lower Colorado River Resource Conservation and 

Development 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 

 U.S. Department of Defense, Air Force, Luke Air Force Base 

 U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers – Los Angeles Regional Office, 

Phoenix Project Office, Tucson Office 

 U.S. Department of Defense, Army, Yuma Proving Ground 

 U.S. Department of Defense, Marine Corps Air Station – Yuma 

 U.S. Department of Defense, Navy 

 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Safety and Health 

 U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration – Arizona State Office, 

Colorado State Office 

 U.S. Department on Homeland Security, Border Patrol – Yuma Office; Southwest Border 

Alliance – Yuma 

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Environmental Policy and Compliance 

 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Page 5-10 Yuma Field Office 

o Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

o Cibola National Wildlife Refuge 

o Imperial National Wildlife Refuge 

o Kofa National Wildlife Refuge 

o Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

 U.S. Forest Service – Arizona Zone Office 

 U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division 

5.4.2 STATE 

 Arizona Department of Agriculture 

 Arizona Department of Commerce 

 Arizona Department of Economic Security 

 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality – State Office, Air Quality Division, and 

Yuma Community Liaison 

 Arizona Department of Health Services 

 Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources 

 Arizona Department of Public Safety 

 Arizona Department of Transportation 

 Arizona Department of Water Resources 

 Arizona Game and Fish Department – Yuma and Phoenix offices 

 Arizona Geological Survey 

 Arizona Governor’s Office 

 Arizona Office of the Attorney General 

 Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 

 Arizona State House of Representatives 

 Arizona State Land Department 

 Arizona State Mine Inspector 

 Arizona State Parks 

o State Office 

o Yuma Crossing State Historic Park 

o Yuma Territorial Prison State Historic Park 

 California Department of Boating and Safety 

 California Department of Fish and Game 

 California Department of Food and Agriculture 

 California Department of Public Works 

 California Department of Toxic Substances 

 California Department of Transportation 

 California Governor’s Office 

 California State Historic Preservation Office 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

 California State Lands Commission 

 California State Parks, Picacho State Recreation Area 

 Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

 Offices of U.S. Senators McCain and Kyl 

5.4.3 TRIBAL 

 Ak-Chin Indian Community 

 Chemehuevi Indian Tribe 

 Cocopah Indian Tribe 

 Colorado River Indian Tribes 

 Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 

 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 

 Fort Sill Apache Tribe 

 Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe 

 Gila River Indian Community 

 Havasupai Tribe 

 Hia C’ed O’odham 

 Hopi Tribe 

 Hualapai Tribe 

 Kaibab-Paiute Tribe 

 Las Vegas Paiute Tribe 

 Mescalero Apache Tribe 

 Moapa Band of Paiute Indians 

 The Navajo Nation 

 Pascua Yaqui Tribe 

 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

 San Carlos Apache Tribe 

 San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe 

 Tohono O’odham Tribal Nation 

 Tonto Apache Tribe 

 Viejas Band of Mission Indians 

 White Mountain Apache Tribe 

 Yavapai-Apache Nation 

 Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 

 Pueblo of Zuni 

Page 5-12 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

5.4.4 COUNTY 

 Imperial County, California 

o Board of Supervisors 

o Department of Planning and Building 

o Agriculture Commission 

 La Paz County, Arizona 

o Community Development 

o Health Department 

o Public Works 

 Maricopa County, Arizona 

o Board of Supervisors 

o Department of Transportation 

o Flood Control District 

o Health Department 

 Mohave County, Arizona – Public Land Use Commission 

 Riverside County, California 

 Yuma County, Arizona 

o Board of Supervisors 

o Development Services 

o Public Works Department 

o Sheriff’s Department 

5.4.5 LOCAL 

 City of Blythe, California 

 City of Kingman, Arizona Parks and Recreation Department 

 City of Needles, California 

 City of San Luis, Arizona 

 City of Somerton, Arizona 

 City of Tucson, Arizona 

 City of Yuma, Arizona 

o City Council 

o Parks and Recreation Department 

o Public Works Department 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

5.5 COMMENT ANALYSIS PROCESS 

The BLM received more than 430 comment letters (including public comment forms from public 

meetings, oral testimonies, postal letters, emails, and faxes) from individuals, agencies, 

organizations, and groups during the public comment period on the DRMP/DEIS. The formal 

comment period was from December 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Comment letters were 

received from 29 different states, with the majority from Arizona (44%) and California (17%). 

One international comment letter was received from the Netherlands. 

5.5.1 CODING AND SUMMARY OF COMMENTS 

Public comment letters resulted in over 1,400 individual comments. To analyze these comments, 

BLM followed the USDA Forest Service Content Analysis Team (CAT) process for comment 

analysis. This process has been used to analyze hundreds of thousands of comments over 

numerous EISs, and BLM believes it to be a defensible process to catalog and address 

comments. 

A database was created and contained a letter log and a scanned copy of each coded letter. The 

letter log maintained information such as the following: type of response (e.g., received at a 

public meeting or through a comment letter, received through postal mail or email), respondent 

information (e.g., from an individual, government, tribe, or interest group), name and address, 

and number of signatures on the letter. 

When a letter was received, the original was date-stamped and numbered, then retained for the 

Administrative Record. Two photocopies were made: one for the reader’s file (i.e., to be used by 

the public as needed), and one for a working copy. The copy for the reader’s file was scanned. 

The working copy was logged into the letter log, coded with the comment codes, “second read” 

(see below), entered into the comment database, and then scanned. 

The coding process required identification of standalone comments. Three “first readers” read 

and coded the comment letters. A fourth person was the “second reader” who verified the 

accuracy and consistency of the coding. The coded comments were then entered into the Access 

database. The coding included an Action code (which included 210 codes related to a range of 

actions that the commenter was asking (hypothetical example: “Do not identify Parcel X for 

disposal,”) and a Rationale code, which comprised the expressed reason for the comment (e.g., 

the land is important desert tortoise habitat). 

For the purpose of providing consistent and adequate responses, similar comments were grouped 

and organized into Public Concerns (e.g., want to protect habitat). Some comments also 

identified Subconcerns (e.g., want to protect habitat because it is needed for bighorn sheep). 

Public Concerns and Subconcerns were determined according to the Action and Rational codes 

assigned during the coding process. 

All comments received during the public comment period were reviewed and considered. 

Comments that presented new data or addressed the adequacy of the document, the alternatives, 

Page 5-14 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

or the analysis are responded to in this PRMP/FEIS pursuant to BLM policy. There were also 

many comments received which requested further clarification in the document. Although not 

required to be addressed, these comments requesting clarification may have resulted in additional 

language or revisions throughout the PRMP/FEIS. 

Comments expressing personal opinions or with no specific relevance to the adequacy or 

accuracy of the DRMP/DEIS were considered but may not have been responded to directly. 

Similarly, comments received after data analysis was completed were considered, but are not 

addressed in this document. 

Although all Public Concerns and Subconcerns are presented in this section, not all comments 

are included. Rather, the comments presented in this section are samples, intended to give the 

reader an overview of the Public Concerns and Subconcerns along with BLM’s responses. 

Complete comment letters are on the compact disc published with this PRMP/FEIS. Contact the 

BLM YFO if you need additional information regarding comment letters and responses. 

There are eight broad categories for comments, and within each of those categories comments 

are organized into Public Concerns and Subconcerns. The main comment categories are listed 

below in order of the issues identified by the public. This outline was used to organize the 

comments that are presented in this chapter. Referring to this outline will assist with finding 

specific comments in Section 5.5.2. 

A. PLANNING PROCESS 

1. Decision Making Process and Methods 

2. Decision Making Philosophy 

3. Public Involvement 

4. Use of Best Available Science 

5. Agency Organization, Funding, and Staffing 

B. ALTERNATIVES 

1. General Documents

2. Alternatives 

C. NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

1. General Management 

2. Analysis 

3. Physical Elements 

4. Biological Elements: Wildlife/Animals Management 

5. Biological Elements: Vegetation Management 

6. Domestic Livestock Management 

7. Mining and Mineral Exploration 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

8. Cultural Resources Management 

9. Wild Horse and Burros 

10. Visual Resources Management 

11. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

12. Law and Policy Enforcement 

D. ACCESS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

1. Transportation System Management 

2. Non-System and User-Created Routes 

3. Route Analysis 

E. RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

1. Recreation Management 

2. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

3. Motorized Recreation Management 

4. Developed Recreation Facilities 

5. Non-Motorized Recreation Management 

6. Recreation Permitting 

7. User Education and Research 

8. Volunteers, Partners

F. LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT 

1. Public Land Ownership/Boundaries 

2. ROW Corridors 

3. Communication Sites and Facilities 

4. Land Actions or Tenure 

5. Disposals 

G. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

1. Designations/Management 

2. Wilderness 

3. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

4. Back Country Byways 

H. SOCIAL AND ECONOMICS 

1. Border Related Issues 

Page 5-16 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

5.5.2 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 

A. PLANNING PROCESS 

1. Decision Making Process and Methods 

Public Concern 1: Coordination and Consultation with other 

Agencies 

Subconcern: Federal Agencies

Commenting agency or organization names are shown in parenthesis. 

Comment 722 (USIBWC): Please keep USIBWC informed on the DEIS process, and of any 

future projects that may occur near the international border.

Response: BLM will continue to inform State, Federal and local agencies, non-governmental 

organizations and international interests, including the USIBWC, of the RMP process and 

projects that may occur near the International Border. 

Comment 1174 (Reclamation): The unique relationship between Reclamation and BLM relative 

to the shared management of lands within the area addressed by the Department of Interior 

Departmental Manual (613 DM 1.1) is noted on page 1-4, section 1.2.1. However, clarification 

is needed to more accurately identify those lands included in 613 DM 1.1. Not all Reclamation 

withdrawn or acquired lands within the YFO DRMP are part of the 613 DM 1.1 management 

agreement. Only those lands that constitute a corridor along the lower Colorado River as 

identified in the Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan of 1964 are jointly managed by 

Reclamation and BLM for specific purposes as outlined by 613 DM 1.1 and the joint 

Memorandum of Understanding of July 15, 1991. 

Response: Section 1.2.1, Reclamation Project Lands, was rewritten to more accurately describe 

the unique relationship between Reclamation and BLM relative to the shared management of 

lands included in 613 DM 1.1. 

Comment 1178 (Reclamation): Since BLM is a partner in the LCR MSCP, please include 

language that says BLM will identify opportunities to partner with Reclamation on implementing 

LCR MSCP projects and, to the maximum extent practicable, give those projects priority. 

Response: Throughout the PRMP/FEIS, BLM references the LCR MSCP within Desired Future 

Conditions and Management Actions. BLM has agreed to consider restoration projects to restore 

ecosystems at risk, to provide for endangered species and other BLM priority wildlife, and 

encourage biodiversity through vegetation enhancement. BLM would partner with Reclamation 

to further LCR MSCP goals where high potential exists to further these objectives. BLM 

restoration projects may also include passive recreation such as wildlife viewing and hiking. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Comment 1041 (YVRGC): It has been announced to members of the entire Yuma Proving 

Ground (YPG) workforce that areas within the Yuma Field Office planning area are considered 

for withdrawal from Public Lands for military purposes by YPG...We respectfully submit that 

this action, and all impacts associated with this action, should be included within any planning 

document that the BLM plans to execute within the immediate future. 

Response: BLM has not received any formal applications from YPG for land authorizations 

(i.e. military withdrawal, etc.). Until a formal application has been submitted to BLM, the action 

and associated impacts cannot be analyzed in the RMP. Military presence in the planning area 

was analyzed in the Cumulative Impacts section of Chapter 4.

Subconcern: State, County, and Municipal Governments

Comment 908: [Quotation from attachment] Letter from Governor Napolitano dated March 15, 

2006. 

"I can certainly appreciate the complex issues facing BLM with regard to management of public 

lands in Arizona, and the need to accommodate a wide range of public land users. However, the 

implementation of wilderness characteristic allocations, as currently described in these draft 

plans, is unclear in regard to the ability of the public to access or enjoy their existing public 

lands and will likely result in unnecessary impacts to the state's statutory authority to manage 

fish and wildlife resources on BLM lands. I believe any uses and restrictions that result from 

such proposed allocations should be clearly identified in each Plan. I would appreciate your 

thorough evaluation of the ongoing application and use of these allocations to ensure 

consistency with the multiple use concepts identified in the BLM mission." 

Response: Management Actions proposed in Section 2.14 of this PRMP/FEIS outline how the 

YFO would maintain lands with wilderness characteristics. None of these proposals would 

preclude the State of Arizona’s statutory authority to manage fish and wildlife resources on 

BLM-administered lands. The YFO has fulfilled its mandate to use the “best available 

information” to inventory routes on all BLM-administered lands within the planning area, 

including within lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. This PRMP/FEIS does 

not propose to restrict motorized access on any inventoried routes within lands identified to 

maintain wilderness characteristics. Inventoried routes within lands identified to maintain 

wilderness characteristics would be individually evaluated during future Travel Management 

Plans and designated as open, closed, or limited to motorized use. 

Comment 1368 (AGFD): Page 2-94 to 2-97, Table 2-20 through Table 2-24 Management 

Actions, RMP Statement-None: The Department recommends adding a bullet that states: 

Coordinate with AGFD on OHV management and enforcement. 

Response: BLM recognizes the importance of proper coordination with AGFD regarding OHV 

management and enforcement. This particular comment has been addressed within Chapter 5, 

Section 5.3 C, State and Local Governments. A statewide MOU is being prepared and 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 this MOU apply to 

implementation of this RMP. 

Page 5-18 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Comment 1332 (AGFD): BLM is proposing to extend and designate a national recreation trail 

across the MLWA (Mittry Lake Wildlife Area). The Department requests that YFO continue to 

work cooperatively with us on any proposed trail extension and receive a letter of approval prior 

to beginning any construction or designation. 

Response: The Proposed Plan removed the extension of the National Recreation Trail at Betty’s 

Kitchen as a result of public comment on the DRMP/DEIS. BLM would continue to coordinate 

with AGFD on all site-specific actions at Mittry Lake. 

Comment 1337 (AGFD): The Department looks forward to continuing to collaborate with the 

YFO in refining and implementing the RMP. To that end, we believe it would be beneficial to 

meet and discuss our concerns. 

Response: BLM will continue to collaborate and consult with the AGFD as will be stated under 

the statewide MOU (under revision) (see PRMP/FEIS, Section 5.3 C, Interrelationships). BLM 

will continue to meet on a regular basis to discuss AGFD’s comments to the DRMP/DEIS and 

PRMP/FEIS and work to resolve any issues in order to continue the good working relationship 

already established between the agencies. 

Comment 985 (ADWR): In addition to our statutorily defined role under Title 45 of the Arizona 

Revised Statutes, reference in the subject DEIS, ADWR is a permittee under the Lower Colorado 

River Multi-Species Conservation Program and we encourage close coordination of BLM 

activities with that program. 

Response: Clarification of the LCR MSCP role in the YFO RMP was added to Section 5.3 C, 

Interrelationships. The LCR MSCP is a coordinated, comprehensive, long-term multi-agency 

effort to conserve and work toward the recovery of endangered species, and to protect and 

maintain wildlife habitat on the lower Colorado River. The BLM has been involved and will 

continue to strive to achieve LCR MSCP goals and objectives that are within the scope of our 

agency’s mission.

Comment 18 (ADEQ): The purpose of this letter is to request estimated PM10 emissions data for 

the two open OHV management areas in alternatives B, C, and E proposed in the draft 

RMP/EIS. 

Response: BLM responded to a request from ADEQ for PM10 emissions data for two proposed 

Open OHV Management Areas within the YFO planning area in a letter dated February 23, 

2007. The letter stated “In reviewing the Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP), and data used in 

the development of the plan, ATV use was part of the contributing factors of PM10

concentrations. In the Maintenance Plan, they estimated that ATVs contributed approximately 

3.6 tons a year, and anticipate that by 2016, ATVs will contribute 5.9 tons per year. During the 

time that ADEQ was developing these plans to respond to the EPA, these areas have essentially 

been used as open areas. Some increased use can be anticipated; however, it will depend more on 

winter visitor numbers.” Currently, there are no air quality monitoring stations in the vicinity of 

the proposed Open OHV Management Areas. Monitoring stations are located in the Yuma valley 

and the City of Yuma. The proposed Blaisdell Open OHV Management Area, which is located 

within a PM10 non-attainment area, and the proposed Martinez Lake Open OHV Management 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Area were removed from the Proposed Plan.

Comment 1459 (YPG): On page 2-42 and 2-52, support reintroductions (particularly Sonoran 

pronghorn) in collaboration with AGFD and USFWS. I recommend including other Agencies 

(i.e., YPG) in the collaboration as such reintroductions have the potential to significantly impact 

YPG mission as animals spread from reintroduction sites in the Palomas Plain onto YPG. 

Response: BLM acknowledges the statement and revised the PRMP/FEIS to include: “and other 

agencies” in Section 2.7, Management Action #4 and 2.7.2 D Administrative Action #2. 

Comment 993 (ADWR): P. 2-122, Management Actions, 4th bullet. Arizona Department of 

Water Resources is certainly interested in water quality but our sister agency, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality has the lead. Water use should be discussed with ADWR. 

Response: Text in the PRMP/FEIS, Section 2.17.2, Management Action #4 was changed to 

reference ADEQ instead of ADWR.

Public Concern 2: Coordination and Consultation with Tribes 

Comment 764 (BIA): Please consider the federal government's overall trust responsibility 

toward Indian Tribes as espoused in various laws, regulations, Executive Orders, Secretarial 

Orders, etc. 

Response: BLM is aware of its responsibility to comply with all Federal laws, regulations, and 

orders pertaining to Native American coordination and consultation.

Comment 767 (BIA): It does not appear that the Hia C'ed O'odham were consulted during the 

DRMP/DEIS process, even though the "Sand Papago" have ties to the planning area as stated on 

page 3-57. Although the Hia C'ed O'odham are scattered, two main groups are usually consulted 

-- one that resides on lands of the Tohono O'odham Nation and one from Glendale, Arizona. The 

Hia C'ed O'odham may be able to provide important relevant data for analysis in the DRMP/EIS 

and we recommend that they be consulted. 

Response: Information on the YFO RMP revision has been sent to the Hia C’ed O’odham office 

at the Tohono O’odham Nation throughout the revision process, but were mistakenly left off of 

the list of Native American tribes and groups consulted. This mistake has been corrected in the 

PRMP/FEIS. 

Comment 1428 (Quechan Tribe): It is the Tribe’s understanding that this Resource 

Management Plan does not authorize any site-specific uses of land, but simply provides general 

management parameters for BLM lands over the coming years. If this understanding is 

incorrect, please inform us as soon as possible and provide additional time to supplement our 

comments. 

Response: Site-specific ground-disturbing actions discussed in the land use plan (e.g., 

community pits, OHV open areas, communications sites, etc.) would need additional compliance 

with NEPA and NHPA before implementation. Allocations that are not ground disturbing would

not require additional NEPA and NHPA analysis and would be authorized by this RMP.

Page 5-20 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-21 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Comment 1429 (Quechan Tribe): It is also the Tribe’s understanding that any future sitespecific authorizations relating to BLM lands must undergo compliance with NEPA, NHPA, and 

other federal environmental and cultural resources protection laws prior to approval by BLM. 

Thus, the Tribe expects that BLM will notify the Tribe of all pending NEPA and or NHPA Section 

106 processes that affect cultural resources of significance to the Tribe. Where a proposed BLM 

action could affect tribal cultural resources, the BLM must include the Tribe as a consulting 

party pursuant to NHPA and the Advisory Council regulations. 

Response: YFO will continue to fulfill its obligations under NEPA, the NHPA, and other 

Federal laws and regulations for tribal consultation. YFO plans to continue to notify the Quechan 

Tribe of any proposed action that has a potential to affect cultural resources of significance to the 

Tribe. 

Comment 1426 (Quechan Tribe): The Quechan Tribe requests that the BLM meet with the Tribe 

in formal government-to-government consultations to discuss its Draft RMP. Such consultations 

are not only required due to the BLM’s role as trustee to the Tribe, but also due to the Tribe’s 

status as a Cooperating Agency for purposes of development of the DRMP. The Tribe must also 

be consulted to determine whether identified cultural resource sites are properly eligible for 

protection as ‘Traditional Cultural Properties.’ BLM should contact the Tribe as soon as 

possible to schedule a government-to-government meeting. 

The DRMP also identifies numerous aspects of the plan on which the Tribe must be consulted. 

For example, the DRMP states that BLM must ‘continue to consult with Tribes to identify places 

of traditional importance.’ DRMP, at p.2-110. The DRMP also states that BLM will ‘inventory, 

document, monitor, and protect cultural resources of importance’ within ACEC areas. DRMP, at 

p. 2-15. The Quechan Tribe requests ongoing consultation on these issues. Likewise, the Tribe 

must be consulted on the development of any maps that depict cultural resources, education 

materials relating to cultural resources, as well as interpretive trails relating to cultural 

resources of significance to the Tribe. 

Response: BLM greatly appreciates the Quechan Tribe’s input into the management of cultural 

resources on public lands and will continue to meet our consultation obligations with the 

Quechan Tribe. For these consultations, BLM follows the guidance provided by NEPA, NHPA, 

BLM Manual Series 8100, and other applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders. 

Since the beginning of this RMP revision process in 2004, the YFO has met several times with 

members of the Quechan Cultural Committee to discuss the plan alternatives and specific 

proposals in the RMP revision. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Quechan 

Tribal Council to discuss the PRMP/FEIS.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Public Concern 3: Consistency with Other Actions/Agencies 

Subconcern: FLPMA

Comment 1331 (AGFD): YFO is proposing to allocate the MLWA (Mittry Lake Wildlife Area) 

as a Coordinated Management Area, an allocation authorized under the Federal Land Policy 

Management Act (FLPMA). The Department believes it is inappropriate to propose to manage 

lands under FLPMA authorities that are currently managed by a state wildlife agency under 

FWCA authorities. 

Response: In response to this comment, YFO made changes to the document to clarify that the 

Mittry Lake Wildlife Area is not an allocation under FLPMA, or the Land Use Planning 

Handbook. Section 2.4.3 of this PRMP/FEIS on Coordinated Management Areas recognizes 

Mittry Lake Wildlife Area is leased public land managed under a cooperative agreement between 

the AGFD, Reclamation and BLM. The plan points out that the Mittry Lake Wildlife Area is set 

aside under the provisions of the lease under a different law than FLPMA, is co-managed, and 

presents proposed management actions or prescriptions applied to those areas. BLM’s activities 

are authorized under FLPMA. BLM currently manages camping, maintains recreation facilities 

such as restrooms and trash collection, and coordinates other activities such as completing NEPA 

documentation for facilities in conformance with the RMP.

The purpose of the area stated in the lease is “establishing a public shooting area, waterfowl 

resting ground, and for improving conditions for the propagation of fish.” According to the 

Mittry Lake Wildlife Area Management Plan, “ultimate responsibility for these lands lies with 

the BLM, which is assigned full responsibility for the implementation of the Lower Colorado 

Land Use Plan, including lands used for recreation or wildlife activities.” 

Subconcern: State, County, and Municipal Governments

Comment 1323 (AGFD): The Department is concerned several resources and/or uses may 

inherently conflict, and the proactive and timely management of fish and wildlife could suffer as 

a consequence. Without national or state-wide guidance on wildlife management, wildlife may be 

prioritized, considered, or evaluated at a lower level than values that have national guidance 

such as wilderness management, visual resource management, etc. The Department and the 

BLM Arizona State Office have decided to address this issue through the revision of the 

Department’s and BLM’s master statewide Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). ... We 

expect it may take time to finalize revisions and obtain necessary signatures; therefore, we 

request language be added to the RMP that reinforces our mutual commitment to cooperate and 

collaborate in the proactive management of fish and wildlife and their habitats, for all 

management prescriptions, designations, and allocations. We believe this language should read: 

“Activities conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet Trust Responsibilities 

to manage wildlife are recognized by BLM as consistent with decisions proposed in the RMP. 

The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s ability to manage wildlife on lands administered by 

BLM in Arizona will not be diminished or precluded during the life of the plan, based solely on 

singular or overlapping allocations, designations, and/or management prescriptions (such as 

those to manage for wilderness characteristics, visual resources, or primitive recreation). All 

implementation level plans and site-specific projects will continue to be evaluated through 

Page 5-22 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-23 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

appropriate partnerships and through federal and state regulations. This RMP will reflect and 

support the spirit and intent of the statewide Memorandum of Understanding between BLM and 

AGFD.”

Response: Chapter 5, Section 5.3 C, discusses the management coordination between the BLM 

and AGFD. YFO recognizes AGFD's trust responsibilities to manage wildlife, and will continue 

to provide for administrative and wildlife management access for AGFD where appropriate. 

Once finalized, YFO will support the statewide MOU between BLM and AGFD, and will 

continue to coordinate on site-specific implementation level decisions. Furthermore, YFO greatly 

appreciates the cooperation and recommendations given by AGFD throughout this RMP 

revision.

Subconcern: Specific Animal Species

Comment 1461: On page 2-68, regarding desert tortoise. I see no reference to the in-progress 

Conservation Agreement being developed by the AIDTT. The best contact regarding the status of 

the agreement would be Ted Cordery (BLM Phoenix). The agreement is intended to augment the 

1996 AIDTT Management Plan and should be considered. 

Response: Section 2.8.3 E, Management Action #1 of the PRMP/FEISreferences the 

conservation agreement by proposing to, “Adopt and implement the conservation strategy 

addressed in the Management Plan for the Sonoran Population of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona 

(Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team 1996).”

Subconcern: Roads and Trails, Transportation System

Comment 1176 (Reclamation): As your travel planning process develops, all Federal lands 

administered and managed by Reclamation need to be accurately reflected and addressed. A 

number of Reclamation project facilities are considered to be high security areas with no public 

access permitted while in other areas some public access may be considered appropriate. 

Reclamation maintenance routes such as levee roads are generally not considered public access 

routes. Any proposed change to that designation would need to be considered on a case by case 

basis. 

Response: Future Travel Management Plans covering the proposed Greater Yuma and 

Ehrenberg-Cibola Travel Management Areas would evaluate and designate routes across 

Reclamation lands. The development of these plans will require close coordination between 

BLM and Reclamation, as mandated by Departmental Manual 613. Within the Ehrenberg-Cibola 

Travel Management Area, Reclamation should be aware that the eastern levee road between 

Interstate 10 and the Cibola NWR provides essential public access to two developed BLM 

recreation sites and numerous miles of designated OHV trails.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Public Concern 4: Influences on Decision Making 

Comment 900: In regard to assurances that Wildlife Management will continue tomorrow as it 

does today by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) on all lands managed by 

BLM in Arizona, BLM has demonstrated little faith to that regard...I continue to believe wildlife 

management must be a priority over primitive recreation and or managing for wilderness 

characteristics and this must be so noted crystal clear in writing in any RMP. Example: "All 

land use allocations prescribed in any RMP to manage for wilderness characteristics or to 

provide for primitive recreation shall not negatively impact the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department's trust responsibilities for management of wildlife, or prohibit current and/or future 

proposed wildlife management activities on lands administered by BLM in Arizona." 

Comment 1032 (YVRGC): The most important comment that we can make regarding this entire 

plan is the general observed notion of providing solitude, naturalness, and primitive recreation 

as a priority use over Wildlife Management activities and certain forms of public recreation... 

The Club feels very strongly that the management of wildlife and wildlife habitat by agencies, 

Non Governmental Organizations, and Volunteers should take priority in most all cases, over 

achieving desired conditions for primitive recreation, naturalness, or solitude. 

Comment 431: [Wildlife management] should take priority over recreation and Wilderness 

Characteristics Management. 

Response: BLM seeks balance in all uses according to our mission statement, “It is the mission 

of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public 

lands for the use and enjoyment of the present and future generations.” In lands identified to 

maintain wilderness character, there will be a management emphasis to maintain or conserve 

current scenic attributes and natural conditions, and to ensure opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation. Maintenance of solitude and primitive recreation 

opportunities would not be paramount or above all other land uses. Impacts on solitude and 

primitive recreation opportunities from proposed land use activities would be carefully 

considered and, wherever possible, avoided or mitigated. BLM can deny, modify or mitigate any 

proposed land use that impacts important resources, whether those subject resources are range, 

recreation, water, wildlife habitat, scenery, cultural resources or travel management. Primitive 

recreation experiences have the same standing as any other resource. The management emphasis 

for areas managed for wilderness character would be to maintain such characteristics. 

2. Decision Making Philosophy 

Comment 1289: I believe it is your responsibility to first make decisions based on our input - not 

the cattlemen or any other group or corporation. 

Response: BLM uses an ongoing planning process to ensure that land use plan decisions remain 

consistent with applicable laws, regulations, orders, and policies. This decision-making process 

is conducted in accordance with the BLM mission statement and involves public participation. 

During public participation, BLM considers all comments, weighed equally, whether they are 

from groups, individuals, corporations, or agencies.

Page 5-24 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-25 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Public Concern 1: Multiple Use Management Emphasis 

Comment 433: BLM should manage for conservation not preservation, the difference being 

conservation allows for wise use, while preservation allows no use. 

Response: The planning area is managed in accordance with the intent of FLPMA for multiple 

use and sustained yield. This is demonstrated by the multiple resource program management 

prescriptions in this PRMP/FEIS.

Public Concern 2: Adaptive Management Emphasis 

Comment 1149 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The DRMP/DEIS states that the BLM 

will use “adaptive management” to ensure the directives of this plan are being met. (Section 

2.22.2) However, given the governance that this plan entails, and the time frame that is being 

discussed, it is vital that more details and structure regarding management parameters are 

provided. NEPA requires that the agency identify management in order to predict consequences 

and cumulative impacts, and yet the DRMP/DEIS includes only a general description of the 

method. For example, in section 2.22.4 (Monitoring and Evaluation) monitoring plans are 

described, but no overall strategic plan is provided or even hinted at – no timetables or 

indication of monitoring frequencies are provided, no description as to when monitoring data 

are to be collated and analyzed or by whom, and no clear direction how managers are expected 

to employ the findings is presented. Simply informing the reader what adaptive management is 

or the stages of monitoring in land use planning does not get at the heart of how the plan is 

actually going to function. 

Response: Section 2.22.2 has been revised, including the following information to clarify how 

the BLM uses adaptive management to achieve desired resource objectives. BLM land use 

planning implements adaptive management through a four-phase process. The first phase is 

planning. When planning is finished, the RMP is implemented. Implementation of land use 

allocations, designations, and allowable-uses occur as soon as a Record of Decision is signed, 

unless other appropriate NEPA analysis is required. Management Actions would occur 

throughout the life of the plan. Periodically the plans are evaluated (usually every five years) to 

determine if planning decisions are accurate, being implemented, or need to be changed based on 

current information. The Desired Future Conditions listed under each resource program are 

decisions that provide the parameters by which the BLM manages the lands and resources. The 

BLM uses continual monitoring of resource conditions to determine if the Management Actions 

being implemented are achieving those Desired Future Conditions. Adaptive management is 

applied in cases where the existing management is clearly not meeting those desired conditions. 

In such cases, adaptive management may include revising BMPs, or possibly revising an entire 

RMP as we are doing here. Periodic RMP amendments are expected to occur as either resource 

conditions, resource values, or goals and objectives change. LUP evaluations typically occur 

every five years, which are a complete analysis of existing conditions, anticipated issues, and the 

current decisions providing for the management of resources. Based on this interdisciplinary 

evaluation, the authorizing officer determines whether any, some, or all of those decisions are 

accurate. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Subconcern: Climate, Weather, and Atmospheric Processes 

Comment 1087 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The draft RMP states that "Due to the 

ephemeral nature of the annual grass and forb production and the otherwise low productivity of 

the upland sites of the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion, it is difficult to make long-term use plans that 

adapt to the resource in any given year." The RMP and the preferred alternative should also 

consider the long-term severe drought that the region is in 

(http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html). The draft RMP states that the average annual 

precipitation in the planning area is 3.5 inches, leaving one to imagine that drought conditions 

in this area must mean very scarce and unproductive rainfall events. See draft RMP page S-5. 

Response: BLM acknowledges the low productivity of this region due to low precipitation 

levels. The BLM decisions consider productivity levels and common drought conditions as part 

of the decision making process. Drought affects wildlife, OHV use, rehabilitation efforts, as well 

as other programs. Three and a half inches of annual precipitation is an average, and the amount 

of annual precipitation within the planning area varies. Over the last 10 years, annual 

precipitation amounts have ranged from a low of less than an inch to over five inches. 

Approximately 60 percent of annual rainfall is anticipated during the winter months, with the 

remainder occurring in the late summer. The grazing and wild horse and burro programs are 

based on the prevalent drought/dry conditions for carrying capacities: management decisions are 

not based on infrequent years of higher than normal precipitation.

3. Public Involvement 

Public Concern 1: Adequacy and Availability of Information 

Subconcern: General 

Comment 245: They use the term "limit of acceptable use" and I’m confused on that because it’s 

not defined in the book. That needs to be included in the glossary. What is a limit of acceptable 

use? It’s used throughout the RMP and it needs to be included. As well as in the glossary you 

will not find the term "wilderness" and you will not find the term "wilderness character," and I 

believe that they’re not included because they are the same thing, and if you were to write the 

definition, you’re writing the same definition...You will not find solitude or primitive recreation 

in the, in the glossary. You’ll find other things, ACEC, byways. Other things are defined, but 

those ones I feel have been intentionally left out because there’s just such a fine line. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS has been revised to add the following terms in the glossary: 

Wilderness, wilderness characteristics, naturalness, solitude, primitive & unconfined recreation. 

The term “limits of acceptable change” refers to the amount of human-caused change to 

biological, physical, or social components which are tolerable within an acceptable level without 

degrading the recreational experience. The term Wilderness when used in the context of a 

congressional designation refers to lands that have been designated as a part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System as provided by the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Page 5-26 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-27 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Subconcern: Mapping and GIS 

Comment 328: The maps that were provided at the Quartzsite meeting and the soft copies on the 

CD are very difficult to use. They show no geographical information, and no Lat. and Long. 

information.

Response: The route inventory and designation process is ongoing. BLM will provide more 

accurate maps with geographical information during the future route evaluation process.

Comment 418: Unit 41 -- proposed changes without current map, we need an accurate map. 

Response: BLM will accept any form of map the public submits to us to include in the route 

inventory. The map of Unit 41 is accurate for inventory purposes and shows all major roads and 

washes as reference points.

Comment 1386: Do you have a link for the maps related to the RMP? 

Response: All maps included in the DRMP/DEIS and PRMP/FEIS were/are available on the 

CDs of the documents and on the BLM Arizona website.

Comment 863: During the planning process it was brought to my attention that there were 

errors on behalf of the BLM with the inventoried route maps. The maps did not include all 

previously inventoried routes that BLM had in their records. BLM should not have continued 

with the RMP public process when the information the public had been provided was not allinclusive. New maps with all of the inventoried routes should have been printed and distributed.

Response: The primary purpose of releasing a draft version of the RMP was to provide 

opportunities for public feedback in order to make any necessary improvements to the 

PRMP/FEIS. BLM is tasked with using the “best available information” when developing 

policies, maps, etc. In response to several public comments, the YFO completed an extensive 

update of the route inventory maps for inclusion into the PRMP/FEIS. The route inventory and 

designation process is ongoing. BLM will provide more accurate maps with geographical 

information during the route evaluation process. All YFO routes will be evaluated through the 

development of Travel Management Plans that are to be completed within five years of the 

ROD/approved plan.

Public Concern 2: Public Meetings and Comments 

Comment 664: I oppose the Draft Resource Plan for Arizona. 

Comment 267: Please rethink your options.

Response: As part of the planning process, BLM seeks public input through scoping and the 90-

day public comment period after the release of the DRMP/DEIS. After the public comment 

period, BLM analyzes comments which provide valuable information to consider in the revision 

of the DRMP/DEIS. Analysis of public comments ensures that BLM will re-evaluate proposals 

with public input, and in some instances the Proposed Plan changed. BLM appreciates public 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

input during the planning process.

Comment 250: I’d like to have confidence that we’re going to get notified of future meetings. I 

don’t know how people found out about this meeting. It sure didn’t seem to have a lot of 

information. We heard about it from a lady in Las Cruces, New Mexico, who’s involved in this. 

So that would be a suggestion I would say is make sure people who wrote their names down 

tonight get postcards, newspaper articles. 

Response: Public meeting notices have been and will continue to be sent to public mailing lists, 

flyers are posted in local cities and towns at common gathering places, and public information is 

posted on the internet. At all public meetings for the RMP, BLM provided forms to fill out if you 

wished to be added to the mailing list. 

Comment 762: Should the BLM have an open meeting for public comments...I request that a 

national conference call be organized so I may participate in Tucson...I know of lots of people 

interested in the future of the wild horses and burros in Arizona...Another option is to have a 

virtual meeting using computers. 

Response: BLM will consider the option of a national conference call or a virtual meeting in the 

future as part of the public participation process. BLM currently uses the Federal Register and 

the BLM Arizona website to announce public meetings. 

Comment 1291: Would you please respond to our letter to you? 

Response: Public comments were logged into a public comment database and each comment 

received a response from BLM.

Comment 261: I have several questions about the OHV designation, how that went. And if those 

were answered then I might be able to address specific comments back to it but without that 

information, and only getting it after you close the public comment, I’m either going to have to 

pen something, which will be very difficult for you to read or come to another meeting some 

place and stand up and give it. So, my hope would be to comment the way you handled this is 

either have a break to allow people to rummage and ask you some questions or to have a specific 

short Q and A period so that then you might get some more input. 

Response: BLM YFO staff was available after the formal comment session at the public 

meetings to answer questions from the public. BLM YFO staff were also available to discuss 

aspects of the plan or answer any questions from the public during the 90 day comment period. 

Comment 417: Disenchanted with meeting format, because BLM will not respond to questions. 

Is it because BLM is trying to hide something? 

Response: The purpose of the meetings was to provide opportunities for participation in the land 

use planning process as required by Federal Regulations. The BLM would not make decisions 

based on the information gathered at one public meeting. The sum of all the information gathered 

must be considered before final decisions can be formulated within provisions of BLM multiple 

use mandates. Please refer to Chapter 5 of the PRMP/FEIS, which describes in detail the 

numerous public workshops held throughout the planning process by BLM to discuss the 

Page 5-28 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-29 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

alternatives and the DRMP/DEIS. The public meeting format was designed to obtain public 

comment on the DRMP/DEIS. BLM YFO staff was available at the meeting to discuss the draft 

after the formal comment session.

Comment 268 (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility): Thanks for having a 

planning session in Tucson, and please have more as the process evolves.

Response: YFO will consider holding additional public meetings in Tucson for future land use 

planning efforts.

Comment 432: The scheduling conflict between the Yuma public meeting and the YVRGC [Yuma 

Valley Rod and Gun Club] monthly meeting created a perception of intentional wrongdoing. 

Could have switched meetings. 

Response: Chapter 5 of the PRMP/FEIS describes the consultation and coordination activities. 

YVRGC is on the mailing list and received notices and invitations for all scoping meetings, 

alternative formulation workshops, draft alternative presentation workshops, and DRMP/DEIS 

public meetings. Several YVRGC members were in attendance at these meetings. BLM cannot 

plan public meetings to accommodate all special interest groups. Announcements for public 

meetings were sent well in advance of meeting dates so that members of the public and special 

interest groups who wished to attend a BLM public meeting could plan accordingly. BLM 

appreciates and solicits input from all interested stakeholders, including the YVRGC, who has 

had a high level of involvement throughout the planning process. 

Public Concern 3: Collaboration 

Comment 237 (Sacred Sites Protection Council): We would like to get a copy of the analysis 

process. Is it basically numerical or does it involve cultural and tradition analysis from a 

different perspective. Who will be doing the analysis? How can we contact the persons doing the 

analysis and can we participate? 

Response: The public participation process is described in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1. Also refer 

to the steps in the planning process identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.3, and depicted in Figure 1-

1. The RMP impact analysis process is not numerically based. It is an interdisciplinary process 

that involves BLM staff specialists, other Federal, State, and local agencies, interested members 

of the public, and input from Native American tribes. An analysis of the anticipated impacts 

from implementing each of the five PRMP/FEIS alternatives is included in Chapter 4. 

Public Concern 4: Adequacy of Comment Period 

Comment 844: The length of the RMP is so massive that it places an undue burden on the public 

who are trying to provide feedback. The amount of time the public is given to digest this 

enormous document is miniscule as compared to the amount of time it took the YFO to complete 

the draft. 

Response: The 90-day public comment period is established by Federal Regulations (43 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

CFR1610.2(e)) and cannot be changed. The public and interested parties were given notification 

equally, and all comments have been received and given equal consideration for Federal land 

management planning. The PRMP/FEIS will be available for a 30-day public protest period after 

publication. As BLM develops alternative scenarios for Travel Management Plans, the public 

will be invited to participate and review each of the plans as they are developed.

4. Use of Best Available Science 

Public Concern 1: Adequacy of Analysis 

Subconcern: NEPA Analysis 

Comment 1427 (Quechan Tribe): Conclusory statement regarding cumulative impacts do not 

satisfy NEPA requirements. See Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Bureau of Land 

Management, 387 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2004). For example, the discussion of cumulative air 

quality impacts fails to discuss proposed industrial developments including an oil refinery and 

ethanol plant on or adjacent to lands currently owned by the Bureau of Reclamation along 

Interstate 8 east of Yuma. These projects present significant cumulative air quality impacts. In 

addition, the discussion of cumulative water resource impacts fails to discuss numerous ongoing 

projects by the Bureau of Reclamation including development of the ‘Drop 2’ reservoir, which 

could result in significant adverse impacts to water quality and riparian habitat in and around 

the Fort Yuma Reservation. The discussion of cumulative cultural resources impacts also fails to 

acknowledge the United States’ current proposal to transfer public lands out of federal 

ownership, thus removing the protections to cultural resources. For example, the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s currently proposing to transfer approximately 50,000 acres of lands rich in 

cultural resources to private ownership. These impacts must be considered and evaluated in the 

context of BLM’s resource management plan. 

Response: The entire cumulative effects section has been revised to address your concerns as 

well as other past, present and foreseeable future actions that were appropriate to include in the 

analysis of impacts.

Comment 1199 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): From our review of the document and 

the number of potential conflicts discovered it is apparent that much of our concern can be 

attributed to a lack of clear implementation level guidance as to how these new land use 

allocations and ROS settings are to be managed. There appears to be agency direction to do the 

things but little to no guidance on how to do it. Without clearer formal direction or established 

policy there is an obvious disconnect in the ability of the DRMP/DEIS to satisfactorily answer 

specific questions regarding allowable uses and management action prescriptions or to 

adequately evaluate a very wide array of associated impacts. Currently one of the new formal 

policies in place is for Visual Resource Management (VRM) but even it presents unanswerable 

questions. Formal guidance for the host of other land use allocations and setting does not 

appear to exist, as they are not clearly defined or referenced in the document nor provided in the 

appendices. Due to the absence of this necessary guidance or policy we feel that much of the 

impact analysis is incomplete and invalid. 

Page 5-30 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-31 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Response: The BLM YFO is required to develop RMPs in conformance with the BLM’s Land 

Use Planning Handbook (H-1601). Additional RMP-level policies required for BLM field 

offices are outlined in IM AZ-2005-007, State Director Guidance for Arizona Land Use Planning 

Efforts. FLPMA of 1976, as amended requires the Secretary of the Interior to manage the public 

lands through the development and implementation of land use plans such as the one under 

development here. The Secretary and the BLM are also bound by the requirements of NEPA (42 

USC 4321 et seq.), the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508, as well as other Federal laws and 

regulations. 

FLPMA directs the Secretary to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out FLPMA’s 

purposes. The regulations relating to the planning process can be found at 43 CFR 1600. In 

addition, the BLM, charged by the Secretary with management of the public lands, has 

developed guidance not only as to the planning process, but as to how plans are to be 

implemented. BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601, and the BLM Manual 8320 –

Planning for Recreation Resources, are two examples of this guidance, along with many other 

Manuals, Handbooks, and Instruction Memoranda which guide the BLM’s implementing 

actions, in program areas such as recreation, grazing, habitat protection, etc. The BLM Manual 

8320, released in 1981, outlined the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) system for land use 

planning, and directed its use. Further, BLM has utilized the VRM System for land use planning 

purposes since 1984, upon release of BLM Manual 8400-Visual Resource Management. In 

general, BLM’s Manuals, Handbooks, and Instruction Memoranda may be found on the BLM 

website. 

Comments identifying specific issues with respect to national or State policies are outside the 

scope of this PRMP/FEIS and should be directed to the BLM Headquarters in Washington, D.C., 

or the BLM Arizona State Office in Phoenix, accordingly. 

Subconcern: Roads and Trails, Transportation System

Comment 247: As the travel management networks go, in the 1987 RMP it stated that vehicles 

could drive in dry wash beds. And now they’re not including that in the RMP, and you have to 

literally drive, draw every wash bed on there. I want to know why that’s not included. Show me 

some scientific proof or evidence that says so much harm has been done that we cannot fix 

because vehicles have driven in wash beds. Show me, give me the reason why we cannot 

continue to drive in, in wash beds and that cannot stay included in the plan. 

Comment 856: Under travel management, the No Action Alternative, as described on page S-11 

should be the preferred alternative. It includes necessary language regarding the use of drivable 

washes. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS route inventory identified on TMA Maps 1through 5 has added 

numerous drivable desert washes that were not included in the DRMP/DEIS route inventory 

maps. During the development of subsequent Travel Management Plans, the public will be 

provided with additional opportunities to identify additional roads, trails, and drivable desert 

washes that still do not appear on the PRMP/FEIS route inventory maps and should be 

considered for designation. Section 4.4 of the PRMP/FEIS identifies several impacts to wildlife 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

from OHV travel, including habitat disturbance and degradation. Because washes provide 

xeroriparian habitat, which is critical to many resident desert and migratory wildlife species for 

forage and cover (AGFD 2006a), motorized travel within washes does negatively impact 

wildlife. 

5. Agency Organization, Funding, and Staffing 

Public Concern 1: Funding 

Comment 1170 (EPA): EPA recommends that the BLM and Bureau of Reclamation provide the 

funds necessary to implement the CMA, including funds for stakeholder meetings, development 

of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and management plan, and implementation. A 

commitment to funding these activities should be made in the FEIS and the Record of Decision. 

Response: The proposed Limitrophe CMA is intended to pool resources and participation from 

all stakeholders.

Public Concern 2: Fees 

Subconcern: Specific Animal Species

Comment 196: I would like to be able to adopt the wild burros at a more reasonable price so I 

can give them a better home. 

Response: Wild horses and burros can be adopted from the BLM at $125 per animal. This price 

is set in accordance with Federal Regulation 43 CFR 4750.4-2(a), Protection, Management, and 

Control of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros.

Public Concern 3: Staffing 

Subconcern: Cultural Resources

Comment 235: We need better protection, we don’t have enough rangers...There should be some 

money for that, for another rangers. 

Response: Monitoring public lands for any type of illegal activities, including vandalism and 

looting of cultural resources, as well as damage from unauthorized OHV use, is an ongoing and 

challenging task. BLM shares this responsibility with other land managers as well as State, 

county, and local agencies. Due to the limited staff resources, large and remote areas to monitor, 

and variety of criminal activity, BLM must rely on the public’s assistance and volunteers such as 

the Arizona Site Steward Program to report illegal activity and degradation on public lands.

Page 5-32 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-33 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

B. ALTERNATIVES 

1. General Documents 

Public Concern 1: Technical and Editorial 

Comment 1358 (AGFD): Page 2-52, 2.7.2 E, RMP Statement- This proposed WHA includes 

areas identified by CDFG...: Changed to: This proposed WHA includes areas identified by 

AGFD... 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS was corrected to read: “This proposed WHA (Wildlife Movement 

Corridors WHA) includes areas identified by AGFD and the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Group 

as being used by wildlife to move between habitats.”

Comment 1349 (AGFD): Page 2-37, 2.5.6, 5th bullet, RMP Statement- ...show the localities 

currently closed...: We recommend changing to:...show the localities closed... 

Response: The document was revised to state: “show the localities closed to firewood collection 

by alternative” in Section 2.5.6. 

Comment 1352 (AGFD): Page 2-43, 2.7 Management Actions, 9th bullet, RMP Statementrestore, or enhance wildlife waters...: The Department requests this be changed to: construct, 

maintain, or redevelop wildlife waters... 

Response: YFO added the word “redevelop” to the Management Action.

Comment 1177 (Reclamation): The last two rows of Table 3-2, Landownership within Planning 

Area (acres), on Page 3-4, appear to be either mislabeled or in error. The row titled Error 

Margin is the total for each column while the row entitled Total is the total only for BLM 

managed Federal lands. In addition, the acreage totals listed for Reclamation managed lands 

appear to be in error. Reclamation managed lands within Yuma County in the 5-Mile Zone alone 

exceed 30,000 acres. We will consult with our LCRO to provide updated acreage information for 

your use. 

Response: Table 3-2 was deleted from the PRMP/FEIS because incomplete data precluded the 

BLM from rectifying the acreage errors in the DRMP/DEIS.

Comment 852: Throughout the administrative actions on page 2-13 the term "limits of 

acceptable use" is used. Please define. 

Response: The term referenced in the Administrative Actions on page 2-13 of the DRMP/DEIS 

was “limits of acceptable change.” The definition of "Limits of Acceptable Change" has been 

added to the glossary and defined as "A framework for establishing acceptable and appropriate 

resource and social conditions in recreation settings. A system of management planning.”

Comment 991 (ADWR): P. 2-80, Table 2-13. Creating and enhancing recreational 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

opportunities are not objectives of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation 

Program. The LCR MSCP could provide a model for creation of additional habitat. 

Response: The primary objective of LCR MSCP projects is to create wildlife habitat. 

Coordination during the proposed project could include the creation or enhancement of 

recreational opportunities. In response to your comment, the Administrative Action has been 

deleted.

Comment 1338 (AGFD): Page 2-5, Section 2.2.3, RMP Statement-None: The Department 

recommends adding the following statement under Standard 3. Ecological sites exhibit the 

appropriate composition of healthy vigorous native plant species, including perennial grasses. 

Response: Arizona Standards and Guidelines for grazing administration cannot be changed by 

the YFO for this PRMP/FEIS, because they were developed through a collaborative process 

involving the BLM Arizona Standards and Guidelines 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. This document was approved by the 

Secretary of the Interior and amended to all Land Use Plans in Arizona in 1997. The Standards 

and Guidelines, criteria for meeting Standards, and the indicators are an integrated set of 

requirements that conform to the fundamentals of rangeland health and the requirements of the 

regulations when taken as a whole (Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 35, February 22, 1995). 

Comment 1355 (AGFD): Page 2-46, 2.7.1 C Management Actions, 7th bullet, RMP StatementMinimize the intentional take...: This statement is unclear and may be problematic. The 

statement implies that BLM will intentionally take wildlife. Please be aware and note that any 

intentional take of wildlife would need to be consistent with A.R.S. Title 17. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS has been edited to remove the mentioned Management Action from 

Section 2.7. All BLM actions are in accordance with laws, regulations, and policies cited under 

Section 2.7. 

Comment 737 (USIBWC): Chapter 3, page 3-14, first full paragraph. Delete "northern 

international boundary" and insert "Northerly international Boundary." Revise the context of 

the first two lines of the paragraph because Morelos Diversion Dam is not a water retention 

structure it is a diversion structure. Listing it in the context of the stated creating lakes and 

reservoirs is incorrect. Morelos Diversion Dam does not result in a lake or reservoir. State that 

upstream of Morelos Dam the main river channel carries water that is delivered to Mexico 

pursuant to the 1944 Water Treaty, along with occasional high flows. Normally all of these 

water deliveries are diverted into Mexico's reforma Canal at Morelos Dam. 

Response: Edits have been incorporated into the PRMP/FEIS to correct the reference to the 

Northerly International Boundary and clarify the proper functioning dam type for the Morelos 

Diversion Dam. The Morelos Diversion Dam was removed from the statement that infers it 

creates a lake or reservoir. A clarifying statement was added that reads: “Upstream of Morelos 

Dam, the main river channel carries water that is delivered to Mexico pursuant to the 1944 Water 

Treaty, along with occasional high flows. Normally, all of these water deliveries are diverted 

into Mexico’s Reforma Canal at Morelos Dam.”

Page 5-34 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-35 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Comment 986 (ADWR): Page 1-10, Program Specific Planning Criteria, F. Threatened, 

Endangered, and Special Status Species. Reference to the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program should be included in this section. The "Record of Decision, Lower 

Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Final Environmental Impact Statement," 

approved April 5, 2005 by Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, includes guidance, "...I also 

direct all participating agencies within the Department of Interior to utilize their authorities in 

furtherance of this conservation program to the fullest extent allowed by law. 

Response: As a Federal agency operating within the USDOI, it is appropriate for BLM to 

include the LCR MSCP in the Program Specific Planning Criteria Section in Chapter 1 of this 

plan. This was incorporated into the PRMP/FEIS. 

Comment 1460 (YPG): On page 2-53 and others, references to State Listed Species in AZ in 

somewhat misleading. "Listed" implies that a list was officially published (signed by proper 

State authority) and that such a list has some regulatory authority, whereas the Wildlife of 

Special Concern in AZ is in draft form and has no official regulatory authority of which I am 

aware. Although BLM may manage such species as though they have such regulatory protection 

(as does YPG), the distinction between Wildlife of Special Concern in AZ and "State Listed" 

should be clearly stated. 

Response: Section 2.8 of the PRMP/FEIS was reworded using the following terminology: “State 

Listed (Arizona's draft list of Wildlife of Special Concern or California Endangered Species 

Act).”

Comment 1411 (Reclamation): Page 3-34, Salt cedar. The referenced vegetation numbers do 

not correspond to the numbers in the cited document, the LCR MSCP EIS/EIR. Please see Table 

3.4-2 in the LCR MSCP EIS/EIR for the correct vegetation numbers that were derived from 

vegetation surveys along almost 400 miles of the lower Colorado River, from Lee Ferry to the 

Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. The RMP planning area can be corresponded to 

the LCR MSCP Reaches to determine accurate numbers. 

Response: Table 3-10 of the PRMP/FEIS reflects both lower Colorado River and Gila River 

vegetation/cover types as described in sources cited below the table. We believe this is the most 

accurate information for all riparian lands within the planning area. The LCR MSCP provides 

detailed information concerning riparian land cover by reach in the lower Colorado River only. 

The LCR MSCP has been added to the references cited to the PRMP/FEIS. 

Comment 323: Paragraph 1.5.1C (Recreation) mentions the need for additional improvements 

for Sandy Cove however this site is missing from Table 2-12 (Recreational Management Actions) 

as well as paragraph 3.13 and Table 3-19. 

Response: The specific reference in Section 1.5.1 C was taken from public comments submitted 

to inform the YFO of what the public felt were important recreation activities or actions on 

BLM-administered lands. Recreation site maintenance is an implementation level decision and is 

not considered a Management Action under the scope of a RMP. However, implementation 

level decisions such as site maintenance may be included in a plan under Administrative Actions, 

which are an explanation of how BLM’s regular resource management activities are performed.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Comment 26 (Tamarack Lagoon Corp.): The proposed [Walters Camp] SCRMA location 

requires clarification. Maps 2-11b (Alternative C) and 2-11d (Alternative E) show the entire 

3,500 acre Walters Camp ACEC area instead of the 1,600 acre SCRMA. 

Response: The polygons for the Walters Camp ACEC under Alternative D and the Walters 

Camp SCRMA under Alternative C and the Proposed Plan are identical. Table 2-1 Special 

Designations shows the entire area acreage (4,500 acres) while Table 2-29 only shows the BLMadministered acreage (1,600 acres). Maps 2-1d and 2-11c and e have been corrected to show a 

more accurate polygon of the Walters Camp proposal. 

Comment 1376 (AGFD): Page 2-105, 2.14 Desired Future Conditions, RMP Statement-The use 

of the area is through non-motorized, non-mechanical means off designated routes: We request 

removing the words “non-mechanical”. This would put restrictions on things like cameras, 

watches, guns, bows, etc. 

Response: YFO has clarified the Desired Future Condition for wilderness characters in Section 

2.14 of the PRMP/FEIS. The Desired Future Condition for Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 

now states that, “Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined types 

of recreation where the use of the area is through non-motorized, non-mechanical means of 

conveyance off designated routes...” Because the Desired Future Condition now specifically 

identifies the use of “non-mechanical means of conveyance,” public land visitors’ use of 

mechanical items like cameras, watches, guns, bows, etc. would not be affected. 

Comment 1379 (AGFD): Page 2-107, 2.14 Project Criteria, 1st bullet, RMP Statement-Need for 

project to protect natural and cultural resources: We recommend changing this to: Need for 

project to protect, manage, and/or conserve natural and cultural resources. 

Response: Section 2.14, Project Criteria were revised to include the following text: “Need for 

project to protect, manage, and/or conserve natural and cultural resources”. 

Public Concern 2: Mapping and GIS 

Comment 726 (USIBWC): Map 3-11_Fire_Risk_Condition_Classes1.pdf. Show the USIBWC 

property as being in your purple designation "Urban/Development" category. Do so for the 

Morelos Diversion Dam and the gauging station cable crossing area, called the "NIB Cableway 

Crossing," located near the Northerly International Boundary (NIB). 

Response: The purpose of Map 3-11 displays the current fire regime condition classes, based on 

degree of departure from historical/natural fire regimes. The map does not display all individual 

infrastructure or specific facilities within units outside the “Urban/Development” category. 

Within the planning area, all fires are fully suppressed on public land. 

Comment 1172 (EPA): Table ES-2 states that Alternatives A & B each have 1,005,800 acres 

available to livestock grazing and that 312,200 acres are unavailable. The amount of available 

grazing areas shown in Map 2-4a and Map 2-4b differ and appear to be incorrect. Map 2-4-c 

illustrates grazing management Alternatives C and E, with 387,100 acres available to livestock 

grazing and 930,900 acres unavailable to livestock grazing. Map 2-4-c appears to be incorrect 

Page 5-36 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-37 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

as well. 

Response: YFO made the appropriate changes to the PRMP/FEIS.

Comment 1173 (EPA): Map 3-1 illustrates the PM10 Non-Attainment Area. The Martinez Lake 

Open OHV Area is shown on Maps 2-8b, 2-c, 2-e, which illustrates Travel Management Areas 

and OHV Area Designations. Based on the PM10 designations shown on Map 3-1, it appears 

that Martinez Lake Open OHV Area is not located in the PM10 non-attainment area; however, 

the DEIS states that it is located inside the PM10 non-attainment area (table 4-3; pg. 4-8). 

Response: You are correct that the proposed Martinez Lake Open OHV Management Area is not 

within the PM10 non-attainment area, and the erroneous references to these overlapping areas 

have been removed from the PRMP/FEIS. The proposed Martinez Lake Open OHV 

Management Area was removed from the Proposed Plan in the PRMP/FEIS.

Comment 1385 (AGFD): Map TMA-2, 2.12, RMP Statement-None: The La Posa Travel 

Management Area map is missing the access road to water catchment #519 off LP713. 

Response: The missing route has been added to the route inventory map. 

Comment 1175 (Reclamation): Maps showing management responsibility and land status do not 

accurately reflect Reclamation withdrawn or acquired lands. Reclamation withdrawals are listed 

on Appendix 2-F, Current withdrawals in the Yuma Field Office, Page 2-F.1. These withdrawn 

lands should be accurately displayed on the DRMP/DEIS maps as are those other Federal 

agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Defense. 

One example that is of particular concern to Reclamation is illustrated by Map 1.1: Project 

Planning Area. All Federal lands, whether withdrawn or acquired, within the 5-Mile Zone 

Protective and Regulatory Pumping Unit (5-Mile Zone) are Reclamation administered lands. 

Reclamation’s management responsibilities are authorized by the Treaty of 1944 and Minute No. 

242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission. Please reference our 5-Mile Zone 

Resource Management Plan and Environmental Assessment of April 2004 that accurately shows 

Reclamation administered lands and specifies Reclamation’s mandated management 

responsibilities. 

Response: Map 1-1 is not intended to depict Reclamation withdrawn lands. This is a general 

schematic map which is intended to show the public readers the distribution of Federal land 

management, and State and private ownership. The map legend distinguishes Reclamation 

acquired land from BLM-administered public land.

Comment 727 (USIBWC): Map 3-22_Recreation_Opportunity1.pdf. The map shows the 

Cocopah bend area of the Limitrophe Reach as "Rural natural." The Map 3-

11_Fire_Risk_Condition_Classes1.pdf shows the same area as being "Urban/Development." 

There seems to be a slight inconsistency. 

Response: Map 3-11 Fire Risk Condition Classes uses a different classification system than the 

Recreation Opportunity map shown on Map 3-22. For firefighting, the area is classified as 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Urban/Development to assist firefighters to determine whether a fire is near urban structures. 

The ROS map represents whether developed facilities for recreation are present in the area. The 

maps are not comparable because the different classifications are for different purposes. 

Comment 723 (USIBWC): On Map 2-11b_Cultural Alt_CH1.pdf, where exactly are the 

proposed special cultural resource management area, and area of critical concern, located on 

the international Limitrophe Reach? Are the areas from the Northerly International Boundary to 

the Southerly International Boundary, on the United States side of the bed and bank of the 

Colorado River in the middle of the current main normal flow channel alignment? Is the Morelos 

Diversion Dam facility in the proposed areas? Does the riverside of the proposed areas 'fix" to 

whatever the main channel alignment is/will be? Do the areas cross the boundary? Do they 

"fix" to the 1973 to 1975 international boundary alignment, as is the formal location of the 

international boundary? 

Response: As shown on map 2-11 B, the Limitrophe ACEC is on the U.S. side of the 

International Boundary, from the levee to the center of the river. BLM would rely upon the 

USIBWC to identify the correct alignment between the Northerly and Southerly International 

Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. Designation of the ACEC or identification of the CMA 

would only apply to the U.S. side of the International Boundary. SCRMA, ACEC, and CMA 

boundaries are the same. For the CMA, participation in coordination of the Limitrophe area will 

depend on the land owner and their desire to be included.

Comment 831 (Arizona Wilderness Coalition): I think you will find some changes in our 

recommendations and some more support for our inventories through our route and wilderness 

inventories. 

Comment 832 (Arizona Wilderness Coalition): GIS shapefiles for AZ Wilderness Coalition 

Proposals attached: 

awc_proposed_wild_yuma3_07.shx; awc_proposed_wild_yuma3_07.dbf; 

awc_proposed_wild_yuma3_07.shp; allphotopts_yuma3_07.dbf; allphotopts_yuma3_07.shp; 

allphotopts_yuma3_07.shx 

Response: BLM acknowledges receipt of the submittal and appreciates the Arizona Wilderness 

Coalitions involvement in the public participation process. The YFO has considered this 

information in the development of this PRMP/FEIS and will also consider this information 

during future travel management planning efforts for these areas.

Comment 730 (USIBWC): Map_3-6_Riparian_Habitat1.pdf. The map shows riparian area 

along/in the Limitrophe Reach. Based on the wetlands and riparian vegetation classifications 

completed in 2006 at the Morelos Diversion Dam, the vegetation there is composed 

predominantly of salt cedar. The habitat type at the Morelos Dam is the salt cedar-cottonwoodwillow habitat. As you know, the habitat is the most common and widespread riparian habitat 

along the Lower Colorado River. The map seems misleading by indicating the Limitrophe Reach 

as entirely a riparian area given, as you know, the riparian forest habitat has been significantly 

altered by introduction of salt cedar, as indicated in Map 3-8_Lcol_Rip_Veg_South1.pdf. 

Page 5-38 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-39 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Comment 1412 (USIBWC): Map 3-8_Lcol_Rip_Veg_South1.pdf. the map indicates that the 

Morelos Diversion Dam area is predominantly cottonwood-willow. That is misleading. The area 

is predominantly salt cedar and the habitat type salt cedar-cottonwood-willow habitat. In 

addition, the map indicates there is a marsh at the dam. The United States Army Corps of 

Engineers approved Section 404 Jurisdictional Delineation dates November 30, 2006 shows 

substantially no marsh. This comment assumes that the states "marsh" is wetlands. There are 

substantially no wetlands in the 40-acre area of Morelos Dam. 

Response: Salt cedar or mixed salt cedar/cottonwood is considered valuable riparian habitat. 

Even though salt cedar is a non-native invasive species, it does provide migratory habitat for 

many birds and nesting habitat for white-winged dove. The source for this vegetation mapping is 

from Reclamation, based on original vegetation surveys by Ohmart and Anderson (1982) and 

Ohmart, Anderson, and Hunter (1988). These two mapping efforts are the basis for all vegetation 

mapping on the lower Colorado River.

Comment 728 (USIBWC): Map_2-11b_Cultural_Alt_C1.pdf. Clarify. The reviewer is unable 

to see the extent of the proposed special cultural resource management area in the Limitrophe 

Reach. Is the "SCRMA areas" all of the Limitrophe or a portion of the Limitrophe? 

Response: The boundaries for the Limitrophe SCRMA proposed in Alternative C and the 

Limitrophe ACEC proposed in Alternative D are identical. While Table 2-1 (Special 

Designations by Alternative) shows the entire acreage of the Limitrophe, Table 2-29 (SCRMAs 

by Alternative) only includes BLM-administered acres.

2. Alternatives 

Public Concern 1: Range of Alternatives 

Comment 1055 (Animal Welfare Institute): The BLM has failed to develop a reasonable range 

of alternatives, to provide adequate information to support its preferred alternative and to 

disclose documentation and information that are absolutely crucial to the public’s ability to both 

understand the environmental impacts of the various alternatives and to prepare informed 

comments in response to the alternatives analyzed in the DRMP/EIS. Furthermore, the agency 

has also carried forward many planning decisions from the existing RMP that it considers 

“effective and valid,” thereby compromising the integrity of the environmental review process as 

provided for by NEPA. Doing so limits the framework and content of alternatives and suggests 

that certain decisions are pre-determined. It is incumbent upon the agency to explain in detail in 

the DRMP/EIS, a document whose purpose is to guide future land management actions, why it 

considers certain existing management decisions to be “effective and valid” and in no need of 

new analysis with full public participation. 

Comment 1021: Insure that wild horses and burros are considered comparable to other 

resource values within the Resource Management Plans, Land Use Plans and framework. 

Response: The BLM engaged in collaboration efforts by including communities in the 

formulation of YFO management alternatives. Workshops were held throughout the planning 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

area to give citizens the opportunity to refine issues, discuss visions for the YFO planning area’s 

resources, and begin exploring alternative ways to manage the planning area. Input received 

from citizens, both groups and individuals, was considered in developing the alternatives. 

Each alternative was essentially a land use plan that would provide a framework for multiple use 

management of the full spectrum of resources, resource uses, and programs present in the YFO 

planning area. Under all alternatives, the BLM provides for the proper care and management of 

the resources in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and BLM policy and guidance.

According to YFO staff, the PRMP/FEIS best meets BLM direction as set in FLPMA of 1976. 

FLPMA requires that BLM adopt a balanced approach to managing public lands “in a manner 

that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and 

atmospheric, water resource, and archeological 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;” (FLPMA Sec 102 [a][8]) while also providing “the public lands be 

managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, 

timber and fiber from public Lands including the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 

1970...”(FLPMA Sec 102. [a][12]).

A land use plan evaluation conducted in 2000 concluded that the decisions in the 1987 Yuma 

District RMP were for the most part “effective and valid”; these decisions were presented in the 

draft as Alternative A. Alternative A was analyzed along with the other alternatives to write the 

Proposed Plan. The YFO RMP Proposed Plan represents the best combination of possible 

proposed actions.

Subconcern: Wilderness Characteristics and Off Highway Vehicle Use

Comment 1102 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Another question that must be answered 

is, if this policy is acceptable, then why wasn’t alternative C chosen and why were the Plomosa 

Mountains excluded from Alt C? All of the areas displayed in Alt C match those displayed on 

Map 3-14 that contained all three wilderness characteristics except for the Plomosa Mtns. 

Comment 1112 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Furthermore, the various alternatives 

for ORV designations fall short of providing a reasonable range of alternatives. In AZ 

Wilderness Coalition comments submitted for scoping, alternative development, and the 

preliminary range of alternatives all request that all areas with wilderness characteristics be 

closed to ORV travel. None of the alternatives displayed analyze the areas found to have 

wilderness characteristics in Map 3-14. As has been stated before, the lack of proper analysis 

and taking a hard look at the range of alternatives leaves this RMP on shaky ground in relation 

to ORV management. We feel the BLM can do better and must provide adequate protection for 

those lands that are roadless today. 

Comment 1103 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): In the Environmental Consequences of 

the DRMP/DEIS section 4.10.1(A) Degradation From Travel Management it is implied that offroad vehicle (ORV) travel routes are beneficial to wilderness characteristics in this degradation 

section, but no mention is made in the Enhancement/Beneficial section. Furthermore the 

Page 5-40 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-41 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

statement “especially for those unable to walk very long distances”, needs to be quantified. What 

is very long? 

In the BLM land of the Yuma East region there are approximately 11 units totaling 52,397 acres, 

which are more than two miles from a road, and this includes the existing Eagle Tail Mountains 

Wilderness. If the Eagle Tails are not included there are only 10,645 acres of these places, with 

the largest being 3,265 acres and the smallest being 46 acres with an average of 1,064 acres. 

Many pieces of scientific literature suggest that roads/routes have a zone of effect greater than 

the actual physical foot print. The included unpublished paper “Ecological Impacts of Roads” as 

well as the USGS “Desert Road Ecology Report” should be referenced and used in the 

wilderness character, wildlife, and transportation management sections of the analysis to 

produce the FEIS. Numerous places in the EIS (page 2-51) the BLM makes reference to the fact 

that the Yuma East region is part of the largest remaining unfragmented portion of public land in 

southwestern Arizona. This information should be further considered in the cumulative impacts 

section of the Environmental Consequences. 

Comment 1283: To date, less than 3 percent of the lower, contiguous United States is protected 

as congressionally designated, "roadless" wilderness, not nearly enough space to assure longterm survival of many native animals, such as Sonoran pronghorn, mountain lions, desert 

tortoise, and desert bighorn sheep. The Arizona BLM has the authority to recognize and preserve 

wilderness and should take full advantage of this authority to preserve the "naturalness, solitude, 

and opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation" on all of the 301,200 acres of 

wilderness-quality lands BLM found in their inventories and agreed to by the Arizona 

Wilderness Coalition as listed in Alternative D. All these lands should be incorporated into your 

proposal. 

Response: The Arizona Wilderness Coalition requested that the BLM consider an alternative 

where 301,200 acres identified to maintain wilderness characteristics would also be designated 

as Closed OHV Management Areas. Alternative D of both the DRMP/DEIS and PRMP/FEIS 

proposed and analyzed designating 56,600 acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness 

characteristics as Closed OHV Management Areas. Under Alternative D, the remaining 244,600 

acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics are proposed as a Limited OHV 

Management Area, where motorized travel would be limited to inventoried routes until 

designated. YFO staff considers the Alternative D proposals to be the most practical acreage of 

Closed OHV Management Areas that the BLM would be able to sign, monitor, and enforce. 

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 restriction (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) (IM No. 2003-275 – Change 1). 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Subconcern: Water Resources

Comment 733 (USIBWC): Chapter 2. The reviewer does not clearly see an alternative that fits 

the needs that include conducting maintenance in the Limitrophe Reach, Morelos Diversion 

Dam, NIB Cableway Crossing, re-establishing the gage station for water measurement at the 

downstream side of Morelos Dam, and Treaty and Minute responsibilities and agreements made 

with Mexico. Alternative A, the "status quo," seems to be close to accommodating needs. 

Management of the existing resources occurs. The resources are protected. Increasing 

management by other alternates results by special designations for the Limitrophe Reach, and 

thus higher priority. 

Response: BLM appreciates the comment and the USIBWC’s participation in the planning 

process. However, some of the areas mentioned in the comment are not within BLMadministered lands or under BLM management. For future authorization on BLM-administered 

lands within the Limitrophe, BLM will coordinate with other agencies including the USIBWC. 

The Limitrophe area is subject to pressure due to its position as an International Boundary, and 

several agencies have jurisdiction over actions for water delivery, border security, etc. The 

Proposed Plan considers the existing condition and accommodates for new activities in 

coordination with all affected parties.

Public Concern 2: Suggestion for New Alternative 

Subconcern: Natural Environment, General

Comment 77: Protect our public lands in Western Arizona by creating a preferred alternative in 

the final Resource Management Plan that incorporates some of the more protective provisions in 

Alternative D, but that also includes additional protections for the land, wildlife, and cultural 

sites. 

Comment 95: Alternative D in the draft RMP is the best alternative so far, but it doesn't go far 

enough to protect the unique and fragile resources of the region. The BLM should create and 

select an alternative that strengthens the plan. 

Response: BLM has the responsibility under FLPMA to manage all its public lands under the 

principles of multiple use and sustained yield for the growing population. This requires that YFO 

carry forward a balanced approach to management and allocations as defined in the PRMP/FEIS. 

Currently, the YFO manages four designated Wilderness areas in Arizona and portions of four 

designated Wilderness areas in California that are closed to all motorized and mechanized uses in 

perpetuity as established by Congress.

Subconcern: Wilderness Characteristics

Comment 90: Protect public lands in Western Arizona by supporting the Arizona Wilderness 

Coalition proposal for protection of 317,339 acres with wilderness characteristics, including 

lands in the proposed Palomas Plain ACEC and the lands between Highway 95 and the western 

boundary of the KOFA National Wildlife Refuge. 

Page 5-42 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-43 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Comment 288: All areas adjacent to the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge should be protected for 

their wilderness characteristics. Such as the Little Horn Mountains. Just because an area is flat 

does not mean it does not have wilderness character. Manage all lands with wilderness 

characteristics to prohibit road building, right of ways, and new mineral entry. 

Comment 1105 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The following paragraphs contain 

information that supports creating a preferred alternative that protects more areas for their 

wilderness characteristics. 

The protection of wilderness characteristics in the Yuma East region for the Little Horn 

Mountains is completely appropriate and should be expanded to the east due to recent AWC 

inventories that show route YE 230 is in a reclaiming status. It is obvious from AWC’s 

inventories that the BLM’s inventory process is flawed as BLM gives the Little Horn Mtns all 

three wilderness characteristics in Map 3-14, but does not recognize that YE230 is in a 

reclaiming status with three foot tall creosote and non-navigable due to its reclaiming status. 

This new information makes the unit bigger encompassing the Nottbusch Valley unit. The BLM’s 

inventory should not have a straight line boundary along YE230 depicting one area with all 

three characteristics and another with only naturalness. During our inventory we experienced 

spectacular solitude and outstanding primitive and unconfined recreation in this area. We 

observed a bighorn sheep in the flats to our east making our experience for this inventory trip. 

This confirms that this marginal bighorn sheep habitat in the bajada is at least used for sheep to 

disperse between the Eagle Tail Mountains Wilderness, Little Horn Mountains, and on to the 

Kofa National Wildlife Refuge. The new acreage for the Little Horn Mountains should be 46,529. 

Further to the south in the Yuma East Region our inventories also found an error with the BLM 

inventoried route YE010. This route does not exist to the extent the maps show it. It does not 

continue west past YE025 splitting the Hoodoo Wash and Palomas Plain inventory units. The 

AWC previously submitted preliminary recommendations that requested that these two units be 

protected. The absence of YE010 has provided significant new information and we now propose 

that these two units be combined into the Palomas Plain unit with acreage of 25,286. 

It is difficult to believe that the BLM’s inventory for wilderness characteristics did not find the 

7,931 acres of the BLM land adjacent to the Kofa NWR designated wilderness to have all three 

wilderness characteristics. Providing protection to these areas would create a more seamless 

management for the characteristics that exist within these places. There is only an old barbed 

wire fence between the designated wilderness and these units. 

The process of inventorying for wilderness characteristics is subjective in many respects. The 

evaluation of solitude can be an elusive value. Many assume that only places with dramatic 

topography can provide solitude, but this is not correct. The current policy for protecting 

wilderness characteristics does not provide guidance on how to conduct inventories and the ROS 

spectrum does not adequately address solitude, so this is where individual judgment comes in. 

The areas in the Yuma East region, part of the Palomas Plain, are generally flat with large 

washes running through them. In AWC inventories volunteers and Jason Williams spent several 

days in this region and experienced tremendous solitude. It is surprising how quickly an 

individual can lose sight of a vehicle with walking a 1⁄4 mile into these flat areas. The gently 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

rolling terrain rolls just enough to get you out of view quickly and one can easily become lost. 

Since it is flat you cannot see roads or other improvements in the distance. There are relatively 

few flatter areas that have been protected for their wilderness characteristics. That is a mistake. 

The washes are the crown jewels of these areas as they increase solitude dramatically because 

visitors are below the dominant terrain. The Yuma BLM should reconsider its evaluation of these 

flat areas and consider highlighting them as a different type of wilderness experience. 

Comment 1104 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The DRMP/DEIS identified 48,400 

acres of wilderness characteristics to be protected in the preferred alternative. The AWC agrees 

with the areas selected, but we believe that it falls far short of the lands that clearly have 

wilderness characteristics as identified by the BLM through their inventory as shown on Map 3-

14. 

Comment 337 (YVRGC): No. No. No. Management with wilderness characteristics. Keep it as 

is/solitude/naturalness and primitive unconfined recreation without wilderness 

Response: The YFO conducted a reassessment of route Yuma East (YE) 230 in May 2007. The 

YFO determined that route YE 230 is navigable and not in a reclaiming status. A high clearance 

four-wheel drive vehicle is needed to successfully navigate route YE 230. Route YE 230 is 

commonly used by the public during various hunting seasons to access the eastern side of the 

Little Horn Mountains. YFO staff also encountered winter visitors driving all-terrain vehicles on 

route YE 230 during monitoring patrols. The creosote bushes (Larrea tridentata) in YE 230 are 

all located in the centerline of the route between the two vehicle tracks. It is not uncommon for 

vegetation to grow in the centerline of undeveloped motorized routes throughout the planning 

area, as the tires of vehicular traffic prevent vegetation from growing within a route’s two tracks. 

Vegetation is especially common in the centerline of rugged narrow routes such as YE 230, 

where it would be difficult for even a high-clearance vehicle to cross the route's centerline. 

Typically, the YFO considers a route to be in a reclaiming status when woody vegetation is 

found growing within a route’s two tracks, an indication that vehicle tires have not passed over 

for some time.

A reassessment of the lands east of route YE 230 was completed in May 2007 and indicated that 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of recreation do exist. Map 3-18 in the 

PRMP/FEIS has been updated to reflect this change. The May 2007 assessment indicated that 

there are fewer outstanding opportunities to experience solitude on the lands east of route YE 

230 due to a lack of vegetation and rugged topography that would provide some degree of 

screening from other people in the area, noise and dust from vehicular traffic on routes YE 003 

and 230, and the sights and sounds from overhead military training routes (refer to Map 3-28) 

and civilian flights; this assessment also indicated that the lands west of route YE 230 provide 

greater opportunities to experience solitude as one travels closer to the rugged topography of the 

Little Horn Mountains and further away from routes YE 003 and 230.

The Proposed Plan of this PRMP/FEIS proposes to allocate the lands between route YE 230 and 

the Eagletails Mountains Wilderness as the Palomas Plain WHA, a Desert Mountains WHA, and 

a Wildlife Movement Corridor WHA for the purposes of managing bighorn sheep habitat and 

movement. 

Page 5-44 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-45 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

In May 2007, the YFO verified that route YE 010 does in fact continue west past route YE 025 

towards Hoodoo Wash as it appeared on the DRMP/DEIS Yuma East Travel Management Area 

Map (Map TMA 3). Route YE 010 continues to appear in the PRMP/FEIS route inventory 

maps. The two inventory units north and south of YE 010 have continued to be separately 

proposed as lands with wilderness characteristics under Alternative D of this PRMP/FEIS.

A field assessment for the 5,437-acre Beaver Dam Mountains North Addition unit was 

completed in June 2005. The assessment indicated that this area does not exhibit outstanding 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of recreation due to the fact that Coyote Peak is 

the only feature of the inventory unit that lends itself to non-motorized types of recreation and 

the rest of the area is primarily used through motorized means. A field assessment for the 2,494-

acre Beaver Dam Mountains South Addition unit was completed in July 2005. The assessment 

indicated that this area does not exhibit outstanding opportunities to experience solitude due to 

noise and dust from routes YE 006 and YE 065 and a lack of vegetation and rugged topography 

that would provide some degree of screening from other people in the area. 

The use of protective designations adjacent to existing designated Wilderness, or buffer zones, is 

prohibited under BLM policy. BLM Manual H-8560-1 – Management of Designated Wilderness 

Areas states that, “no buffer zones are created around wilderness areas to protect them from the 

influence of activities on adjacent land. The fact that non-wilderness activities or uses can be 

seen or heard from areas within the wilderness does not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses 

up to the boundary of the wilderness area” (Section .19). The YFO also considered the 

practicality of managing lands with wilderness characteristics, as allowable under BLM policy 

(BLM IM No. 2003-275 - Change 1), to develop the Proposed Plan acreage proposals in both the 

DRMP/DEIS and PRMP/FEIS. 

Comment 1283: To date, less than 3 percent of the lower, contiguous United States is protected 

as congressionally designated, "roadless" wilderness, not nearly enough space to assure longterm survival of many native animals, such as Sonoran pronghorn, mountain lions, desert 

tortoise, and desert bighorn sheep. The Arizona BLM has the authority to recognize and preserve 

wilderness and should take full advantage of this authority to preserve the "naturalness, solitude, 

and opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation" on all of the 301,200 acres of 

wilderness-quality lands BLM found in their inventories and agreed to by the Arizona 

Wilderness Coalition as listed in Alternative D. All these lands should be incorporated into your 

proposal.

Response: BLM considered the practicality of managing these areas with wilderness 

characteristics according to the Arizona State IM on wilderness characteristics.

Public Concern 3: Alternatives Analyzed 

Subconcern: No Affected Resource/Reason

Comment 621: I believe that Alternative B would be the best all around proposal for the public 

lands in and around the Quartzsite area. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Comment 634: I have chosen Alternative C as second choice. 

Comment 969: Alternative "E" (preferred) looks best. Forget "D.” 

Comment 1225: I would prefer Plan B. Second choice would be Plan C. 

Comment 1296 (Huachuca Hiking Club): The preferred alternative E reflects the best mix of 

management decisions to achieve BLM’s goals and objectives. 

Comment 347: Plan A. Leave desert alone. 

Comment 427: The no-action alternative should be adopted for the preferred alternative. 

Response: BLM appreciates the comments and the commenters’ participation in the planning 

process. Under FLPMA, BLM has the responsibility to manage all its public lands under the 

principles of multiple use and sustained yield for the growing population. This requires that YFO 

carry forward a balanced approach to management and allocations as defined in the PRMP/FEIS. 

Most of the public comments received during scoping, alternative development, and on the 

DRMP/DEIS were form letters, which usually lacked specific comments on specific decisions. 

All comment letters received were read, analyzed, and considered at each of the planning stages. 

Specific comments, either written or in meetings, proved best in providing rationale for specific 

changes. The information provided by the public, whether specific or not, helped in shaping this 

PRMP/FEIS, which represents the best balance of protection and use of public lands. 

Subconcern: Multiple Affected Resources/Reasons

Comment 1013 (City of Yuma): Alternatives A, B, C, and E increase motorized vehicle access 

and visitor activity within the Gila Mountains and diminish the area as a visual and cultural 

resource. 

Response: BLM appreciates the comment and the City of Yuma’s participation in the planning 

process. The proposal to designate the 1,300-acre Blaisdell Open OHV Management Area near 

the Gila Mountains has been removed from the Proposed Plan. The YFO will further address 

motorized vehicle access within the Gila Mountains during the development of the Greater 

Yuma Travel Management Plan. Visual resources are maintained through the use of VRM 

Classes. These classes were determined through the inventory process described in Chapter 3, 

and management objectives were applied for each of the alternatives in Chapter 2. The Proposed 

Plan attempts to provide a balanced approach that meets the overall management objectives. 

Comment 318: Redundant roads that divide wildlife habitat or damage archaeological sites 

should be removed, and I ask you to instead adopt an alternative that closes all areas currently 

roadless in wildlife habitat areas, ACECs, and areas with wilderness characteristics. 

Comment 1110 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Compelling information contained in the 

DRMP/DEIS appears to support the closure of many proposed special management areas to 

ORV use. Such closures would appear warranted given the ecological diversity of the 1.3 

million-acre planning area and the fact that the level of ORV use and associated adverse impact 

Page 5-46 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-47 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

has increased dramatically within the 20 years since BLM last designated ORV management 

areas in the region. Indeed, each of the three remaining action alternatives in the DRMP/DEIS 

propose differing degrees of motorized closures... The Preferred Alternative, however, 

incorporates no new closures and the DRMP/DEIS lacks adequate explanation regarding their 

absence. 

In sharp contrast to its utter lack of ORV closures to protect sensitive resources, the Preferred 

Alternative proposes the designation and expansion of four ORV “Open” areas where 

unregulated cross-country ORV travel could occur. These Open area designations are proposed 

despite documentation within the DRMP/DEIS of potentially significant resource conflicts 

associated with ongoing and proposed cross-country travel. Consequently, the BLM’s 

designation of ORV Management Areas that comprise its Preferred Alternative stands in sharp 

contrast to that required under FLPMA, which mandates that the BLM act to minimize adverse 

impacts on public land resources. 

Comment 1111 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The BLM’s Preferred Alternative 

Conflicts with Direction Contained Within Executive Order 11644. In making ORV designations, 

both Executive Order 11644 and 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 obligate the BLM to ensure that ORV areas 

and trails are located: 

• to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands; 

• to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats; 

• to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed 

recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands;

• to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking 

into account noise and other factors; and 

• outside officially designated wilderness areas or primitive areas. 

These regulations are unambiguous in directing BLM to allow ORV use only where it does not 

endanger or interfere with the other resources and users of the public lands. Yet the BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative, as described in the DRMP/DEIS, largely ignores this important obligation 

as it fails to enact area-wide closures to motorized uses in order to protect sensitive resources. 

In sharp contrast to its obligation to minimize ORV-related impacts, the Preferred Alternative 

instead proposed to increase the footprint of lands designated Open to damaging cross-country 

ORV use. As mentioned previously, Appendix A provides a summary of text found in the 

DRMP/DEIS that documents the extent and magnitude of ongoing ORV-related resource 

degradation that would be expected to continue under the Preferred Alternative. 

Strict adherence to the impact minimization criteria contained within 43 CFR §8342.1 would 

dictate that the DRMP/DEIS promote ORV management actions that emphasize preservation of 

the planning area’s natural and cultural resources. Yet among the alternatives described in the 

DRMP/DEIS, only Alternative D appears to emphasize the protection of resources over the 

promotion of motorized recreational opportunities. Surprisingly, the BLM’s Preferred 

Alternative, as described in Table 2-25, ORV Management Area Designations by Alternative, 

appears to most closely match the ORV-related management actions contained within 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Alternative B, which provides emphasis on consumer-driven uses. 

In order to be consistent with prevailing law and policy, the Preferred Alternative must be 

amended to better reflect BLM obligations under 43 CFR §8342.1. Specifically, the BLM must 

seek in the RMP to minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from its designation of 

ORV management areas, including the designation of areas closed to ORV use where such 

closures would serve to minimize adverse ORV-related impacts to areas identified for special 

management, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Wildlife Habitat 

Management Areas (WHMAs), Special Cultural Resource Management Areas (SCRMAs), areas 

with Wilderness Characteristics, and areas of highly erosive soils within the PM10 (air quality) 

non-attainment area. The BLM can not abdicate its responsibilities under 43 CFR §8342.1 by 

relying solely on future Travel Management Plans to minimize adverse effects to these and other 

public lands resources. 

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS proposes to designate an additional 3,700 

acres of Closed OHV Management Areas within two proposed ACECs and one SCRMA. These 

proposed Closed OHV Management Areas would minimize impacts to soils, vegetation, wildlife 

habitat, and extensive cultural resources from motorized travel. BLM will address individual 

route designations in future Travel Management Plans, which will evaluate impacts to all 

resources included in the BLM’s multiple-use mission, including those of concern to the 

commenters.

Alternative D of both the DRMP/DEIS and PRMP/FEIS proposed and analyzed the impacts of 

designating 66,000 acres of Closed OHV Management Areas outside of designated Wilderness, 

including lands within proposed WHAs, ACECs, and wilderness characteristics. Existing BLM 

policy and Federal, Arizona, and California State laws all currently prohibit cross-country 

vehicle use within roadless lands. 

The YFO planning area is managed in accordance with the intent of FLPMA for multiple use and 

sustained yield. This is demonstrated by the multiple resource program management 

prescriptions in this PRMP/FEIS. 

Comment 1012 (City of Yuma): The City of Yuma Administration prefers Alternative D for the 

following reasons. Limits the use of off-highway recreational motor vehicle access within the 

Gila Mountains area. Preserves the Gila Mountains area as a natural and cultural resource. 

Excludes the use of community pits, offers opportunities for dispersed non-motorized recreation 

and for incorporating vast recreational opportunities for future urban residents of the Gila 

Valley on both sides of the mountains.

Response: Based on public comment the Telegraph Community Pit and Blaisdell Open OHV 

Management Area were not included in the Proposed Plan in the PRMP/FEIS. The Proposed 

Plan protects natural,cultural, and visual resources through VHAs, WHAs, SCRMAs, and VRM 

classifications. 

Page 5-48 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-49 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Subconcern: Wildlife/Animals

Comment 1188 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): Because of the allocation of MWC’s 

[managing for wilderness characteristics] and enhanced VRM’s in the preferred alternative and 

throughout the range of draft alternatives we can only presently support alternative A for no 

action. We were not surprised to see a couple of alternatives that were progressively more 

preservation oriented but would have expected to see at least one alternative that would have 

been more responsive to wildlife management and wildlife resource conservation without being 

compromised by other consumer based needs. None of the alternatives places an emphasis on 

this wildlife management and conservation approach. Alternative B compromises wildlife by 

encouraging, enhancing and developing public use. Alternatives C and D pose a threat to 

wildlife by being too preservation oriented. The preferred alternative E is now an amalgamation 

of these other errant alternatives and it misses the mark for true and active wildlife conservation. 

We would suggest that a revised preferred alternative be developed [that] addresses these 

inherent conflicts and offers a more appropriate and reliable remedy. In our opinion an 

appropriate remedy would not sacrifice or potentially threaten wildlife conservation for the sake 

of preservation. Such a remedy would also provide reasonable vehicular public access, 

dispersed wildlife dependent recreation, undeveloped camping and minimal development and 

human disturbance within wildlife habitat. The final RMP should resolve more conflict than it 

creates. 

Response: The BLM worked closely with AGFD to develop an appropriate range of alternatives 

for wildlife habitat management. ACECs, WHAs, VHAs, lands identified to maintain wilderness 

characteristics, and VRM Class II further enhance wildlife habitat by maintaining the naturalness 

of these lands. The Desired Future Conditions of these areas are to promote healthy, diverse, 

sustained habitat by minimizing the amount of wildlife habitat fragmentation and disturbance to 

wildlife populations. Commercial activities would be restricted from these areas or mitigated 

appropriately to meet habitat conditions. Motorized use within the planning area would be 

limited to inventoried routes until designated. Individual routes would be evaluated during 

subsequent Travel Management Plans to determine if OHV use is appropriate. Anticipated 

impacts to wildlife habitat and undeveloped recreation opportunities under each alternative are 

described in sections 4.4 and 4.13.3, respectively, in this PRMP/FEIS. 

Subconcern: Potential for Special Designation

Comment 708 (Cocopah Indian Tribe): Under the Special Designations -- The ACEC listing of 

the BLM's preferred alternative is Alternative C. This Alternative only includes 3 ACECs. We 

feel the preferred Alternative should be Alternative D. This alternative names 7 ACECs which 

included areas of great importance to the tribe such as Sears Point, Dripping Springs, and the 

Gila River Terraces. These areas should receive the full protection that an ACEC designation 

would provide. We are aware that the Limitrophe region is being considered as a Coordinated 

Management Area and could be removed as an ACEC. 

Comment 1130 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Alternative D includes protection for 

most of the acreage identified as meeting relevance and importance criteria, including necessary 

management prescriptions. Special protection is warranted and required under the guidelines set 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

forth in 43 C.F.R. § 1610.7-2, and FLPMA (43 U.S.C. § 1712). Neither current management 

practices nor the preferred alternative in the DRMP/DEIS provide sufficient protection for these 

species with regards to the known threats to their existence, making designation of ACECs an 

appropriate method to ensure protection. In order to comply with FLPMA, BLM should 

designate the proposed ACECs and expansions. 

Comment 1135 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Limitrophe ACEC. Once again, we fail 

to understand how BLM can recommend against designating this area an ACEC. It meets 

virtually all the above-mentioned criteria that qualify an area for ACEC status. It possesses 

relevance, in the presence of cultural values, especially to the Cocopah and other Native 

Americans, having once been part of their homeland and still utilized; scenic values (riparian 

vegetation and water in the midst of the desert); fish and other wildlife resources including 

migratory birds and endangered species protected by law, and natural and other public safety 

hazards (e.g., fires, smuggling, illegal border crossings, robberies, kidnappings, rapes, murders) 

with a need to protect life and promote safety. It possesses importance, as a habitat for 

migratory and endangered species, as an essential part of the repository of traditional wisdom of 

Native Americans, in particular the Cocopah, and as an international border and a major 

crossing point for undocumented immigrants and smugglers; thus its importance extends beyond 

its immediate area. It also needs special management attention in order to protect the rare and 

sensitive riparian vegetation, migratory birds and endangered species, and public safety. 

Comment 1137 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Palomas Plain ACEC. This large area 

provides a variety of reasons for its designation as an ACEC. The habitat is mainly 

unfragmented, and could serve as a reintroduction site for the endangered Sonoran Pronghorn. 

Other wildlife is also of interest to persons experiencing the area’s undeveloped recreational 

opportunities, including Desert Tortoise. The area is also scenic. There is also a public safety 

issue, since the area is east of Yuma Proving Ground where test firing of weapons occurs and 

there is a potential for overshooting the Yuma Proving Ground boundary. Rather than limiting 

vehicular travel to existing inventoried routes, BLM should designate specific travel routes 

through this area. Invasive plant species are a threat to the natural environment in this area and 

limiting vehicular travel to designated routes, requiring cleaning of vehicles and footwear before 

entering the area, and use of weed-free hay for equestrians could reduce the likelihood of 

invasive plants becoming established. The area should also be withdrawn from new mineral 

entry because it is set aside for specific purposes which are inconsistent with mining activities. 

Comment 1138 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Gila River Terraces & Trails ACEC. 

This area contains many cultural and probably paleontological sites of not only national but 

international importance. The area also contains natural resources, including rare riparian 

habitat, particularly in the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt. The diversity of landowners will require 

coordination to protect these resources. At the least, this should be a Cooperative Management 

Area, but the level of importance of the resources indicates that an ACEC would be a more 

appropriate designation. 

Comment 1139 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Walter’s Camp ACEC. This area 

should be designated an ACEC because it combines a variety of significant resources of more 

than local significance. It has cultural resources, including the Xam Kwitcam creation trail. 

From our understanding of River Yuman prehistory, this trail is of great significance to all 

Page 5-50 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-51 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Yuman-language speaking groups along the Colorado River because the origin of all these 

peoples is believed to be in Avikwame, now also known as the Newberry Mountains in Nevada. 

The area also has significant natural resources, including microphyll woodland and rare 

riparian and wetland habitat, important for the endangered Yuma Clapper Rail and other 

waterfowl. Migratory songbirds utilize Walter’s Camp as part of the Pacific Flyway. The area 

also contains nesting habitat for the southwest willow flycatcher. As the Pacific Coast has lost 

more and more migratory bird habitat, the Colorado River has become increasingly important to 

migratory birds that utilize this flyway. The area is bordered by National Wildlife Refuges on 

both ends, and designation as an ACEC under proper management will help prevent destructive 

OHV use of not only the Walter’s Camp ACEC but the adjacent wildlife refuges as well. 

Comment 518: Special area designations are vital tools to ensure that the rare features of the 

Palomas Plain and other tracts remain for the future and I urge the BLM to employ special area 

designations across the broadest area possible in the final plan. 

Comment 62: Incorporate the provisions in Alternative D which would include 670,500 acres of 

ACECs – and includes enhanced cultural resource protection. One area under consideration is 

the Palomas Plain located between the Eagletail Mountains Wilderness and the KOFA National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Response: ACEC designations highlight areas where special management attention is needed to 

protect important natural and cultural resources. BLM relied on existing and new information to 

determine whether the identified relevant and important resources were sufficient to warrant 

protection. The BLM used the best information available from cultural resource, plant, and 

wildlife inventories to develop the boundaries of the proposed ACECs included in the 

PRMP/FEIS. An ACEC Evaluation Report can be found in Appendix 2-A which identifies the 

special management attention needed for each area proposed as an ACEC under the Proposed 

Plan. Appendix 2-A also describes other management prescriptions which would provide 

adequate resource protection for areas not proposed as ACECs in the Proposed Plan.

Subconcern: Grazing

Comment 970: For livestock grazing: use A & B, not C & E. Forget D. 

Response: The Proposed Plan reduces the number of acres available for grazing based on the 

lack of use for the past thirty years.

Subconcern: Wilderness Characteristics

Comment 1106 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Impacts to Air, Soil, and Water 

Resources: The allocation of all units for protection of wilderness characteristics in alternative 

D would have a quantifiable positive affect on air, soil, and water resources by limiting 

motorized trail and road development as well as other surface disturbing activities. In the 

Environmental Consequences section on page 4-67 it is stated that there are 205 miles of known 

motorized routes in areas identified with wilderness characteristics for Alt D, closure of these 

routes would have a positive influence on air, soil, and water quality and this should be 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

disclosed in the environmental consequences sections for these resources. 

Response: Alternative D of both the DRMP/DEIS and PRMP/FEIS propose to designate 56,600 

acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics as Closed OHV Management 

Areas. None of the alternatives in either the DRMP/DEIS or PRMP/FEIS proposed to designate 

all lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics as Closed OHV Management Areas, 

which would close the 205 miles of inventoried routes in these areas. Therefore, the beneficial 

impacts to soil, air, and water resources from such a closure have not been included in the 

PRMP/FEIS. The beneficial impacts from Closed OHV Management Areas proposed under the 

different PRMP/FEIS alternatives to the resource values of the public lands are found throughout 

Chapter 4. 

C. NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

1. General Management 

Comment 163: Please take good care of our desert. 

Comment 51: There is already too much emphasis on activities that degrade our public lands -- 

off road vehicles, livestock grazing, and mining are just a few. Protecting the public's resources 

for future generations is imperative. 

Comment 653: The abuse of America's resources by the corporations and the government 

agencies that permit these atrocities has got to stop. This includes commercial and/or corporate 

ranching, mining, logging, development, land development and many other corporate concerns. 

The escalation of the abuse or our lands and laws since January 2001 is far worse than any 

period in this century. 

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS provides a balanced approach allowing for 

protection of the quality of natural resource values while offering a range of uses authorized 

under FLPMA. 

2. Analysis 

Public Concern 1: Cumulative Effects 

Subconcern: Limitrophe

Comment 1074 (National Wildlife Federation): The impacts of the Yuma RMP must be 

considered in light of the Environmental Assessment of the Lower Colorado River Drop 2 

Storage Reservoir Project (Drop 2 EA). Recognition and description of the Drop 2 EA must be 

added to the Yuma RMP. See 40 C.F.R. 1502.16(c). 1506.2(d). BLM must assess the Drop 2 EA 

and disclose any possible conflicts between it and the Yuma RMP. 

The proposed Drop 2 Reservoir has potentially significant impacts to habitat quality and 

wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, in the Lower Colorado River Limitrophe. 

The proposed Drop 2 Reservoir also has potentially significant impacts to recreation, cultural 

Page 5-52 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-53 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

resources, Indian Trust Assets, and other resources in the Limitrophe. The Yuma RMP should 

address this information in regards to the Drop 2 Reservoir as well as any conflicts between the 

goals of the Drop 2 EA and the projected effects of the Yuma RMP on Limitrophe natural and 

cultural resources. Similarly, the Yuma RMP should analyze the potential cumulative impacts 

related to the IBWC's proposed channel dredging project in the Limitrophe to address flood 

concerns. IBWC's dredging plans could contribute to habitat loss and this should be addressed 

in conjunction with BLM's proposed management plans for the Limitrophe. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS analyzed the cumulative impacts of other agency actions on the 

quality of the environment in the Limitrophe area of the lower Colorado River. As you point out 

in your comment, public lands in the Limitrophe area are subject to actions taken by numerous 

other jurisdictions. No single agency has complete jurisdiction over management of the area and 

all of these actions must be considered cumulatively.

3. Physical Elements 

Public Concern 1: Air Quality Management 

Subconcern: Off Highway Vehicle Use (OHV) 

Comment 1162 (EPA): OHV travel can result in an increase in concentrations of particulate 

matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) not only when vehicles are in use, but also after 

the cessation of activity, due to the physical disturbance of soils and resulting erosion. The 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has designated 400 acres at Ehrenberg Sandbowl as an 

open OHV Management Area. The Preferred Alternative E would open an additional 2,000 

acres of public lands to OHVs, increasing the potential for impacts to air, soil, vegetation, 

wildlife, and cultural resources. The Preferred Alternative E includes expanding the Ehrenberg 

Sandbowl (800 acres) and opening the Blaisdell OHV Management Area (1,300 acres), and the 

Martinez OHV Management Area (300 acres; table 4-3; pg. 4-8). The two proposed Open OHV 

Management Areas are located within a PM10 non-attainment area and currently have 

numerous existing routes (pg. 4-8; table 4- 3). The DEIS states that it is unknown if increased 

dust emissions would occur as a result of this action because of existing use in the areas (pg. 4-

8) 

EPA recommends that BLM consider selecting Alternative D as the preferred alternative, which 

does not include opening new OHV Management Areas within PM10 non-attainment areas. 

Under Alternative D, OHV use would only be permitted in the Ehrenberg Sandbowl OHV 

Management Area (400 acres), which is located outside of the PM10 non-attainment area. If 

additional open OHV areas must be designated, EPA recommends that BLM prohibit expansion 

in PM10 non-attainment areas. 

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS does not propose to designate the 1,300-acre 

Blaisdell Open OHV Management Area, the 300-acre Martinez Lake Open OHV Management 

Area, or the 800-acre expanded Ehrenberg Sandbowl Open OHV Management Area. This 

would preclude any potential impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, wildlife habitat, and 

cultural resources from authorizing cross-country OHV travel throughout these 2000 acres of 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

new Open OHV Management Areas. Under the Proposed Plan, cross-country vehicle travel 

would continue to be authorized within the existing 400-acre Ehrenberg Sandbowl Open OHV 

Management Area, which is not located within a PM10 non-attainment area. The DRMP/DEIS 

erroneously identified that the proposed Martinez Lake Open OHV Management Area is located 

within a PM10 non-attainment area, which is not the case. Maps 3-1, 2-9b, and 2-9c clearly 

indicate that the proposed Martinez Lake Open OHV Management Area is outside of the PM10

non-attainment area.

Comment 1164 (EPA): EPA recommends that the BLM fully evaluate current OHV usage in 

regulated and non-regulated areas; estimate PM10 emissions from OHV use; and address 

permitting and enforcement efforts. BLM can evaluate the consequences of OHV management 

decisions if baseline conditions have been established initially. This information should be 

included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 

EPA recommends that BLM adopt general mitigation measures to reduce OHV impacts on air 

quality, especially in areas of non-attainment: 1) motorized competitive races should not occur 

in PM10 non-attainment areas; 2) BLM should prohibit all OHV use in the PM10 nonattainment areas on high pollution days as forecasted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality; 3) use gates, fences, and other barriers to minimize emissions/fugitive 

dust; and 4) require permits to manage OHV use. 

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS does not propose to designate any Open OHV 

Management Areas within a PM10 non-attainment area. Many of the suggested mitigation 

measures for OHV management are considered implementation-level decisions. The YFO 

encourages participation in subsequent Travel Management Plans to provide suggestions on how 

the BLM can minimize impacts to air quality through travel management decisions.

Public Concern 2: Water and Watershed Management 

Subconcern: Water Quality and Quantity

Comment 1430 (Quechan Tribe): The Draft RMP provides little discussion of any impacts that 

the plan will have on water use over the coming years. The DEIS acknowledges that the area 

surrounding BLM lands is growing population, especially in the Yuma metropolitan area and 

along the Interstate 8 corridor. The DEIS should further address how its plan will minimize 

impacts to quality and quantity of water in the Colorado and Gila River basins. BLM must also 

ensure that any activities authorized by BLM do not interfere with or impair in any way the 

senior water rights of the Quechan Tribe. For example, any additional water needs that result 

from BLM’s resource management activities must be offset by reductions in water use elsewhere, 

i.e., by retirement of agricultural lands or additional water conservation. 

Response: The YFO would minimize impacts to water quality of the Gila and Colorado rivers 

by allocating them as WHAs. The Desired Future Conditions, Management Actions, and 

Administrative Actions for this allocation would reduce the likelihood of sedimentation and 

degradation of these waters. As a multiple-use agency, BLM does allow for agricultural leases, 

but these leases are subject to the terms and conditions. Some of these stipulations include BMPs 

for herbicide use and the requirement for the lessees to obtain their own water right (separate 

Page 5-54 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-55 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

from BLM) for their agricultural production. 

With regards to water quantity, BLM has a consumptive use agreement for 4,010 acre-feet of 

water to support its recreation and resource management programs on BLM-administered lands 

in both the YFO and the Lake Havasu Field Office which was granted through a Secretarial 

Reservation and Federal Register Notice. The current uses of this water right include concession 

management, recreational sites, and restoration projects. The BLM would continue to use the 

appropriated 4,010 acre-feet of water for these allowable uses. No impact on the water rights of 

any other group is expected from implementing any of the alternatives included in the 

PRMP/FEIS. 

Comment 1431 (Quechan Tribe): The Tribe will also object to any BLM proposal that 

threaten[s] to interfere with water quality within the Reservation, or that could result in damage 

to nearby riparian habitats. BLM must notify the Tribe of, and seek government-to-government 

consultation on, any site-specific proposals that could affect water quantity or water quality in 

the lower Colorado River. 

Response: BLM has no authority over water quantity, effects, or changes. Actions that would 

affect water quality could occur on a site specific basis and BLM would consult with Tribes on 

implementation level decisions required by NEPA and NHPA, which are outside the scope of 

this RMP. Examples of implementation level decisions that could affect water quality are 

riparian habitat restoration projects, integrated pest management treatment of giant salvinia, an 

aquatic weed, or constructing recreational facilities within the Colorado River floodplain. 

Subconcern: Wildlife

Comment 998 (ADWR): P. 4-39, 4.4.4 Flash floods are part of natural dynamic ecosystem 

processes and are typically not negative events for wildlife.

Response: The language in the PRMP/FEIS has been edited to remove the word “flash floods” 

from the sentence in Section 4.4.4. 

Comment 443: There is a need to protect the water supply for animals at Dripping Springs. 

Response: The water at Dripping Springs most likely comes from a fissure in the bedrock, 

allowing water to seep in from the underground aquifer. Management Actions for the proposed 

Dripping Springs ACEC would help protect the water supply. 

Comment 989 (ADWR): P. 2-64, Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Management Actions. Maintaining 

permanent water between cuckoo breeding areas along the Gila may be difficult. Any water 

management activity must consider water rights and accounting. 

Response: The phrase “permanent water and” has been removed from the Management Action 

in Section 2.8.2, because it is unrealistic for BLM to acquire the volume of water rights to reach 

such a goal. 

Comment 1357 (AGFD): Page 2-52, 2.7.2 D Desired Future Conditions, RMP Statement-None: 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

We recommend adding a bullet to state: Maintain desert washes in Proper Functioning 

Condition. 

Response: No procedures for Proper Functioning Condition of desert washes are available in 

current BLM guidance. Desert washes are not included in the BLM definition of “riparian” in 

accordance with Technical Report 1737-16, Riparian Area Management (USDOI BLM 1999). 

4. Biological Elements: Wildlife/Animals Management 

Public Concern 1: Wildlife/Animals Management General 

Comment 1186 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): At a minimum we would request that 

the RMP clearly identifies the full compliment of wildlife management activities was a priority 

use within the planning area and especially applicable to any MWC [lands maintained with 

wilderness characteristics] land allocation, ACEC designation, SHA or primitive area. Based on 

our past experience this intent needs to be written in crystal clear language and we will be 

looking for it to be contained in the final RMP document. We truly wish to avoid any 

misinterpretation in the future. 

To this end we have studied each word and phrase contained in Environmental Consequences 

paragraphs 4.10 and 4.11 and found no glaring anomalies or contradictions. These sections do 

not, however, resolve the potential conflict between wilderness preservation and wildlife 

conservation when an activity is proposed and a decisional hierarchy is needed. 

Response: The management prescriptions identified in the RMP for lands with wilderness 

characteristics and ACECs would not adversely affect wildlife management activities, and some 

prescriptions would actually benefit wildlife management activities. Throughout the PRMP/FEIS 

there are Management Actions associated with the Proposed Plan that ensure and enhance 

wildlife management and conservation activities.

Comment 344: Why hadn't you minimized or relocated the mountain lions in this area to help 

the population of sheep to grow. I believe these predators have more to do with the number of 

sheep than closing trails forever. 

Response: BLM’s goal is to manage habitat to sustain healthy populations of wildlife. The 

AGFD manages relocations of wildlife but BLM would work closely with AGFD if wildlife 

relocations were planned. 

Public Concern 2: Adequacy of Analysis 

Comment 997 (ADWR): Effects of disturbance of wildlife from human presence after extension 

of the Betty's Kitchen Trail should be discussed. 

Response: Broad negative impacts to wildlife from recreation management are discussed in 

Chapter 4, Section 4.4, Fish and Wildlife. BLM specifically addressed the impacts of the Betty’s 

Kitchen NRT to southwestern willow flycatcher in our Biological Assessment for the 

DRMP/DEIS. The proposal to extend the Betty’s Kitchen NRT was dropped from the Proposed 

Page 5-56 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-57 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Plan in the PRMP/FEIS.

Comment 1384 (AGFD): Page 4-28, 4.4, 1st set of bullets, RMP Statement-None: The 

Department recommends adding a bullet that states: Management decisions, allocations, or 

designations that conflict with wildlife management.

Response: The document was not changed as a result of this comment. Impacts of individual 

Management Actions for implementation-level decisions would be evaluated through the NEPA 

process on a case-by-case basis. 

Comment 1142 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The DRMP/DEIS does not sufficiently 

analyze, direct, secondary, and cumulative effects of the proposed action on listed and special 

status species. For example, the DRMP/DEIS lists, but does not elaborate upon the management 

plans impacts to federally-listed species such as the bald eagle, California brown pelican, Gila 

topminnow, bonytail chub, desert pupfish, Mojave desert tortoise, razorback sucker, Sonoran 

pronghorn, southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, and yellowbilled cuckoo. See 

DRMP/DEIS 2-55 through 2-64. The DRMP/DEIS also lists state-sensitive species, and yet, 

there is no meaningful discussion of the secondary and cumulative impacts to these species from 

the project or from related projects. The final RMP should properly identify and analyze direct, 

secondary, and cumulative impacts to the biological resources that will be impacted by the 

project, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Further, the 

information in the DRMP/DEIS is insufficient to inform an adequate Section 7 consultation as 

required by the Endangered Species Act. 

Comment 126: I request that you please ensure your management plans protect the habitat of 

both Mojave and Sonoran desert tortoises, flat-tailed horned lizards, desert bighorn sheep, and 

other wildlife of the region. 

Response: BLM analyzed the effects of the RMP on special status species in Section 4.4.2 of the 

PRMP/FEIS. In the DRMP/DEIS, BLM analyzed the impacts in broad terms, but more detailed 

and specific impact analysis was done for the Biological Assessment as part of formal 

consultation with USFWS. USFWS will issue a Biological Opinion prior to the BLM signing the 

ROD for this PRMP/FEIS. The Biological Opinion will be available online at the USFWS 

Arizona Ecological Services’ website. 

Public Concern 3: Agency Coordination

Comment 1350 (AGFD): Page 2-41, 2.7 Fish and wildlife, RMP Statement- BLM supports the 

AGFD’s Arizona Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (AGFD 2006) ...AGFD’s 

Wildlife Management Program Strategic Plan for the Years 2001-2006 (AGFD 2001) would also 

guide management actions. Please change to read: BLM supports the AGFD’s Arizona 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy and subsequent State Wildlife Action Plan. 

Please change to read: ...AGFD’s Wildlife Management Program Strategic Plan would also 

guide management actions. 

Response: The introductory paragraphs of Section 2.7 Fish and Wildlife Management have 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

been revised in the PRMP/FEIS to add AGFD’s Arizona Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy and subsequent State Wildlife Action Plan. A sentence stating that AGFD’s Wildlife 

Management Program Strategic Plan would also guide management actions has also been added 

to the PRMP/FEIS. 

Comment 1354 (AGFD): Page 2-43, 2.7 Administrative Actions, RMP Statement-None: We 

recommend adding a bullet that states: Cooperate with AGFD and CDFG to conduct wildlife 

surveys, research, and other management actions. 

Response: The requested Administrative Action has been added in Section 2.7.

Public Concern 4: Wildlife Structures

Comment 343: Why haven't more windmill and metal roof collecting tanks been installed. This 

area is an extremely dry area. Any wildlife in this area can only survive if it has ample rain for 

the vegetation. It seems drought has more to do with the population of sheep and all wildlife than 

closing of any trail permanently. 

Response: Chapter 2, Section 2.7, Management Actions, of the RMP allows for the construction 

of wildlife waters. Such projects would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Comment 1351 (AGFD): Page 2-42, 2.7 Desired Future Conditions, last bullet, RMP StatementNatural wildlife waters: The Department request clarification that we have the ability to 

maintain and repair tinajas/springs that have already been modified for wildlife and have the 

ability to modify natural tinajas/springs for wildlife. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS has been revised to clarify that unmodified tinajas and springs 

would remain in their natural state. The Desired Future Condition in Section 2.7 of the 

PRMP/FEIS states “Natural wildlife waters, such as unmodified tinajas and Dripping Springs, 

would remain in their natural state unless they pose a threat to wildlife safety. Such waters are 

essential for ecological integrity and promote biological diversity.” This implicitly allows for 

maintenance of previously modified springs and tinajas for wildlife water use. 

A second sentence was added in the PRMP/FEIS to allow minor modifications as follows: “Any 

modifications to unmodified tinajas would be minimal to allow trapped animals to escape (i.e. 

stairs or escape ramps), and would be analyzed through site-specific NEPA.”

Comment 1353 (AGFD): Page 2-43, 2.7 Management Actions, RMP Statement-None: The 

Department recommends adding a bullet to state: Limit use of roads near wildlife waters when 

visitation is adversely impacting wildlife use of the water. 

Response: The compatibility of road usage near wildlife waters will be determined in future 

Travel Management Plans. 

Comment 1196 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): We are particularly concerned with 

realizing the impacts to wildlife water developments within the various TMAs and RMZs and 

would like to see an accurate analysis provided in the final RMP. For the record we would hope 

that the final RMP would maintain 1) reasonable vehicle based motorized recreational access on 

Page 5-58 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-59 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

existing roads and trails, 2) a continuation of dispersed vehicle based undeveloped camping 

without designated sites and 3) no obstacles presented to active wildlife management and 

conservation activities. 

Response: BLM will continue to coordinate with AGFD, managers of wildlife water catchments 

within the planning area, during the development of future Travel Management Plans to ensure 

they can complete their agency mission. The general public will also be invited to participate in 

future travel management planning. Except within proposed ACECs, SCRMAs, Closed OHV 

Management Areas, and along the Anza Trail, the PRMP/FEIS is proposing to allow dispersed 

vehicle-based camping up to 100 feet off of routes within the planning area. 

Public Concern 5: Invasive Animals

Comment 988 (ADWR): P. 2-60. Razorback sucker, Management Actions. It is not clear where 

the BLM would "control problematic non-native fish." The efficacy of such an endeavor on the 

Colorado River is likely low. Also, land ownership should be considered because state sovereign 

lands underlie the Colorado River. 

Response: The interdisciplinary team considered this comment and changed the document to 

reflect your concern. Section 2.8.1 E, Management Action #1 has been revised as follows: 

"Support efforts to control fishes, where feasible" 

Public Concern 6: Special Status Animal Species

Subconcern: Bighorn Sheep 

Comment 1147 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Camping, hiking and ORVs have been 

shown to negatively influence the distribution and activities of bighorn sheep (Bear and Jones, 

1973). Bighorn are a particular species of concern because research suggests that, “Of the 

ungulate species for which relationships with humans and disturbance have been reported, the 

bighorn sheep appears to be most susceptible to detrimental effects (Canfield, 1999).” The 

largest threats to sheep are loss of habitat and harassment that results in increased stress and a 

destructive physiological response. 

Multiple studies have corroborated these findings and recommend that regulations to control 

ORV use and other human activities in sheep habitat are needed (Dunaway 1971; Geist 1971; 

De Forge 1976; Stemp 1983; King 1985; King and Workman 1986; Krausman and Leopold 

1986; and Harris et al. 1995). For example, implementing road or trail restrictions or education 

programs to reduce human intrusions into areas where desirable and productive bighorn sheep 

habitat is limited. MacArthur et al. (1982) suggest that limiting human activities to roads and 

established trails in places where sheep ranges and high recreational use areas overlap can also 

abate the impacts of disturbance. 

The DRMP/DEIS should identify key areas for bighorn recovery and address the direct and 

indirect impacts of the planning activities to this species. Anything less fails NEPA. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Response: Bighorn sheep recovery is under the jurisdiction of the AGFD. BLM has worked 

cooperatively with the AGFD to identify wildlife habitat management areas for bighorn sheep in 

the planning area. 

Comment 1380 (AGFD): Page 2-152, 2.21.3 D Biological Treatment, RMP Statement-None: We 

recommend adding a bullet that states: Domestic sheep and goats will not be used within nine 

miles of bighorn sheep habitat. 

Response: The following Management Action has been added to the PRMP/FEIS, Section 

2.7.1.B Big Game: “Comply with BLM guidelines to prohibit domestic sheep and goat grazing 

within nine miles of desert bighorn sheep habitat to avoid disease transmission according to IM 

98-140 Revised Guidelines for Management of Domestic Sheep and Goats in Native Wild Sheep 

Habitat.” 

Subconcern: Desert Tortoise

Comment 1146 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The Mojave Desert tortoise is a 

federally-listed threatened species that occurs in the planning area. Despite the DRMP/DEIS’s 

acknowledgement that there should be no net loss in the quality or quantity of Category I or 

Category II habitat within the planning area, no quantifiable estimation of where such habitat 

exists is present in the DRMP/DEIS. Without specifically describing the occurrence of the 

Mojave Desert tortoise within the planning area, or its potential and current habitat, it is 

impossible for the reader to know the impacts and cumulative effects of the preferred alternative 

to the species. Of particular importance are the route-designation, off-road vehicle 

authorizations, and livestock grazing in the habitat within the project area; the final RMP should 

specifically map and describe tortoise habitat and these effects. 

The desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, is listed as a threatened species at both the federal and 

California state level. Despite this, ORV use is one of the least studied, yet most detrimental 

factors affecting the survival and abundance of tortoises (Bury and Luckenbach, 2002). Two 

studies comparing paired plots suggest that tortoises suffer most from both direct and indirect 

effects of ORV use in areas with low to moderate ORV use (Bury et al. 1977, Bury and 

Luckenbach 2002). In 1997, Jennings studied the effects of off-road vehicle use on the food 

preferences and habitat use of the desert tortoise. Washes and washlets are important 

components of tortoise habitat because they allow for easier travel, they make ideal spots for 

burrows, and they contain abundant and important food sources (Jennings, 1997). In terms of 

off-road vehicle use, preference for this habitat proved detrimental; tortoises were more 

susceptible to direct hits by ORVs because they preferred habitats similar to those of ORV users: 

hills, washes and washlets (Jennings, 1997). 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS includes a map depicting Mohave desert tortoise habitat throughout 

the planning area (see Map 3-9). Proposed areas available for livestock grazing are all outside of 

Mohave desert tortoise habitat. In addition, there are no proposed Open OHV Management 

Areas in desert tortoise habitat. Impacts from individual routes on desert tortoise will be 

analyzed in Travel Management Plans which are not part of this RMP. 

Comment 1359 (AGFD): Page 2-59, 2.8.1 D, Administrative Actions, 1st bullet, RMP 

Page 5-60 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-61 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Statement- All surface disturbing projects...: the Department recommends clarifying or 

quantifying what is meant by “surface disturbance” throughout the document. Restrictions on 

“surface disturbance” could be far-reaching or overly restrictive since almost any activity on 

the land will create some level of “surface disturbance”. 

Response: Section 2.8.1 D on the Mojave desert tortoise of this PRMP/FEIS has been updated. 

The Administrative Action was changed to a Management Action which now states: “All surface 

disturbing projects authorized by the BLM would be located in previously disturbed areas or 

outside of Mojave desert tortoise habitat. When at all possible projects would avoid habitat; if 

avoidance is not possible, other types of mitigation would be required. If a desert tortoise is 

found in a project area, activities should be modified to avoid injuring or harming it.” The term 

“surface disturbance” would only apply to activities that require authorization by BLM, and 

would not apply to all activities that occur on the public lands. The term “surface disturbance” 

has been clarified throughout the PRMP/FEIS.

Subconcern: Threatened and Endangered

Comment 1119 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Palomas Plain WHA and Sonoran 

pronghorn. The analysis and preferred alternative in the DRMP/DEIS relative to historic 

habitat for Sonoran pronghorn falls short of providing the appropriate management direction. 

The current area that is managed for Sonoran pronghorn has seasonal closures to vehicle travel, 

but is severely and negatively affected by border enforcement activities. The Yuma East region is 

a potential reintroduction site for the species, which provides the BLM an opportunity to greatly 

assist in the recovery of this species. The Ranegras Plain, Palomas Plain and others areas could 

be managed for successful reintroduction and this should be more fully analyzed in the FEIS. 

What types of management actions would be necessary if this scenario did occur? Would a 

seasonal closure be necessary? Would closure of only some vehicle routes be effective for long 

term management? Considering the sensitive nature of this critically endangered species, a 

closure to vehicular access all together might also be beneficial. We think BLM has an 

outstanding opportunity to be the lead agency in the recovery of an endangered species and 

foresight should be used to think about the implications of BLM’s future management of the 

Yuma East area. 

Response: At this time BLM is not evaluating the potential for reintroduction of Sonoran 

pronghorn. This does not preclude the possibility of reintroductions on BLM-administered lands 

in the future. The PRMP/FEIS does propose protections for the Yuma East region with the idea 

that this area may be used for Sonoran pronghorn introduction. The Palomas Plain WHA would 

be a step toward making reintroductions possible. Any future considerations for reintroductions 

would result in NEPA analysis. Seasonal closures, etc. would be implementation level decisions. 

Comment 1145 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The Sonoran pronghorn is a highly 

imperiled endangered species that occurs in the planning area, albeit with a smaller range and 

with fewer individuals than in historic times. Extraordinary measures have been implemented to 

recover this species, but the small population may require even more intensive management in 

order to be sustained. The DRMP/DEIS fails to sufficiently analyze the impacts of the proposed 

management on this species, including, but not limited to, the cumulative effects of the border 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

infrastructure that exists and is proposed for the Yuma planning area. The BLM should consider 

the recovery of this species and the potentially occupied habitat, as well as the reintroduction 

potential of areas within the planning area, and the potential reintroduction areas should be 

managed with recovery in mind (i.e. no motorized routes, livestock, etc). 

Response: Analysis of impacts to Sonoran pronghorn for those lands within the planning area 

can be found in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 of the RMP. The BMGR falls within the planning area; 

however, this area is outside BLM-administered lands. The effects to Sonoran pronghorn by 

actions of other agencies are considered in the cumulative effects section of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Comment 1144 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The DRMP/DEIS makes no mention of 

the Yuma Desert flat-tailed horned lizard Management Area despite the fact that the Yuma 

planning area encompasses this area, on and adjacent to the Barry Goldwater Range, the only 

designated flat-tailed horned lizard conservation area in Arizona. The lizard is also found 

sporadically throughout the area managed under the Yuma RMP. BLM's failure to adequately 

consider the impacts of the RMP renders the environmental review completely inadequate. In 

order to comply with NEPA, a thorough examination of the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts of BLM's proposed RMP on the flat-tailed horned lizard should be part of a 

comprehensive EIS for the proposed project. 

The flat-tailed horned lizard is of particular concern because, though the RMP identifies this 

species as state-sensitive, it is also candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act, due 

to its downward trend under the current conservation agreement. A recent court decision found 

that withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard by the Secretary of the 

Interior was arbitrary and capricious and the Court set aside the withdrawal. See Order, Tucson 

Herpetological Society, et al., v. Norton, et al., Case No. CV 04-0075–PHX-NVW. The 

reinstatement of the listing rule was then withdrawn again and that issue is now again before the 

Court. If the court again reinstates the listing rule the BLM would be required to confer with the 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regarding the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the project 

on the lizard. 

Even absent any reinstatement of the proposed listing rule or listing of the species, BLM must 

consider the impacts of the proposed RMP on this species. 

The DRMP/DEIS also fails to adequately consider the recovery of the flat-tailed horned lizard, a 

highly imperiled species facing numerous threats throughout its range and within the planning 

area. These threats, generally but by no means exhaustively, include: 

• Yuma Area Service Highway, as proposed, would cut through flat-tailed horned lizard 

habitat south and east of Yuma destroying over 600 acres of lizard habitat and isolating 

another 3,600 acres of habitat; 

• Energy Proposals for W. Imperial County threaten flat-tailed horned lizard habitat, 

including energy plans and power lines; 

• Border enforcement activities impact lizard habitat near the US-Mexican border due to offroad driving by agents and smugglers, Border Patrol ‘drag roads’ and other infrastructure 

projects; 

• Off-road vehicles near the Algodones Dunes, and near Yuma, is currently problematic and 

Page 5-62 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-63 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

projected to increase; 

o Urban sprawl in the remaining habitat in Coachella Valley is increasing and habitat is 

being lost; and 

o • Invasive non-native plant species & wildfire alter fire regimes and destroy flat-tailed 

horned lizard habitat. 

• The flat-tailed horned lizard is listed in the draft plan as a special status species, but parcels 

of the species’ remaining habitat is described as “fragmented and unlikely to support this 

species,” (p 4-36) and therefore eligible for disposal under the preferred alternative. The 

disposal habitat is designated as “historic,” but the BLM should be considering if it is also 

future potential habitat as well and needed for species recovery. Further, listing these 

properties as appropriate for disposal undermines the stated desired future conditions of 

“Minimize the loss or degradation of flat tailed habitat and maintain or establish effective 

habitat corridors between naturally adjacent populations.” See DRMP/DEIS page 2-67. The 

final RMP should overlay the habitat of the species with the proposed disposal lands so that 

the decision-makers have adequate information to evaluate the projects. The final RMP 

should also clearly identify the extent within the project area of the threats to the species, 

including those listed above, and assess the cumulative impacts of the preferred alternative 

on the species’ recovery. 

• Routes, trails and the use of off-road vehicles can create barriers to necessary movement 

(i.e., movement for migration, breeding, foraging). Studies have found a higher proportion of 

dead frogs and toads on roads with higher traffic volumes. Although this may result from 

higher direct mortality, it may also occur because traffic changes movement patterns and 

interrupts anuran behavior (Fahrig et al. 1995). Nicolai and Lovich (2000) found that 

disturbance from off-road vehicle activity decreased the rate of movement of flat-tailed 

horned lizards (Phrynosoma mcalli), a Species of Special Concern in California. Decreased 

movement coupled with the fact that they are often found on roads, makes this species and 

others disposed to road mortality. Other studies have found that ORV activity destroys large 

areas of habitat occupied by flat-tailed horned lizards (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999) and 

may modify the way this species, and others, use habitat (Beauchamp et al. 1998). 

Response: The Yuma Desert Management Area for the FTHL is described in Section 3.4.7 B, 

Species of Concern. The BLM does not have any jurisdiction on the lands within the Yuma 

Desert Management Area for the FTHL. The Yuma Desert Management Area for the FTHL is 

administered by BGMR and Reclamation. The BLM is committed to conservation of the FTHL 

through the FTHL Rangewide Management Strategy (RMS). The BLM YFO has been in full 

compliance with the RMS since its inception in 1997. Moreover, BLM has required proponents 

to follow stricter mitigation measures often reserved for projects within the Yuma Desert 

Management Area. BLM is making an effort to keep potentially occupied FTHL habitat in 

Federal ownership; a 337-acre parcel of contiguous historic FTHL habitat was originally 

designated for disposal in the previous RMP, but BLM has not carried-over that decision to the 

Proposed Plan. 

All but the threat by non-native invasive species you mentioned in your comment are either 

outside the boundaries or outside the management responsibilities of the BLM YFO. Schismus

spp. is the primary non-native plant within FTHL habitat on BLM-administered land in Arizona. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Schismus may compete with native grasses, but there is no practical way to control this 

essentially naturalized species. Morever, Schismus does not seem to seriously impact FTHL as 

FTHL are often found in habitat abundant with Schismus. Schismus does not spread fire 

effectively on BLM-administered land in Arizona. 

BLM manages primarily low-quality habitat in the planning area. There are five reasons that the 

YFO believes that the lands identified for disposal within FTHL habitat are not suitable for 

reintroductions of FTHLs: (1) canals, roads, and urban sprawl fragment FTHL habitat into 

isolated habitats, which could prevent FTHL re-colonizations from higher-quality habitat; (2) 

adjacent land uses such as agriculture promote artificially large numbers of FTHL predators (for 

example, round-tailed ground squirrels and greater roadrunners); (3) humans often illegally litter, 

dump, or travel off-road on these parcels, which is likely to degrade habitat quality for FTHLs; 

(4) components of good-quality FTHL habitat in Arizona (big galleta grass, sandy hummocks, 

loose sand) are often missing from many of these BLM parcels; and (5) most BLM parcels are 

small; the median size of the 10 parcels is 43 acres, which is likely too small to sustain a natural 

population of FTHL. These five factors are likely to make these parcels unsuitable for 

reintroductions or re-colonizations. YFO has conducted searches for FTHL on most of these 10 

parcels, and have found no FTHL signs (tracks, scat, or individuals). 

Although the PRMP/FEIS does not include a map that overlays historic FTHL habitat with 

proposed disposals, the YFO interdisciplinary team considered this information during 

alternative development and in the formulation of Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. The 

wildlife section in Chapter 4 describes impacts on wildlife from the different alternatives, and 

this analysis includes impacts to FTHL from OHV use. The primary impact that would affect 

FTHL as a result of this plan would be from lands identified for disposal. This impact is 

mentioned in Chapter 4, Section 4.4.2.A.7, Direct and Indirect Impacts, Special Status Species. 

In addition, impacts to Special Status Species from OHV use can be found in Section 4.4.2.A.6. 

Public Concern 7: Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) 

Subconcern: Herpetofauna

Comment 1143(Center for Biological Diversity et al.) : We note that the proposed action fails to 

account for impacts to herpetofauna. Herpetofauna are very important players in the food web 

because as a group, they are more abundant, they make-up more biomass and they contribute 

more significantly to the transfer of energy along the food web than mammals and birds. These 

creatures have an impact on communities at each stage of their development; amphibian larvae 

structure aquatic communities, lizards and metamorphosing amphibians provide a link between 

aquatic and terrestrial food webs and adults play a key role in maintaining the efficiency of 

terrestrial food webs. Because of these important roles and the fact that amphibians, and some 

reptiles, serve as indicators of the health of our environment, the impacts of routes and trails and 

off-road vehicle activity on herpetiles should be a management concern (Welsh and Ollivier, 

1998). Off-road vehicle use can lead to the death of reptiles and amphibians due to direct kills, 

however, the elimination and degradation of vegetation and critical habitat by ORVs has a 

larger, long-term impact on these animals. 

Compounding the impact of this direct effect, ORVs minimize food sources and suitable habitat 

Page 5-64 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-65 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

for tortoises by destroying vegetation, disturbing the soil and changing the size and path of 

washes as traffic causes trails to widen over time (Jennings, 1997). Disturbance and habitat loss 

from the creation of trails and off-road vehicle activity can diminish the abundance of many 

amphibian and lizard populations. Luckenbach and Bury (1983) compared lizard densities on 

plots with ORV use to those without it; on control plots there were 1.8 times the number of 

species, 3.5 times the number of individuals, and 5.9 times the biomass found on areas with ORV 

use (Bury & Luckenbach, 1983). 

Response: BLM recognizes the importance of reptiles and amphibians in the natural system. 

OHV impacts to reptiles in general and specific terms are identified in Chapter 4. Reptiles are 

included in the definition of “wildlife” when OHV impacts to wildlife are described in Section 

4.4.1 B. 

Public Concern 8: Mining and Mineral Exploration 

Comment 1441: Your laws for protecting wildlife is greatly flawed. We enjoy watching them 

and most do not run. I think they get used to people being around. What happens to wildlife 

which live in the mines that are to become active again. Are they ran out or killed? 

Response: BLM makes every attempt to work with the mine claimant and State wildlife 

agencies to resolve wildlife issues and concerns.

Public Concern 9: Pesticides 

Comment 990 (ADWR): P. 2-65, Burrowing Owl, Management Actions. The authority of the 

Bureau of Land Management to control spraying of pesticides on non-BLM lands should be 

clarified. If a restriction is placed on BLM agricultural leases, that impact should be disclosed. 

Response: The information about pesticide use in agricultural leases found in Appendix 2-G.B, 

b2. “Pesticides shall comply with the applicable Federal and State laws. Emergency use of 

pesticides shall be approved in writing by the authorized officer”. Agricultural lessees are 

required to provide BLM with a pesticide use plan prior to treatment. Pesticide users are 

required to follow guidance put forward by the Secretary of the Interior and abide by any State 

restrictions. 

5. Biological Elements: Vegetation Management 

Comment 709 (Cocopah Indian Tribe): Vegetation Management - The preferred alternative is 

Alternative E. The preferred alternative should include the 12,400 Fred J. Weiler Green Belt. 

Response: The Proposed Plan includes a VHA for the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt. Please see 

Section 2.5.2 of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Public Concern 1: Habitat Improvement or Restoration 

Comment 495 (USGS): Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Section C, Habitat 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Enhancement and Restoration, page 4-33. The draft RMP/EIS indicates interest in decreasing 

the fragmentation of riparian habitat and enhancing ecological integrity. As willow-cottonwood 

assemblages are habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher and the project location is within 

the historic range of this imperiled bird, the USGS offers research results which might aid in the 

specific habitat requirements of this bird (Allison et al. 2003, Shafroth et al. 2005, Skagen et al. 

2003, Sogge et al. 2003, Sogge et al. (editor) 2003). 

Response: In BLM’s Biological Assessment for the DRMP/DEIS, we mention some of the 

research results you provided for specific habitat requirements of southwestern willow 

flycatcher. YFO will continue to consider the best available information, including USGS 

research, in the development of public land management policies. 

Comment 1047 (Yavapai-Apache Nation): We commend your ongoing efforts to reclaim and 

sustain habitat along the Colorado River corridor through revegetation. Especially because of 

the direct benefit to avian species. 

Response: BLM appreciates the support and participation of the Yavapai-Apache Nation in the 

RMP process. 

Subconcern: Limitrophe

Comment 1072 (National Wildlife Federation): BLM must outline specific strategies and 

mechanisms to revegetate native plants after clearing invasive species in order to achieve 

successful restoration of native plant communities and to benefit wildlife habitat and ecological 

health. 

Response: Vegetation management techniques are provided in the BMPs section of the RMP. 

Restoration is based on site specific potential, funding, and in the case of the Limitrophe area, 

employee safety, which is a significant concern. Please refer to Desired Future Conditions for 

Riparian Habitat (Section 2.5.1 A). A plan for the Limitrophe developed by the stakeholders 

would address these strategies and mechanisms. 

Comment 734 (USIBWC): Increased management should occur by salt cedar removal and 

planting in a manner that seedlings reach water that can be used with a water budget that does 

not impact Colorado River water rights. Surface water availability is unreliable in the 

Limitrophe Reach. 

Response: BLM would consider self sustaining vegetation plantings such as pole planting when 

developing restoration strategies. Groundwater in the Limitrophe area is not considered to be 

Colorado River water and would be available for restoration without affecting a water budget or 

Colorado River water rights. 

Comment 1069 (National Widlife Federation): We recommend that the BLM explain possible 

management strategies to the Limitrophe CMA in much greater detail. More specifically, we 

recommend that BLM include a set of plans and standards for invasive species removal and 

native species revegetation. These plans and standards should recognize and reflect the current 

science and protocol for riparian restoration...Moreover, invasive control/removal and native 

Page 5-66 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-67 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

restoration must aim for the requisite components of high quality habitat: structural diversity, 

large biomass, high biodiversity, connectedness, and nearness to water. In short, BLM plans for 

the Limitrophe CMA should utilize active restoration techniques to convert non-native vegetation 

to native riparian habitat, while maintaining existing native plant species. Active restoration in 

the Limitrophe CMA would meet the various goals BLM and other stakeholders have for the 

region, including: fire suppression; maintaining and restoring valuable habitat; protecting 

wildlife, including threatened and endangered species; invasive species reduction to eliminate 

illegal activity and increase border security; improvement of public safety and opportunities for 

recreation; and protection of and access to cultural resources. 

Response: In coordination and cooperation with other stake holders (including the National 

Wildlife Federation), YFO would pursue active restoration in the Limitrophe area given the 

constraints of funding, employee and contractor safety and the need to address wildland fire and 

public health and safety. YFO would work with interested parties to develop a strategy which 

allows for adequate cover, habitat connectedness, etc. Specific management actions would be 

developed outside of this RMP process in coordination with interested stakeholders. Restoration 

often relies on availability of supplemental water for establishment of plantings. Some factors 

may lie beyond BLM’s control. BLM will continue to manage lands under BLM authority.

Comment 1347 (AGFD): Page 2-25, 2.4.2 Management Actions, RMP Statement-None: We 

recommend adding a bullet that states: Restore degraded or salt cedar habitats to appropriate 

vegetation when and where practicable. 

Response: The recommended Management Action was added to the PRMP/FEIS in Section 

2.4.2 Limitrophe CMA. 

Public Concern 2: Fire and Fuels Management 

Comment 999 (ADWR): P. 4-45, "3." It is not clear what natural resources would have higher 

priority than endangered species in managing a fire. 

Response: In the sentence referred to in your comment, natural resources could refer to a natural 

process or occurrence present during a fire which limits the ability of firefighters to protect 

endangered species habitat that is vulnerable to the fire.

Public Concern 3: Firewood Collection 

Comment 1298 (Huachuca Hiking club): On page 2-21, there is a proposed management 

action that prohibits collection of dead, downed, and detached firewood and vegetative materials 

inside the Sears Point ACEC. If a designated campground site is established within the ACEC, I 

suggest the campground site and surrounding area up to 1⁄4 mile be exempted from this 

management action. 

Response: The proposed wood collection restriction at the Sears Point ACEC was reduced to 

3,700 acres in the PRMP/FEIS (see Map 2-1e-3). 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Public Concern 4: Noxious and Invasive Plants 

Comment 987 (ADWR): Page 2-31, Vegetation Habitat Management Areas. The value of 

vegetation to native wildlife should be considered prior to any treatment of invasive species. In 

the case of the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt, much of the area was vegetated with salt cedar at the 

time of designation, supporting significant wildlife use. 

Response: It is recognized that salt cedar comprises the majority of the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt, 

and is beneficial to some birds (particularly white winged and mourning dove). All vegetation 

treatment projects would be analyzed as part of the site specific NEPA analysis. 

Comment 994 (ADWR): p. 3-34, 1. Salt cedar. The likelihood of success in establishing native 

vegetation should be assessed prior to removal of salt cedar, which does provide wildlife habitat. 

The story of success along the lower Colorado River over the last 30 years is low. 

Response: As stated in Section 2.5 Vegetation Management, one of the Desired Future 

Conditions is to maintain and enhance a mosaic of native plant communities in upland and 

riparian/wetland areas. Unproductive or non-functioning upland and riparian wetland sites 

would be restored to desired plant communities based on ecological site and capability potential. 

Factors to consider when evaluating restoration potential of riparian habitat include salinity, 

depth to groundwater, and soil structure. 

Comment 1410 (Reclamation): Page 3-34, Giant Salvinia 4th line: The statement that the LCR 

is “both shallow and slow moving” is not entirely correct. Salvinia only gathers along the outer 

edges of the river. The flow in the middle is too fast for it to gather. 6th line, change to: “...in a 

relatively short period, doubling in size every 2.5 to 10 days.” FYI – Salvinia can cover a 10-

acre backwater in less than a month. p. 3-34, last line: Surveys have documented Giant Salvinia 

all the way into Mexico. p. 3-35, last sentence: Please give example(s), e.g., Arundo. 

Response: The statement on page 3-34 (4th line) of the DRMP/DEIS refers to the common 

conditions of the lower Colorado River from high water use and low recharge rates. It is not 

directly referring to the specific site conditions necessary for the invasive giant salvinia to 

flourish. Section 3.3.7 A.2 of the PRMP/FEIS was revised to read “In areas of low flows, giant 

salvinia can cover the total water surface in a relatively short period, doubling in area every 2.5 

to 10 days. Salvinia can cover a 10 acre backwater in less than a month.” This section of the 

PRMP/FEIS was also revised to read, “Surveys have documented giant salvina in varying 

degrees of presence from Walters Camp all the way into Mexico.”

6. Domestic Livestock Management 

Public Concern 1: Grazing Management 

Comment 310: Please change the livestock grazing allowance toward the 0 acres available in 

Alternative D. 

Comment 1085 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The draft RMP states that grazing 

management is adjusted during the renewal of grazing leases, but overall grazing parameters 

Page 5-68 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-69 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

must be set during the RMP process, and the draft RMP fails to explicitly acknowledge the 

overarching guidance for this land use that the RMP must provide. 

Comment 1088 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Continuous yearlong grazing is not a 

feasible grazing management strategy on Sonoran Desert public lands, nor is 

seasonal/ephemeral grazing necessarily appropriate (Hall and Weinstein 2004). Because the 

draft RMP contains so little information about the allotments within the planning area, it is 

impossible to evaluate how grazing management might change under each of the alternatives. 

This lack of clarity fails NEPA. 

Comment 1094 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The characterization of Alternative D 

(the No Grazing alternative) as having an adverse economic impact “because revenues would no 

longer be generated by grazing fees...” is unfair and unsupportable. There are potentially five 

permits that would remain active under the preferred alternative (though the draft RMP does not 

make clear which allotments these are), and the revenue associated with the appropriate use of 

these allotments simply cannot outweigh the expense of the irreparable ecological impacts that 

livestock have in the desert. The grazing fees collected by the BLM do not even begin to cover 

the costs of managing grazing (GAO 2005). The permits should be retired, permanently, and the 

BLM should dedicate itself to restoring and protecting these lands, providing for recreation, 

open space, and ecosystem services that are ultimately more profitable and more sustainable 

than livestock grazing. The Taylor Grazing Act’s goal of stabilizing the livestock industry is 

“secondary” to the goals of safeguarding the rangeland and providing for its orderly use. Public 

Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287, 1298n.5 (10th Cir. 1999), aff’d, 120 S.Ct. 1815 (2000). 

Comment 64: Limit livestock grazing to protect cultural and biological resources alike. There is 

not enough forage to sustain both livestock and the native animals. Grazing has significant 

detrimental impacts on some species of plants and wildlife. 

Comment 1046 (Yavapai-Apache Nation): The Nation supports all efforts to minimize grazing 

of stock animals including wild horses and feral burros during the ongoing drought conditions. 

We do not question the right of the cattle industry in the western deserts to persist in obtaining 

leases, only its practicality and the inevitable repercussions to indigenous animals associated 

with overgrazing. 

Response: Livestock grazing use of public lands is governed by the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 

and FLPMA of 1976. Congress has long recognized that livestock grazing is one of many 

multiple uses of the public lands. The Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines 

for Grazing Administration have been established to guide BLM’s management of grazing in 

Arizona to ensure that grazing does not have an adverse effect on the resources. Should livestock 

use result in impacts that fail to meet the Arizona Standards, the regulations at 43 CFR 4100 

require that appropriate actions be taken within a set timeframe to insure that the Standards will 

be met. Such actions can include adjusting the season of use, adjusting the number of authorized 

livestock, or other actions that would correct the current situation. Grazing use in accordance 

with the Arizona Standards and prompt implementation of the grazing regulations would ensure 

that livestock grazing would not adversely affect public land resources. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Section 2.9 discusses the differences between alternatives (Alternatives A through the Proposed 

Plan primarily differ by the number of acres available or unavailable for livestock grazing). The 

decision to be made in this plan, according to the Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 

Appendix C.II.B, Livestock Grazing, is to identify lands available or not available for livestock 

grazing. In order to derive the alternatives presented in the DRMP/DEIS, the interdisciplinary 

team evaluated the existing livestock grazing situation in the planning area. The DRMP/DEIS 

included criteria for the designation of Ephemeral Allotments. The criteria would be applied 

during the completion of new Rangeland Health Assessments. The public lands within YFO are 

suitable for ephemeral use and can be so used without adverse impacts on the resources. The No 

Grazing Alternative (Alternative D) would have some moderate to major adverse economic 

impacts for the few ranch enterprises that currently have access to Federal grazing lands within 

the YFO. Permittees would, at a minimum, lose their access to BLM grazing allotments. This 

action would increase the cost of raising livestock for these permittees. 

In addition, if grazing were not allowed within the YFO, the BLM is required by regulation to 

pay the amortized cost for removal of all range improvements owned by the permittee that they 

do not remove. The permittee can remove any improvements that they own, including fences, 

wells, pipelines, troughs, and other improvements. Many of the wells and other water 

developments are also extensively used by resident wildlife. Even if BLM were able to keep 

wells and facilities at the developments, maintenance of these developments would require 

additional expenditures. On the basis of historical budgets, BLM would be unable to maintain 

most if not all of the facilities. Loss of these facilities could result in adverse impacts on wildlife 

in these areas. 

Public Concern 2: Allotments 

Comment 1361 AGFD): Page 2-72, 2.9 Management Actions, RMP Statement-None: We 

recommend adding a bullet that states: Change the allotment classification or category and/or 

the lease or permit stipulations or terms and conditions as needed to meet management 

objectives. 

Response: Section 2.9 on Livestock Grazing Management, Management Action #7, of the 

PRMP/FEIS provides the BLM with the ability to change grazing allotment categories as needed.

Comment 1080 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Page 3-68 of the draft RMP states that, 

“there are no strictly perennial permits within the planning area.” This statement conflicts with 

the designations listed on page 3-69 in Table 3-17 that shows at least 6 strictly perennial 

permits. The table also fails to show the number of livestock authorized on each allotment. The 

draft RMP contains no maps with the allotment boundaries indicated or the allotments named. 

Response: The document has been revised within Section 3.11.2, Grazing Permits and Leases, to 

reflect six perennial allotments. The number of livestock authorized on each allotment is based 

on AUMs. An AUM is the equivalent of one cow for one month. Map 3-15 shows allotment 

boundaries and allotment numbers. 

Comment 1026: Provide specific data on rangeland forage capacity within the planning areas, 

breakdowns of available forage types (20% grasses, 30% forbs, 40% shrubs, etc.). List all 

Page 5-70 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-71 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

significant rangeland users such as mule deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, bighorn sheep, cattle, 

sheep, and wild horses and burros. Provide projected management plans and goals for each 

species, projected habitat requirements, expected rangeland allocations, and population targets. 

Illustrate in a comprehensive table that clearly delineates numbers, allocations, and projected 

use levels. 

Response: The Rangeland Health Assessments for Dateland, Quartzsite, and Vicksburg (USDOI 

BLM 2003b, 2003c, 2003d) provide information on the condition of lands available for grazing. 

These Rangeland Health Assessments analyzed allotments for specific goals and objectives. The 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (USDOI 

BLM 1997a) and the Special Ephemeral Rule found in Appendix 2-D identifies how grazing 

would be authorized on BLM lands in Arizona. See Section 3.11.2.C Range Health Assessments 

for an explanation of how BLM evaluates the ecological condition of resources on allotments 

and potential impacts of grazing, which are evaluated during the permit and lease renewal 

process. This methodology has been used for other planning areas in hot desert biomes (e.g., 

southwest Arizona). 

Comment 1093 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The draft RMP states that, 

"Management that achieves proper utilization of key forage species ensures adequate cover to 

maintain appropriate watershed conditions and reduce soil loss through wind and water 

erosion." See draft RMP page 4-13. This very general statement does not assure the reader that 

livestock grazing will not contribute to soil loss throughout the planning area. This is especially 

of concern since a number of the allotments in the planning region are "custodial" allotments, 

which means that "it would not be cost beneficial [on custodial allotments] to attempt to improve 

current conditions." See draft RMP page 3-69. 

The statement in the draft RMP that “Differences in impacts to water resources between 

alternatives differ by number of acres open to ... grazing, however they are insignificant and 

minimal overall,” (page 4-11) needs to be explained. Any alternative that supports continued 

grazing anywhere within the planning area differs significantly from Alternative D, which 

eliminates this land use and would have the most marked and beneficial effect on the water 

resources of the planning area. 

Response: None of the custodial allotments within the planning area have regular grazing use 

and none are part of the Proposed Plan. Because the custodial allotments are not cost beneficial, 

none are carried forward in the Proposed Plan. The majority of the water utilized by livestock on 

allotments carried forward in the Proposed Plan are from wells developed by the permittees. 

Comment 1081 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The preferred alternative should 

permanently withdraw grazing from the allotments in the Dateland area. The draft RMP states 

that, in this region, “non-use is common and range improvements are generally in poor 

condition.” See draft RMP page 3-69. Intermingled land tenure and poor facilities make grazing 

management difficult; non-use indicates that grazing is also unnecessary. The preferred 

alternative should identify all allotments in the Dateland area for closures. 

Response: The DRMP/DEIS Preferred Alternative and the PRMP/FEIS Proposed Plan do not 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

propose to allow grazing to continue in the Dateland area (see Map 2-5c). The existing grazing 

allotments in the Dateland area that would be discontinued are represented on Map 3-19. 

Comment 1082 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The preferred alternative should close 

all allotments in the Quartzsite area. The draft RMP admits that at least three of these allotments 

have been in non-use for twenty years, indicating a lack of need and lack of appropriateness. See 

draft RMP page 3-70. Use on these allotments is being restricted due to recreational use; the 

BLM should consider the cumulative effects of all uses and see which authorizations need to be 

restricted in order to fulfill the agency’s stated goals of vegetation and wildlife habitat 

management. Monitoring data and trend information should be included in the final RMP to 

justify the use of the Bishop allotment. 

Response: Livestock grazing use is authorized under Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health. 

An assessment performed in 2003 on the Bishop Allotment found that continued grazing use on 

this allotment would meet the Standards for Rangeland Health. Additional assessments will 

occur when the Bishop allotment permit is up for renewal.

Comment 1079 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The draft RMP fails to provide explicit 

information about the level and extent of livestock grazing currently occurring in the project 

area. Table 3-17 (page 3-69) lists the allotments within the planning area but fails to identify 

which allotments are within which of the three planning areas identified on the same page: 

Dateland, Quartzsite, and Vicksburg. This failure to identify which allotments are where is 

egregious because it makes the subsequent discussions (pages 3-69 through 3-70) virtually 

meaningless. Without knowing which allotments are in which planning area, the discussion of 

resource conditions or land tenure does not help the reader or the decision-maker and this lack 

of information fails the "hard look," requirement of NEPA. The only map (Map 3-15) that 

identifies grazing allotment boundaries identifies those by number, which must then be crossreferenced with Table 3-17. 

Response: Table 3-15 identifying “Allotments’ Administered and Authorized Use by BLM in 

the Planning Area” has been updated in the PRMP/FEIS to include the general geographic 

locations of each allotment, which corresponds with Map 3-19. 

Comment 1083 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The draft RMP identifies allotments in 

the Vicksburg area but fails to indicate if the four allotments referenced by name (CrowderWeisser, K Lazy B, Calhoun, and Eagletail) are all of the allotments in this area and/or what the 

condition and trend of these allotments is. See draft RMP page 3-70. The only indication of use 

levels on the allotments comes from the statement, “With the exception of the Vicksburg area, 

grazing use in the planning area is a very minor use of the public lands.” Id. The reader is left to 

infer that grazing use on the Vicksburg allotments is therefore intensive, but it remains unclear 

what the following sentence means: “Recommendations made during standard and guide 

assessments include retiring grazing on several allotments and reviewing the perennial 

classification on others.” Id. The final RMP should specify which allotments that statement 

refers to and whether the preferred alternative is following these recommendations. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS was revised in Chapter 3, Section 3.11.2.A to clarify that Standards 

and Guidelines for all allotments were evaluated in all three areas – Vicksburg, Dateland and 

Page 5-72 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-73 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Quartzsite. Further clarification of which allotments would be affected by the decision to make 

lands available or unavailable in this plan are now found in Chapter 2, Section 2.9.2, using 

information found in Table 3-17.

Comment 1084 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The draft RMP states that, “For the 

most part, vegetation communities are noted to be producing at or near potential, and no 

specific trend was noted for any allotment. All permits were reauthorized with terms and 

conditions of use.” See draft RMP page 3-71. The qualifying statement, "for the most part” 

indicates that there were exceptions to the productivity and health of the vegetation communities 

on the allotments, but the BLM reauthorized grazing anyway. It is also worth noting that in 

previous pages, the BLM clearly states that some of the allotments were in non-use, thereby 

indicating that the health of vegetation communities may be because of the absence of grazing, 

not due to the compatibility/sustainability of the use. 

Response: The language in the document has been revised in Section 3.11.2.C. The rangeland 

health assessments performed in 2003 for allotments indicate all were producing at or near 

potential, and no specific trend was noted for any allotment. The rangeland health assessments 

are available for public review.

Public Concern 3: Cryptobiotic Soil Crust 

Comment 1091 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Furthermore, grazing has been shown 

numerous times to reduce or eliminate cryptobiotic soil crusts. These crusts are important for 

infiltration and stabilization, especially in the arid southwest where many xeric species rely on 

stored soil water (Brotherson and Rushforth 1983). 

Response: Allotments proposed available for grazing use in the Proposed Plan contain very little 

cryptobiotic soils. This resource would experience insignificant impacts due to grazing use under 

the Proposed Plan. All soils are not equal and vary in crust associations and susceptibility to 

disturbance. Since the BLM has replaced historic, uncontrolled livestock grazing by controlled 

and managed grazing, it is believed that the stocking rates and livestock densities are such that 

little impact is occurring to soil crusts. Under this scenario, healing has been observed away from 

livestock water sources. More information needs to be gathered in specific areas to show if this is 

still occurring and if impact areas around new waters are increasing or decreasing. This can be 

accomplished with the implementation of the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration (i.e., Standards and Guidelines).

Public Concern 4: Riparian Areas and Wetlands 

Comment 1089 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Though the draft RMP does not 

specifically identify the riparian areas present within the allotments which would be maintained 

as “available to grazing,” within the preferred alternative, the draft RMP does state that the 

desired future conditions for riparian areas as ensuring that “riparian-wetland areas achieve or 

are moving towards properly functioning condition. Riparian, floodplain, and wetland areas 

enhance water quality, improve water storage, increase groundwater recharge, and provide 

quality fish and wildlife values.” See draft RMP page 2-27. Livestock grazing undermines each 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

of these objectives. 

Response: The document was clarified to state that there is no grazing within riparian or wetland 

areas in the YFO planning area.

Public Concern 5: Watershed Condition 

Comment 1090 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Livestock grazing is known to have 

significant effects on soil and watershed conditions, including directly causing increased soil 

erosion. The phenomenon has three basic components. Grazing reduces plant cover that binds 

the soil and, in low desert areas, destroys microbiological soil crusts that stabilize soil surfaces 

(Beymer and Klopatek 1992, Brotherson, et al. 1983, Brotherson and Rushforth 1983). 

Vegetation that impeded overland flow of rainfall runoff in intact watersheds was lost to grazing 

(Sharp, et al. 1964). Grazing livestock compact the soil, so instead of rainfall soaking down 

toward the aquifer it flows faster and in greater volume overland (Arnold 1950, Johnson 1956; 

reviewed by Belsky et al. 1999, Jones 2000). 

Eroding soil and manure throughout watersheds end up in streams as increased sediment load, 

excessive nutrients, and pathogen contamination. Various grazing management strategies have 

not been found to reduce such watershed degradation (Gifford and Hawkins 1976, Blackburn et 

al.1982). The effect of the dropping of water tables is stream down-cutting in grazed riparian 

areas. A number of authors have outlined the model whereby trampling and loss of stabilizing 

vegetation due to grazing in riparian areas results in higher peak water flows, channel scouring, 

and erosion and down-cutting, which in turn lowers water tables, ends permanent stream flows, 

and dries out watersheds (Kovalchik and Elmore 1992, USBLM 1994, Trimble and Mendel 1995, 

Belsky et al.1999) 

Response: BLM reviewed the literature and added statements on the effects of grazing on soil 

and watershed conditions where the literature was found to be appropriate to this area. Some of 

the literature referred to activities out of context for this planning area. 

Public Concern 6: Noxious and/or Non-Native Plants 

Comment 1086 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Livestock grazing in the desert is 

ecologically damaging, economically unsustainable, and inappropriate. The draft RMP 

discusses the effects of drought on vegetation production and the impact of non-native species on 

forage conditions. See draft RMP at 3-71. However, the draft fails to discuss livestock’s 

contribution to noxious weed invasions, as documented below. The draft RMP states several 

goals for management of the planning region’s vegetation resources. We note that the desired 

future conditions specified for vegetation conflict with the detrimental effects from livestock 

grazing in each instance. See dRMP page 2-27. 

Livestock promote the spread and colonization of alien plants, which can increase fire 

frequencies (Billings 1990, Billings 1994, Rosentreter 1994, Belsky and Gelbard 2000). 

Disturbance is a reliable indicator of alien dominance in vegetation composition, and livestock 

grazing is a significant disturbance to desert ecosystems (Brooks and Berry 2006). Permitting 

continued livestock use of allotments within the planning area fails to meet the objective of 

Page 5-74 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-75 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

“Protect and restore native species in upland and riparian communities through an integrated 

weed management approach emphasizing prevention, containment, and early detection of 

invasive weeds,” which is identified in the draft RMP as a desired future condition. (page 2-27). 

This is particularly important because, often, forage estimates for ephemeral authorizations 

include non-native species, which thereby exacerbates the on-the-ground situation. To use nonnative species as forage ensures that disturbance in colonized areas will continue, that seeds will 

be spread through coats and feces, and that relative productivity estimates will be skewed 

towards a changed desert. Further, weed invasions are strongly associated with livestock 

watering sites (Brooks et al 2006), and the RMP and the preferred action should indicate the 

locations and associated weed invasions of “range improvements” in the Yuma planning district. 

Catastrophic wildfires in Arizona and California’s desert have been linked to weed invasions, 

including weeds present in the Yuma planning area. Altered fire regimes and weed invasions 

have deleterious effects on wildlife habitat, especially for the desert tortoise, which relies on 

native species as preferential forage. Desert tortoise have a strong preference for native species 

of annual plants even where non-natives are abundant, and desert tortoise preferentially select 

ten native plant species even in areas where these species are uncommon or rare (Jennings 

1997). Weed composition and the subsequent diminished forage availability is serious threat to 

the recovery of the species, and also fails to meet the objective, as stated in the draft RMP, of 

ensuring that, “forage on rangelands continues to support wildlife and grazing in a manner 

consistent with other resource management objectives or uses.” See draft RMP page 2-27. 

When weeds dominate biomass production in both wet and dry years, it can be assumed that 

weeds will more successfully colonize new areas over time (Brooks and Berry 2006). The 

dominance of weeds during even exceptionally dry years indicates that drought 

disproportionately increases competition between wildlife and livestock for native annuals in 

these seasons. 

Response: Livestock grazing has been demonstrated to be a practical and acceptable alternative 

to herbicide application for invasive species control and wildfire fuel reduction. However, prior 

to employing a new grazing treatment on public land, a need for the treatment must be identified 

through the Standards and Guidelines allotment evaluation process or other planning documents. 

Then, the proposal must be analyzed under the provisions of NEPA and approved by the 

authorized officer.

When soil, vegetation, or other resources on the public lands require immediate protection 

because of drought, fire, flood and insect infestation, Federal grazing regulations permit the 

authorized officer to close allotments or portions of allotments to grazing or modify authorized 

grazing use. The use of livestock after a fire is one of many tools available to accomplish 

vegetative objectives for the area. In order to reduce invasive species from a treated area 

livestock use may be authorized for a short period of time after a burn to further reduce the 

amount of these species. The ecological sites found within both the Havasu and Yuma planning 

areas are dependant on rainfall, and grazing is not authorized in these areas until such time as the 

grass species have recovered from the burn. The period of rest may take several years in the 

absence of rainfall. It is impractical to have a set period of time for recovery after a burn. 

Monitoring of the area would establish the appropriate time for livestock to be reauthorized.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

The RMP strives to manage livestock grazing in such a manner that natural processes would 

function normally and desired plant community objectives are attained. In general, the desired 

plant communities contain the plant species that are identified by the applicable ecological site 

guide for the area. Livestock use levels are limited and monitored for compliance so that plant 

vigor is not altered or reduced. That being said, livestock grazing should have minimal influence 

on the fire frequency and intensity. Grazing management practices adhere to the Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (USDOI BLM 

1997a). Guideline 3-4 of this policy states, “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.” 

Public Concern 7: Wildlife 

Comment 1383 (AGFD): Page 3-69, Table 3-17, RMP Statement-None: The Department 

believes that grazing at full preference as shown in this table for several years would result in 

significant damage to wildlife habitat in this desert environment. 

Response: Grazing use on all allotments is done in accordance with the regulations in 43 CFR 

4100 and the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration. 

7. Mining and Mineral Exploration 

Public Concern 1: Natural Resources 

Comment 30: ... concerned with uranium exploration and its effects on the environment.

Response: Although there is a small area (less than one square mile) within the Muggins 

Mountain Wilderness with moderate potential for uranium, the entire Wilderness area is 

withdrawn from mineral entry and therefore mineral exploration would not be allowed. There is 

a known uranium occurrence approximately 0.5 miles east of the Muggins Mountain Wilderness. 

Any surface disturbance associated with exploration and/or development of uranium would be 

managed according to regulations contained in 43 CFR 3715 and 43 CFR 3809. The YFO would 

continue to ensure that operators comply with these regulations in order to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation of public lands.

Public Concern 2: Special Designations 

Subconcern: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Comment 1424 (Quechan Tribe): The Tribe requests BLM to ‘withdraw’ lands with significant 

cultural resource sensitivity pursuant to FLPMA, thus precluding possibility of future 

development on those lands... If BLM designates land as an ACEC, BLM should manage the 

protected cultural or natural resources for long-term preservation, not for mineral entry or other 

uses inconsistent with long-term preservation. 

Comment 61: Withdraw all existing and proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Page 5-76 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-77 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

(ACECs) and other sensitive areas from mineral entry. 

Response: Please refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.18, Table 2-30. BLM-administered lands in the 

Big Marias ACEC, a portion of the expanded Sears Point ACEC, and portion of Dripping 

Springs ACEC are proposed to be withdrawn from general land laws including mineral entry 

under the Proposed Plan. Future withdrawal proposals may be considered to protect resource 

values within ACECs and SCRMAs. The values for which ACECs are designated are considered 

the highest and best use for those lands, and protection of those values would take precedence 

over multiple uses. 

Subconcern: Wilderness Areas

Comment 147: No mining approved. Please protect this area and keep it wilderness. 

Response: Designated Wilderness areas are currently withdrawn from mineral entry, subject to 

prior existing rights, as required under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Subconcern: National Recreation Trails

Comment 1140 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The Betty’s Kitchen trail should not be 

extended for an additional five miles, as proposed by BLM in Alternative E, the Preferred 

Alternative. The DEIS fails to adequately assess the impacts of such an extension. Right now the 

existing half-mile trail is an interpretive trail. Extending it to the north for five miles would 

change its nature away from nature and will just encourage access to areas that are better 

protected now for their natural values. The DEIS does indicate that extension of the trail will 

adversely impact riparian habitat and wildlife (p. 2-172) and cause soil disturbance (p. 2-179), 

but doesn’t follow through in analyzing these impacts. Expanding the Betty’s Kitchen Trail by 

five miles will result in more destructive fires in the riparian vegetation of the area, more 

vandalism, and more littering of the area opened by the trail. These impacts are not suitable for 

a fragile riparian and wetland area. 

Response: The Betty's Kitchen Trail extension has been removed from the Proposed Plan of the 

PMRP/FEIS. This would preclude additional impacts to soils, riparian habitat, and wildlife from 

the trail's installation. It would also reduce the risk of human-caused disturbances to the area 

from improved recreational access, including noise, litter, and wildland fires. Options to provide 

wildlife-compatible recreation opportunities within the Mittry Lake Wildlife Area would 

continue to be considered in cooperation with AGFD and Reclamation.

Public Concern 3: Health and Safety 

Comment 1052 (Yavapai-Apache Nation): We have special concerns about any (even small 

scale) mining involving radioactive ore(s), such as vanadium and/or minerals in that family. We 

understand the power of the Mining Act of 1875, but we also maintain the dangers and long term 

consequences of these materials were not suspected let alone understood until a generation after 

the Law was enacted. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Response: As stated in Section 2.19.2 - “Regulations contained in 43 CFR 3715 and 43 CFR 

3809 provide for the management of surface disturbance associated with mineral exploration and 

development”. YFO would continue to ensure that operators comply with these regulations in 

order to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.

Public Concern 4: Salables (Sand and Gravel, Decorative Rock) 

Subconcern: User Conflicts

Comment 1010 (City of Yuma): The proximity of community pits as specified in Alternatives B 

and E located within the Gila Mountains is not compatible or aesthetic to the area as an 

entryway into the community. If this use of community pits is pursued as part of the Draft 

Resource Management Plan, it is recommended that the location of the Community pits be 

moved outside the Gila Mountains area. 

Response: The Telegraph Community Pit on the western edge of the Gila Mountains was 

removed from the Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS. This would prevent impacts to the visual 

resources of the area from such an action. The BLM is authorized to establish community pits 

without a land use plan. If it is determined that a community pit in the Gila Mountains is 

necessary to meet public demand in the future, the BLM would work closely with the City of 

Yuma to select an area that does not affect the scenic attributes at the entrance to the community. 

8. Cultural Resources Management 

Public Concern 1: Adequacy of Analysis

Comment 1048 (Yavapai-Apache Nation): The Nation would like to see special consideration 

given to rock art sites in your jurisdiction, when they are threatened or in danger of being 

negatively impacted by development.

Response: Under the Proposed Plan, many of the rock art sites in the planning area are within 

proposed ACECs and SCRMAs, which provide them additional protection from development. In 

addition, the BLM YFO complies with the NHPA and other applicable cultural resource laws 

and regulations for any proposed developments. When resources of significance to the YavapaiApache Nation, such as rock art sites, could potentially be impacted by a proposed undertaking, 

YFO would request the tribe’s input during the NHPA Section 106 process.

Comment 1413 (Quechan Tribe): As BLM acknowledges, since only 16% of the planning area 

has ever been surveyed for cultural resources, there could be tens of thousands of prehistoric 

and historic sites that remain undiscovered on the lands. DRMP, p. 3-58. Due to this likely 

possibility, BLM must adopt a management plan that is more protective of cultural resources 

than the current preferred alternative, and also must ensure that no site-specific actions are 

authorized until affected lands have been properly surveyed for the presence of cultural 

resources. 

Response: The Proposed Plan includes several land use allocations intended to protect known 

natural and cultural resources throughout the planning area, including SCRMAs, ACECs, and 

Page 5-78 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-79 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

VRM classifications. BLM will continue to comply with the NHPA and its implementing 

regulations for all proposed undertakings. YFO will also continue to follow the guidelines as 

outlined in 36 CFR 800.4 for determining the level of effort necessary for the identification of 

cultural properties within an Area of Potential Effects for each undertaking that involves BLMadministered lands.

Public Concern 2: Domestic Livestock Management

Comment 34: The number of cattle on the land is an impact to cultural resources. Cattle rub 

rock art and trample archaeological features and artifacts. 

Response: The effects of livestock grazing on cultural resources are considered when grazing 

permits are authorized according to Arizona Guidelines for Grazing Administration, Guideline 

for Standard 3, 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.”

Public Concern 3: Special Cultural Resource Areas (SCRMAs) 

Comment 1414 (Quechan Tribe): The DRMP divides the SCRMA sites into categories based on 

the proposed future use for such lands. A total of 19,200 acres of SCRMA lands are reserved for 

‘scientific use’. DRMP pp. 2-111/2-115. Cultural properties on the ‘scientific use’ lands are 

‘protected until land use conditions or research in the public interest makes it necessary or 

advisable to subject them to scientific study.’ DRMP p. 2-111. Thus, these resources are not 

protected for traditional uses, or designated for long-term preservation, but are reserved solely 

for future scientific study. The Tribe does not consider this to be adequate protection. The 

‘scientific use’ category raises other questions unanswered by the DRMP. For example, what 

kind of studies will be permitted? Who will be allowed to do the studies? Will the Tribe and other 

affected Indian tribes have a say in which ‘selected sites’ are permitted for scientific and historic 

studies? What constitutes a ‘qualified’ researcher? Finally, what are examples of situations in 

which scientific studies of cultural resources are necessary for the public interest? The current 

DRMP is far too vague regarding how the SCRMA ‘scientific use’ lands will be managed and 

protected. 

The remaining 9,300 acres of SCRMA lands are designated as ‘conservation for future use.’This 

designation also provides only limited and interim protection. Page 2-113 of the DRMP states 

that ‘cultural properties in the [conservation for future use] category would be managed to 

maintain their present conditions or setting until conditions are met in the future that would 

make them available for other uses.’ In other words, designation as a SCRMA does not prevent 

BLM from authorizing land use actions that could adversely impact cultural resources. This is 

not acceptable. Lands designated for special cultural resource protection must be given 

permanent protection and not simply reserved for future disposition by BLM. 

Although BLM has authority to designate SCRMA lands as ‘traditional use’ lands that would be 

‘managed for long-term preservation to accommodate the needs of Indian tribes and other 

groups, for which these places are important,’ it has not done so. DRMP, at pp. 2-112/2-115. In 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

fact, BLM’s plan does not designate any of the SCRMA lands for traditional use or long-term 

preservation of cultural resources. 

The Tribe requests BLM to revise its preferred DRMP alternative to increase the total acreage 

designated as SCRMA lands, and to designate a significant portion of the SCRMA lands for 

traditional use and long-term preservation. Specifically, the Tribe requests that the Walter’s 

Camp lands be managed for traditional use and long-term preservation. The Walter’s Camp 

lands are of unique significance to the Tribe and are subject to significant development 

pressures. BLM should consult with the Tribe to determine what other SCRMA lands are most 

appropriate for the traditional use designation. 

Response: Definitions for the five cultural resource use categories were incorporated from BLM 

Manual 8100 series. This manual contains additional information on each use category, and the 

YFO is unable to modify or change these use category definitions. However, the use category 

system is meant to be fluid, so that management of a cultural site or SCRMA can change as 

needed. To manage cultural resources for their appropriate uses, BLM may allocate a cultural 

resource to one or more use categories, and category allocations are reevaluated and revised, as 

appropriate, when circumstances change or new data becomes available. While the primary 

focus of a SCRMA is for a particular use, individual sites within the SCRMA may be managed 

for any of the six use categories, as appropriate. 

As stated in 2.15.3 C, “Cultural sites and SCRMAs managed for traditional use are limited to 

those identified by Native American tribes...as important for maintaining their cultural identity, 

heritage, or well-being.” If in the future new information is received from a Native American 

tribe that makes a cultural site or SCRMA appropriate for traditional use, then the use categories 

for that cultural site or SCRMA would be revised to reflect that traditional importance. Based on 

the information shared by the Quechan Tribe in their comment letter, the RMP has been revised 

to show that the Walters Camp SCRMA is appropriate for allocation to traditional use and 

conservation for future use. 

Regardless of the cultural resource use categories allocated to a particular cultural resource site, 

impacts to that site from implementation-level actions would be evaluated and mitigated 

pursuant to NHPA, NEPA, and other applicable cultural resource laws and regulations.

Public Concern 4: Native American 

Comment 768 (BIA): Indian Trust Assets should be analyzed in the Final EIS. 

Response: Indian Trust assets are lands, natural resources, money, or other tangible assets held 

by the Federal government in trust or restricted against alienation for Native American tribes and 

individual Indians. There are no Indian Trust assets on BLM-administered lands in the YFO, 

and the BLM has determined that the actions described in this PRMP/FIES would not affect 

Indian Trust assets.

Page 5-80 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-81 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

9. Wild Horse and Burro 

Public Concern 1: Clarity of Information 

Comment 533: "Nuisance" animals? Because they cross a road that came between them and 

their natural instinct to roam? (Sections 4.5.2) 

Response: The term “nuisance animal” is commonly used by the BLM to refer to wild horses or 

burros that have strayed from BLM-administered HMAs and traveled onto private lands. The 

guidance for handling stray animals can be found in 43 CFR 4720.2-1. 

Public Concern 2: Agency Funding and Expenses 

Comment 549: As a citizen and horse lover, I am very concerned that our national wild life is so 

often on the line for their lives and continuance because of crappy, careless, or downright 

cruelly uncaring management plans. If this is due to budget constraints, then maybe the B.L.M. 

should complain to the US government that it can spend millions of dollars a day to destroy 

lives and property in Iraq—surely we can find some money and brain power to preserve one of 

our wonderful national treasures! 

Response: This RMP has been developed in full accordance with FLPMA and the Wild FreeRoaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended.

Public Concern 3: Herd Management 

Comment 1363 (AGFD): 2-76, 2.10 Management Common to All Alternatives, RMP StatementNone: The Department recommends adding a bullet that states: Burros outside of an HMA but 

within an HA and burros outside of an HA will be gathered and removed. 

Response: The procedure to remove horses or burros outside an HMA but within an HA is found 

in Table 2-10 in Section 2.10. Wild horses or burros outside of an HMA but within or outside an 

HA will be gathered in accordance with policy and regulations at 43 CFR 4720.2-1.

Comment 809: Please do not accept policy decisions that plan to zero out specific wild horse 

and burro populations in your state. 

Response: There are no proposals within the PRMP/FEIS that would “zero out” any populations 

of horses and/or burros within the planning area. 

Comment 1030: For a complete overview of the situation, please review Wild Burros of the 

West-A Critical Analysis of the Current Status of Wild Burros on Public Lands –2006 attached to 

the back of this document. It is imperative that specific plans be outlined within the Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) that gives special consideration and attention to wild burros 

impending demise if BLM fails to properly coordinate resources for their continued preservation 

and survival. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

While there are a number of proposals outlined within the RMP regarding wild horses and 

burros within the planning areas, researching these proposals has shown that they are 

unacceptable for a variety number of reasons. The first of which is the actual lack of planning 

and management strategies provided within all of the proposals that fail to secure the 

preservation, protection and continued sustainability of the herds within the RMP’s framework. 

Response: Section 3.5.1 references the Cibola-Trigo HMA Plan completed in 1980, which 

outlines specific management strategies for the HMA. Section 2.10 Wild Horse and Burro 

Management lists management actions from the 1980 plan that would continue to be used to 

manage the Cibola-Trigo HMA. While land uses may have changed, the existing forage 

continues to support the AML2 established in the HMA plan. The PRMP/FEIS carries forward 

the allocation of HMA and AML2 and is in accordance with 43 CFR 4700.

Comment 559: No acreage should be eliminated from the current Herd Areas or Herd 

Management Areas. No water sources used by wild horses and burros should be transferred, 

sold, or eliminated. No reductions in Appropriate Management Levels (i.e., no population 

reductions). No wild horse/burro range should be transferred to agencies that refuse to protect 

wild horses and burros (such as the National Park Service, who does not "manage" them and 

considers shooting them as a humane population control method). Clear and detailed 

preservation plans must be provided for wild horses and burros, including proper forage 

allocations for current populations. 

Comment 715: Please scrap this plan and compose another that will uphold and defend the 

rights of the wild equids. This plan should emphasize in-field strategies for attaining viable and 

stable populations through use, whenever possible, of natural barriers and by allowing the wild 

equids to fill their ecological niche space, forming a mosaic of individual band home ranges that 

will automatically tend to limit their populations through the activation of density dependent 

responses...Your plan must provide adequate resource allocation including all the elements for a 

viable habitat: forage, water, shelter, migration provision, appropriate mineral sources, etc., 

and should increase the allowable Appropriate Management Levels within their historic, legal 

herd areas so as to assure their long-term viability and continued enjoyment and observation by 

the substantial number of human supporters and appreciators. 

Comment 1040 (YVRGC): We agree with the Preferred Alternative that Wild Horses and Burros 

should be managed with respect to the proposed reduction of acreage and numbers. The 

YVRGC also respectfully submits that additional resources should be employed to ensure that 

Wild Horse and Burro numbers should never exceed the numbers identified within this Plan. 

Response: Within the HMA, there are four separate areas. The portion of the current HMA 

north of I-10 proposed for elimination has had no burro or horse use documented or observed 

since 1989, further, a vast majority of the public lands in this portion of the HMA were 

transferred to the Colorado River Indian Tribes in August, 2005, through the Colorado River 

Indian Reservation Boundary Correction Act. Small tracts of public lands in the Gila and 

Mohawk Mountains are not currently used by burros or horses. The only time burro use was 

identified was in 1973. These areas are not connected to the main portion of the HMA, but are 

contiguous to the BMGR. Preliminary planning documents in the early 1980s stated that burros 

were on the BMGR and that their use potentially moved up these two ranges. The area proposed 

Page 5-82 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-83 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

for elimination within the main body of the HMA east of US 95 is primarily U.S. Army 

withdrawn lands on YPG. This portion of YPG has been used for much of its history as a live 

fire and high explosive impact zone. This activity presents an unacceptable danger to wild 

horses and burros and all attempts to mange these animals in such an environment. 

The proposed plan in no way anticipates nor encourages restrictions to use of historical water 

sources or the transfer of public lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM to private or other 

governmental agency. The AML2 would be subject to change only after an evaluation and 

analysis of monitoring data indicates a change is needed, whether upwards or downward. 

Changes to AML2 would be an implementation-level action and would be accomplished with full 

public participation in accordance with NEPA and other environmental laws.

Comment 1198 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): We enthusiastically support the 

compression of any wild burro herd management areas and support the removal of burros west 

of Highway 95. We would additionally suggest the population of wild burros throughout the 

planning area should be reduced. There presently exists within the established herd management 

areas far more burros than what is appropriate and allowed. Continued efforts to reduce the 

population of the ever-growing herds and minimize the associate[d] damage to wildlife habitat 

would be very appreciated. 

Comment 917: The "wild" horse advocacy groups are insisting that in this particular case, we 

the taxpayers should make an exception to biology and create -- and indefinitely fund...an 

artificial world full of windblown manes and happy hoof beats ...As a taxpayer, I certainly expect 

much better from trained biologists, especially those whose responsibility is management of 

these horses. No matter how urgently this issue is politicized, in the end it is biology that decides. 

Response: Wild burros are managed to preserve the natural resources and prevent damage in 

accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended. AML2s are 

established to ensure that use levels will not result in resource damage. The current population of 

wild burros and horses is at or near the AML2 for the Cibola-Trigo HMA.

Comment 1026: Provide specific data on rangeland forage capacity within the planning areas, 

breakdowns of available forage types (20% grasses, 30% forbs, 40% shrubs, etc.). List all 

significant rangeland users such as mule deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, bighorn sheep, cattle, 

sheep, and wild horses and burros. Provide projected management plans and goals for each 

species, projected habitat requirements, expected rangeland allocations, and population targets. 

Illustrate in a comprehensive table that clearly delineates numbers, allocations, and projected 

use levels. 

Response: The AML2 for wild horses and burros in the Cibola-Trigo HMA is set based on the 

Herd Management Area Plan of 1980 and monitoring has determined that appropriate levels 

have been maintained (referenced in Section 3.5). Cibola-Trigo HMA monitoring data from 1999 

to 2004 are available for public review.

Comment 1056 (Animal Welfare Institute): The Cibolo-Trigo Herd Area/Herd Management 

Area (HA/HMA) is home to one of only two wild horse herds in the entire state of Arizona and 

one of the few remaining wild burro herds in the state. Although the DRMP/EIS states that the 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

existing HMA shares identical boundaries with the original HA (a total of 264,900 acres) (p.2-

76), the BLM’s own HA/HMA statistics indicate otherwise. The original Cibolo-Trigo HA 

encompassed 281,388 BLM acres and 746,513 other acres for a total of 1,027,901 acres. The 

HMA now encompasses 279,595 BLM acres and 639,343 other acres for a total of 918,938 acres 

– a loss of 108,963 acres from the acreage originally designated, but 654,038 acres more than 

indicated in the DRMP/EIS in Table 2-9 on p. 2-76. (See the chart on BLM’s National Wild 

Horse and Burro Program website: 

http://www.wildhorseandburro.blm.gov/statistics/2006/Arizona.pdf) The DRMP/EIS must 

account for the discrepancy in these numbers and explain the complex jurisdictional issues 

involved in the management of this HMA. It is vital for the public to understand land 

jurisdictional issues, if present, in order to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of the 

alternatives analyzed in the DRMP/EIS. 

The same statistical chart also indicates that during the last decade, wild horses and burros have 

lost 333,955 acres (253,570 BLM acres; 80,385 other acres) in the state of Arizona alone, a fact 

not disclosed in the DRMP/EIS, but one that could have far-reaching implications for the 

management of wild horses and burros within the region. This loss, coupled with the nearly 20 

million acres of lost habitat across the West since enactment of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming 

Horses and Burros Act (WFHBA) is startling. Yet, four of the five alternatives in the DRMP/EIS 

– all, but the “no action” alternative, propose reducing acreage in the Cibolo-Trigo HMA by 

30%. To make matters worse, all alternatives propose the same Appropriate Management 

Levels (AMLs) for wild horses (150) and burros (165) that were established in the Cibolo-Trigo 

HMA plan in 1980 – 27 years ago! 

At a minimum, the DRMP/EIS should have analyzed alternatives that would have included an 

increase in the wild horse and burro AMLs, the relocation of wild horses and burros into other 

areas from which they have been totally removed or reduced in the past, the development of new 

agreements with other federal, state, local and/or tribal agencies and/or other parties to allow 

for greater accommodation of wild horse and burro habitat needs, and an expansion of the HMA 

to include acreage designated in the original HA. In addition, to offset the significant loss of 

wild horse and burro habitat in the last several years, the DRMP/EIS should have analyzed the 

feasibility of land acquisition through purchase, donation, exchange and/or eminent domain to 

provide more habitat for wild horses and burros, especially given these animals are two of the 

few species that are afforded special federal protection. To underscore the importance of such 

an analysis, in its assessment of Desired Future Conditions (DFC) for land acquisition, the 

DRMP/EIS states that lands to be acquired must maintain or enhance public uses and values, 

provide for a manageable land ownership pattern and/or include significant natural or cultural 

resource values (p. 2-138) – all criteria applicable to ensure the protection and responsible 

management of wild horses and burros, animals historically and currently the victims of reckless 

management decisions. 

To make matters worse, based upon the BLM’s map at the following link, it appears that the 

acreage within the Cibolo-Trigo HMA is not contiguous. (see: 

http://www.wildhorseandburro.blm.gov/statistics/hmas/AZ1_ha_ hma.pdf This fact is not 

discussed in the DRMP/EIS. In fact, the DRMP/EIS offers no detailed discussion of the numbers 

of distinct populations or bands within the HMA, the degree to which there is genetic exchange 

among distinct populations in the HMA, their locations at various times of the year, their dietary 

Page 5-84 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-85 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

preferences and use, their migratory patterns, any and all overlap with other wild ungulates and 

wildlife species (such as the Sonoran desert tortoise) and/or livestock, and a comparison of 

forage allocation between wild horses and burros and other wildlife species and/or livestock. 

Despite the BLM’s past acknowledgment of the potential problems associated with low 

populations and the ever-increasing scientific knowledge about equine genetics, the DRMP/EIS 

proposes AMLs that are perilously low. The DRMP/EIS fails to discuss what constitutes equine 

genetic viability or to examine other health concerns for wild horses and burros. What are the 

potential impacts of disease outbreaks on herds managed at marginal levels? What are the 

habitat needs of wild horses and burros? What constitutes healthy age and sex ratios in a herd? 

How do the social structures of wild horses and burros differ from one another? AWI believes 

that, given past management actions, the small number of animals in the HMA and the dearth of 

monitoring data for this HMA, it is incumbent upon the BLM to exercise precaution in its 

management approaches rather than to adopt a reactive management strategy that may wind up 

being too little too late. To this end, the BLM should seek to preserve the genetic variation 

within this herd by developing alternative management directions that specifically address these 

concerns. For example, there is no discussion about if and where fencing occurs in the HMA. 

Even if populations are adequate to sustain genetic viability, fences can prevent genetic 

exchange and free-roaming movement patterns. While the BLM often proposes the periodic 

introduction of breeding animals into herds as a means of addressing the problems associated 

with inbreeding (reduced reproductive success, reduced foal survival, reduced adult fitness and 

physical deformities), the DRMP/EIS does not address this issue whatsoever. 

Response: The discrepancies in acreage are due to the use of more accurate GIS calculations. 

The boundary of the HA in the DRMP/DEIS is the same boundary as shown on historical use 

areas from surveys completed in 1973. YFO will submit a correction to the National Database. 

The PRMP/FEIS addresses only actions and impacts to wild horses and burros within the CibolaTrigo HMA. The populations of wild horses and burros would remain at the AML2 levels 

established in the 1980 Cibola-Trigo HMA Plan, and therefore the Proposed Plan would not 

contribute to a State- or nation-wide decrease in wild horse and burro populations. Monitoring 

data collected from 1999 through 2004 was evaluated to analyze the AML2 for the HMA; the 

current AML2 continues to be appropriate.

Within the scope of the PRMP/FEIS, there are no areas where wild horses or burros within the 

YFO have been totally removed. The BLM is restricted in the management of wild horses and 

burros by PL 92-195 to public lands upon which they were present in 1971. Within the existing 

boundaries of the HMA, there are few instances where land could be acquired.

The HA delineation is based upon information from various sources and inventories conducted 

in 1973 to determine where wild horses and burros were present in 1971. Maps from 1979 

formed the basis for this information to delineate the HA. There are three portions that were in 

fact separated from the main body of the HA, generally by large segments of private land. YFO, 

in accordance with current BLM policy, collects genetic data during removal operations to 

ensure that genetic viability is maintained. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Comment 1060 (Animal Welfare Institute): The DRMP/EIS also does not adequately describe 

current conditions of the range and/or riparian areas to indicate whether the conditions are 

poor, fair or good, whether trends indicate improvement or not and precisely which factors are 

contributing to these conditions and trends. Surely, the BLM has collected vegetation 

production, abundance, and composition data since it produced the last RMP for this area. This 

information, which is crucial in determining the appropriate AML for horses and burros, AUMs 

for cattle, and for ensuring there is sufficient food for wildlife, was required to be disclosed in 

the DRMP/EIS. This information is needed both to facilitate a reanalysis of the previously set 

AMLs and AUMs but also to ensure that the public has access to such information to consider 

when evaluating the sufficiency of the BLM’s analysis The analysis must also disclose and 

evaluate appropriate monitoring techniques to determine range conditions and utilization 

patterns to support its preferred alternative. The DRMP/EIS must provide such information for 

the public to assess whether or not the alternatives, including the preferred alternative, are 

defensible. Moreover, the DRMP/EIS must analyze the appropriate allocation of range resources 

between wild horses and burros and other range users, in the context of the statutory mandate to 

engage in only “minimum feasible level” of management activities for wild horses and burros 

and the impact of those allocations on establishing AMLs and other management decisions. 

The DRMP/EIS also states that in all alternatives the YFO would mitigate loss of access to water 

along the Colorado River due to changing land use by either providing fenced access routes or 

developing new water sources. Again a flood of questions emerge. How will land use changes 

specifically affect wild horses and burros? Where would the animals lose access? Where would 

access routes be constructed? And where and what type and how many water resources would 

be developed? How will such developments affect natural migratory patterns and herd 

dynamics? 

BLM Manual 1622.4 specifically deals with resource constraints needed for wild horse and 

burro management by requiring a listing by HMA of constraints that will be required on other 

resource uses, both consumptive and nonconsumptive, to allow for herd management at the 

appropriate intensity. If anything, the BLM has turned this guidance on its head by routinely 

sacrificing the interests of wild horses and burros for nearly every other use (particularly 

recreational sport hunting, livestock grazing and other commercial industries) even when it 

jeopardizes the welfare of wild horses and burros. While AWI is not necessarily advocating the 

installation of additional water developments, especially in order to artificially inflate the 

numbers of certain “game” species or to accommodate livestock, such proposals reveal the 

preferential treatment given to certain species, noting that wild horses and burros may benefit 

serendipitously. Further, AWI is seriously concerned about the potential and real negative 

impacts on “nongame” species and the integrity of the ecosystem from the installation of socalled range “improvements.” The DRMP/EIS does not sufficiently analyze such impacts. 

The DRMP/EIS proposes that all portions of the HMA east of US 95 would revert to HA status 

and all wild horses and burros would be removed due to safety concerns. What safety concerns? 

Vehicular collisions? How many collisions with wild horses and burros have occurred in the 

past? How many with other wildlife species? What was their severity? What alternatives to 

removal are available? For example, what about the construction of passages under highways, 

vegetation modification, speed limit reduction and enforcement and/or the installation of the 

Page 5-86 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-87 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Strieter Lite system, which is eligible for 80% federal funding under the Hazard Elimination 

Program of the Federal Highway Administration (see: http://strieter-lite.com/index.php), to 

name a few. The newly enacted TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) 

provides matching funding for projects to reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality. 

The DRMP/EIS states that when the BLM deems the wild horse and burro population has 

exceeded capacity needed to maintain the vegetative community, excess wild horses and burros 

will be removed and offered to the public through the Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Program 

(p. 2-75). However, the DRMP/EIS fails to disclose that there are currently more animals in 

long-term holding facilities than are in the wild today. An amendment to the 1971 WFHBA now 

requires that animals older than 10 years of age and who have not been adopted after three 

attempts be sold without limitation – opening the doors to commercial exploitation, including the 

possibility that the animals will eventually wind up in the hands of killer buyers who will sell 

them to slaughter for human consumption overseas. The DRMP/EIS does not discuss the 

numbers of animals currently in holding, the potential disposition of these animals nor the 

program’s costs. 

According to the DRMP/EIS, there are four HAs and seven HMAs managed by the YFO. These 

HA/HMAs contain 210 wild horses and 2,500 wild burros (p. 2-74). However, according to the 

BLM’s HA/HMA statistics for FY 2006, in the entire state of Arizona, the AML for wild horses is 

210 and for wild burros, 1360, with populations of 230 and 1542 respectively. Another huge 

discrepancy in numbers. The DRMP/EIS leaves the public with the erroneous impression that the 

wild burro population is almost twice as large as is the case. Furthermore, AWI is at a loss why 

only management of the Cibolo-Trigo HMA is analyzed in the DRMP/EIS. (p. 2-74) The 

DRMP/EIS offers no explanation why management review of these other HA/HMAs is not 

provided in the current DRMP/EIS, nor is there any discussion of how these herds are currently 

managed and what cumulative impacts such management may have on the overall health, 

genetic viability and sustainability of wild horses and burros in the YFO specifically and in 

region generally. 

Nearly half of the remaining wild burros in the West reside in Arizona. Shockingly, their 

numbers have been dramatically reduced due to an abdication of the BLM’s responsibility to 

protect these animals. Management decisions have methodically reduced acreage available to 

the animals, and typically the population targets for the herds residing therein. In fact, wild 

horses and burros have lost nearly 20 million acres of habitat throughout the West due to 

piecemeal land use planning processes since the enactment of the 1971 WFHBA. Not once has 

the BLM considered the cumulative impacts of such losses. This DRMP/EIS is no exception 

despite the fact that the YFO manages more wild burros than any other single BLM field office. 

Response: YFO follows BLM Technical Reference 4400-7, Rangeland Monitoring, Analysis, 

Interpretation, and Evaluation, in the determination of desired grazing levels within any 

particular allotment or HMA. Range condition information is not necessary for determining 

AML2 or grazing capacities in the Sonoran Desert. Monitoring data relating to climate, actual 

use, and utilization have been collected since 1999 within the Cibola-Trigo HMA to ensure that 

existing populations of wildlife and wild horses and burros are within acceptable levels. Data 

collected have thus far supported the existing AML2s within the Cibola-Trigo HMA. Livestock 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

grazing occurs on approximately 30,000 acres within the HMA, and because there is limited 

habitat overlap, there have been no conflicts between wild horses and burros and livestock. 

Management continues to be in accordance with FLPMA and the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and 

Burro Act, as amended. NWRs do not fall under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 

1971 (PL 92-195). Should either of the NWRs on the Colorado River determine that any burro 

use on the NWR is contrary to their management goals and objectives, BLM would need to 

negotiate access points with them, or develop alternative water sources outside of the Refuge. At 

this time, this action is not necessary. 

Within the Cibola-Trigo HMA, much of the area is within lands withdrawn by the U.S. Army, 

through a Cooperative Management Agreement. Most constraints are related to BLM 

management activities. Within the HMA, there are few artificial water developments used by 

wild horses and burros. 

The discussion in Section 4.5.1 of the PRMP/FEIS was revised regarding accidents involving 

vehicles and horses and burros. There have been many accidents along U.S. 95 since 1979 

involving wild horses and burros. One resulted in the death of the occupants of the vehicle. 

However, these incidents have been dramatically reduced over the last six years. The larger 

health and safety concern is for the wild horses and burros and personnel on the YPG Kofa 

Firing Range. This is the portion of the HMA east of U.S. 95. This is a live fire and high 

explosive impact area on YPG. The potential of unexploded ordnance is high and endangers not 

only the animals, but personnel attempting management. We have also revised Section 2.10 to 

clarify that there are four HAs and seven HMAs in the State of Arizona, instead of in the YFO 

planning area.

National program guidance determines the numbers of animals currently in holding, the potential 

disposition of these animals, and the program’s costs. The PRMP/FEIS addresses actions and 

impacts to wild horses and burros within the Cibola-Trigo HMA, because this is the only HMA 

in the planning area. The populations of wild horses and burros would remain at the AML2

levels established in the 1980 Cibola-Trigo HMA Plan, and therefore the Proposed Plan would 

not contribute to a State- or nation-wide decrease in wild horse and burro populations. 

Comment 1059 (Animal Welfare Institute): BLM repeatedly ignores its regulatory mandate that 

wild horses and burros shall be considered comparably with other resource values in the 

formulation of land use plans. CFR 4700.06 (b). (Emphases added) Judging from most BLM 

land use plans, including the current DRMP/EIS, wild horses and burros are an afterthought in 

the process. Once the desired forage allocation for other species is calculated, wild horses and 

burros are left with the crumbs. The fact that the DRMP/EIS doesn’t even consider an increase 

in wild horse and burro AMLs in the Cibolo-Trigo HMA tends to confirm the inherent bias 

against these animals. Is there a balance of forage allocation between wildlife, livestock and 

wild horses and burros in the YFO? How many Animal Unit Months (AUMs) have been 

allocated for wild horses and burros in the planning area? for wildlife? for livestock? 

Conveniently, the BLM routinely omits this information and has never compiled a comparison 

chart of forage allocation for public dissemination. Perhaps this is due to the fact that forage 

allocation has historically and continues to be heavily skewed to favor “game” species and 

private livestock, at the expense of the public’s wild horses and burros. 

Page 5-88 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-89 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

The BLM would have the public believe that ongoing monitoring indicates no need to adjust the 

AMLs in Cibolo-Trigo HMA, yet the DRMP/EIS provides no relevant information to substantiate 

this position. At a minimum, a description of the monitoring methodology along with a detailed 

summary of results should have been provided in the DRMP/EIS for public review. If, for 

example, the monitoring fails to distinguish forage consumption patterns between different 

species of animals -- specifically between wild horses and burros, other wildlife species and 

livestock -- by analyzing their numbers and distribution at various times of the year, the concept 

of managing for a “thriving natural ecological balance” becomes meaningless. In other words, 

the public needs to know which animals are grazing where and when in order to be able to 

determine whether or not the wild horse and burro AMLs are justifiable and when and why they 

should be modified. 

Response: All actions within the PRMP/FEIS were developed in accordance with 43 CFR 

4700.0-6(b). Neither the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 nor the regulations 

require that an alternative increasing AML2 be part of our analysis, particularly when current 

monitoring data continue to support the existing AML2. The Cibola-Trigo HMA Plan established 

the AML2 based on available forage for wild horses and burros and other native wildlife. 

Subsequent forage utilization data and herd census data collected by YFO between 2000 and 

2006 is available upon request. 

Comment 1058 (Animal Welfare Institute): Countless other issues that warrant discussion are 

conspicuously absent from the DRMP/EIS. For example, the DRMP/EIS states that wild horses 

and burros would be managed in areas adjacent to the National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) on the 

Colorado River in accordance with “mutual agreements” established for resource protection to 

meet the National Refuge management objectives. (p. 2-76). This disclosure in the DRMP/EIS 

raises more questions than it answers. For example, which areas adjacent to NWRs are being 

used by wild horses and burros? How many acres do these areas encompass? What are the 

contents of the agreements? Are the National Refuge management objectives aligned with the 

federal protections provided to wild horses and burros on BLM lands? What was the level of 

public involvement in arriving at “mutual agreements?” How old are the agreements and have 

conditions changed? What are the “agreed upon” use levels? Have other forage species been 

identified? Can either agency (the BLM or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) nullify the 

agreements? What would this mean for the management and welfare of wild horses and burros? 

And most importantly, what are the grounds for the agreements in the first place? According to 

the DRMP/EIS, the NWRs are not included within the boundaries of the Cibolo-Trigo HMA. 

(p.2-76) All unanswered questions need to be addressed if the BLM expects the public to offer 

substantive comments. 

The DRMP/EIS further states that in January 1996, the BLM and Imperial NWR initiated a joint 

planning process for the Imperial and Trigo Mountains Wildernesses. Apparently, the presence 

of wild burros in the area was controversial, and a “Burro Subgroup” was formed to develop 

monitoring protocols and other management activities. Based upon the very brief description of 

the process, it appears that the BLM, NWR, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) and 

the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground (YPG) were involved. It is unclear whether or not any 

members of the general public and/or interest groups participated, but the recorded bias against 

wild burros and horses by the aforementioned agencies appears to have infected the BLM’s 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

judgment and jargon. Wild horses and burros are not “nuisance” animals as characterized in 

the DRMP/EIS (p. 4-40); they are federally protected animals who, as eloquently described in 

the preamble of the 1971 WFHBA, “contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation 

and enrich the lives of the American people ... And are to be considered where presently found, 

as an integral part of the natural system of public lands.” The DRMP/EIS further indicates that 

the Imperial/Trigo Plan has not been completed, but several “agreements and commitments” 

have been made that have guided wild burro management on the Cibolo-Trigo HMA since 1999 

(p. 3-46) AWI reminds the BLM that this joint planning process began 11 years ago and the 

management “agreements and commitments” are 8 years old. The agency is obliged to revisit 

these agreements and commitments or the agency must explain and provide supporting 

documentation why these decisions should no be revisited with full public involvement in the 

current development of a new RMP – i.e., the plan that will guide future management direction 

for all resources in the planning area. 

A perfect example of the need to revisit “the agreements and commitments” deals with the 

reliability of the censusing technique (Simultaneous Double Count) developed in 1999 by the 

YFO and AGFD and the aforementioned monitoring protocol developed in collaboration with 

the BLM, NWR, AGFD and YPG. The problems associated with current censusing methods are 

acknowledged by the BLM, and for this reason, the agency has teamed up with the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) to research more reliable counting methodologies. (See the following 

link: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/WildHorsePopulations/default.asp.) Relying on the existing 

census methodology has resulted in an estimate that the wild burro recruitment rate is 

approximately 16% annually, (p. 3-47) but again the validity of such an inference is highly 

suspect. Is the estimate accurate? If so, is this the typical growth rate? What is the average 

growth rate? What are the factors contributing to foal mortality? Do removals trigger 

reproduction? How do environmental factors affect reproductive potential? How have they 

affected reproductive potential in the Cibolo-Trigo HMA? The DRMP/EIS must evaluate the 

reliability of the censusing technique currently in use and evaluate alternative methodologies 

and combinations thereof. 

Research is also being conducted by the USGS Biological Research Discipline (BRD) in 

conjunction with the BLM and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS) on PZP fertility control, as an alternative or complement to 

removals and as a means to preserve genetic variability – another item that warranted analysis 

in the DRMP/EIS, but was omitted. 

Response: The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 specifies the definition of 

public lands as “any lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of 

Land Management...” and NWR lands are not within this definition. Without these agreements, 

AML2 would not be feasible.

The Simultaneous Double Count (SDC) is a technique widely used to census wildlife. It is used 

by the AGFD to census desert bighorn sheep. In 1999, Arizona BLM and AGFD formed a 

committee to look at census techniques for wild burros. Dr. Francis Singer was included in the 

initial meetings of the committee. The USGS study has basically accepted SDC as appropriate 

for burro counts, while they continue to study wild horse counts. The recruitment rate was 

determined through the evaluation of age data from animals removed, not census data.

Page 5-90 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-91 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Fertility control has not been advanced as an option for population control for wild burros by 

BLM. Due to low recruitment rates in the horse population, fertility control is also not an option 

for the wild horses in the Cibola-Trigo HMA. 

Public Concern 4: Federal Laws 

Comment 569: The sole and exclusive authority for where wild horses are to be managed is 

stated in the wild horse law. It says that the BLM must manage and protect wild-horses and 

burros where they existed in 1971, at the time the law passed. The only land-use decision 

authorized by the wild horse law is whether to designate an area where wild-horses and burros 

are known to have existed in 1971 as exclusive habitat for the animals, or as multiple-use land. 

Lands designated as multiple-use are to be managed "principally but not exclusively" for wild 

horses and burros. This does not mean that you take the horses off of the land and put thousands 

of sheep in their place! 

Comment 719: Public Law 92-195 should protect and provide for both [wild burros] and the 

wild horses where they were found at the passage of this act in 1971. 

Response: The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended, allows that the 

Secretary of the Interior “may designate and maintain specific ranges on public lands as 

sanctuaries for their protection and preservation, where the Secretary after consultation with the 

wildlife agency of the state wherein any such range is proposed.” Otherwise, they are to be 

managed “in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological 

balance.” (Section 3.(a) of PL 92-195). The PRMP/FEIS is in accordance with the Wild FreeRoaming Horse and Burro Act, as amended. Sheep grazing does not occur and is not authorized 

within the planning area, and there is a minimal amount of livestock use within the HMA. The 

Proposed Plan would continue managing for the existing AML2 and would not reduce the 

number of wild horses and burros in the planning area.

Comment 805: Under the Wild Horse and Burros Protection Act of the 1970's the Congress 

passed unanimously, these species have been designated American Heritage Species. As such 

they are entitled to certain rights and under the protection of that legislation. So, if government 

agencies and their employees proceed to ignore this legislation, they are ultimately putting 

themselves in the unavoidable path of potential litigation and consequences. If district managers 

such as yourself disagree with further up hierarchical decisions made concerning the demise and 

degradation of these species, there must be protocols within the chain of command to voice 

disagreement. 

Response: The alternatives within the PRMP/FEIS are in accordance with the Wild FreeRoaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended, as well as the regulations at 43 CFR 4700.

Comment 525 (American Trailhorse Assocation): The preservation of the wild herds horses 

and burros should be guaranteed in writing in perpetuity -- thus eliminating any back room 

dealings for the weak-willed humans on whom they must depend for help. An oversight group --

not made up of government people to check up on these points 3 times a year to make sure no 

one forgets what they are suppose to do. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Response: The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, PL 92-195, as amended 

provides protection of wild horses and burros, and the development of an Advisory Board. The 

PRMP/FEIS proposes nothing contrary to the mandates or constraints in the Act.

Public Concern 5: Water Resources 

Comment 721 (Cocopah Indian Tribe): ...during the hot summers when water tables recede, the 

horses and burros can detect water far off through their keen olfaction...when necessary, they 

are able to dig down to adequate underground sources, or to similarly enlarge tiny seeps so they 

can survive through critical dry periods of the year. This greatly benefits many other species of 

animals whose individual members would otherwise be unable to access water and would perish. 

Response: Within the Cibola-Trigo HMA, wild horses and burros during the summer are 

primarily found adjacent to the Colorado River where they water nightly. 

Comment 1027: No denial of access to all natural water sources currently utilized by wild 

horses and burros within the herd area boundaries, including the Colorado River. Proposals 

should include water requirements of wild horses and burros and allocations that provide for use 

at the currently established AML’s. Include planning that would insure water availability for 

below average rainfall and/or drought conditions. 

Development of new water sources in addition to current sources with site-specific proposals, 

projected types and numbers of water developments, supply capabilities, maintenance 

requirements and potential dangers or adverse impacts of those proposals. 

No fencing or restricted access to water sources that inhibits their free-roaming behavior, or 

that can potentially cause injury, harm or death due to inability to access water sources and 

recognize this possibility due to lack of necessary funding or available manpower required for 

maintenance. 

Response: There are no proposals in this PRMP/FEIS to deny access for wild horses and burros 

to water sources or to develop any specific new water sources. 

Comment 971: For wild horse and burro management: Variations in short term and/or long 

term climatologically conditions prevent setting AML "optimum numbers." Horses and burros 

are feral. Their presence in a lengthy drought would require supplemental feeding and watering 

if any given number are present. Any or all other native populations would be severely impacted 

or eliminated. Total removal of all horses and burros is the best scientific alternative. 

Response: To date, the YFO within the Cibola-Trigo HMA has never supplemented either water 

or feed to maintain the existing population. This would be contrary to the intent and letter of the 

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (PL 92-195). No data, specific to the CibolaTrigo HMA, has been presented wherein wild horses or burros have adversely impacted native 

populations. 

Page 5-92 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-93 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Public Concern 6: Livestock Grazing 

Comment 793: The BLM needs to take care of the wild horses and burros. The preservation of 

these animals needs to be a higher priority than the sheep and cattle that take the horses land. 

Comment 940: BLM seems to be giving preferential treatment to private ranching interests in 

favor of all Americans who have a strong interest in maintaining wild horse herds on public 

lands. 

Response: Livestock grazing occurs on a small portion of the HMA with a season of use from 

November through April. Under the Proposed Plan, grazing allotments within lands available for 

grazing would be classified as ephemeral or perennial/ephemeral. According to the Special 

Ephemeral Rule found in Appendix 2-D, livestock grazing would not be authorized in the 

planning area during drought conditions; however, wild horses and burros would continue to 

utilize forage within the HMA.

Public Concern 7: Genetic Diversity 

Comment 808: Do you have current mtDNA and heterozygosity data on the wild horse and 

burro herds there in Arizona? If not, you should not proceed with any further reductions until 

you know that the removals will not have an adverse effect on genetic variability. It is also my 

recommendation that you should stay away from some of these long term birth control drugs that 

could effectively destroy herd structure. 

Response: DNA data has been collected on wild burros for several years in the Cibola-Trigo 

HMA. There is no DNA data available on the wild horses at the current time. The PRMP/FEIS 

does not anticipate the use of fertility control in YFO due to the extreme environmental 

conditions.

Comment 1020: No further reductions in appropriate management levels (AML’s). The currently 

established AML’s conform to recognized population levels that assure genetic viability and 

prevent inbreeding. Any reductions would compromise this conformance and affect the selfsustaining abilities of the populations. 

Response: The AML2s would continue at the same levels originally established in the CibolaTrigo Management Plan (USDOI BLM 1980). Any future adjustments in the AML2s would be 

based upon monitoring data being collected. 

Public Concern 8: Habitat/Vegetation Composition 

Comment 1028: Due to the prolific amount of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Wildlife 

Refuges, Conservation Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Military Installations, elevation and 

terrain factors, etc., provide actual habitat, rangeland forage production and water availability 

that can realistically be utilized by wild horse and burro populations within the HMAs. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Response: The HMA, as proposed by this PRMP/FEIS, contains all resources necessary to 

maintain the AML2 for horses and burros within the Cibola-Trigo HMA.

Public Concern 9: Specially Listed Species 

Comment 1029: Clearly describe and provide supporting data regarding documented effects of 

wild horses and burros in areas that are of special concern or require specialized management 

such as desert tortoise habitat. Generalized statements that they “may” effect a resource without 

supporting data is insufficient to justify extreme management actions that are known to have 

permanent, adverse consequences to wild horses and burros or their habitat requirements. 

Provide classification of threats to desert tortoise and other species that require special 

management attention expressed as percentages of expected affects and their priorities; e.g. 

habitat fragmentation-30%, raven depredation-17%, and so on. If necessary to reduce impacts 

to other species within affected areas, provide data and documentation of those impacts and 

propose plans that establish livestock reductions or removals taking precedence over wild horse 

and burro reductions or removals. 

Response: Any future implementation level, site-specific actions in response to protected species 

which would affect wild horses and burros would be analyzed in subsequent, site-specific NEPA 

analysis and would be subject to public review.

Comment 1000 (ADWR): P. 4-114, F. It does not seem likely that feral horse and burro use of 

the planning area is likely to be precluded by other uses in the foreseeable future. Adverse 

impacts of feral horses and burros on native vegetation are more of an issue. 

Response: Management of wild horses and burros by law and regulation, includes the collection 

of monitoring data to ensure that adverse impacts to habitat do not occur.

Public Concern 10: Future Generations, Legacy Values 

Comment 534: Our wild horses and burros are a part of our heritage and a national treasure. 

They made the exploration and settlement of America possible. 

Comment 816: They are an icon for the west and for you to not provide for their best interest 

would be shameful. 

Comment 842: Wild horses and burros "contribute to the diversity of life forms within the nation 

and enrich the lives of the American people." 

Response: The BLM does consider wild horses and burros to be an important heritage resource. 

The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act provides appropriate protection of habitat utilized 

as of 1971 and would continue to do so.

Public Concern 11: Animal Rights, Ethical Treatment 

Comment 561: Stop the slaughter! 

Page 5-94 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-95 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Comment 686: Many populations have been subjected to "culling" with great suffering on the 

part of individual animals. I ask you to give these animals the full protection they deserve in 

Arizona. 

Comment 759: The BLM has hired wranglers that have tortured and kicked burros. There is a 

video the rescue groups are sharing showing a wrangler hired by BLM kicking the head of 

burros during a round up, and baby burros legs tightly tied and screaming in agony. This is 

animal abuse and in the state of Arizona, is a crime subject to fines and prison. It certainly leads 

to a lack of trust in the agency given the responsibility to care [for] the wild horses and burros. 

Response: The YFO follows national BLM policies for removals and adoption processes. If you 

would like more information about the Wild Horse and Burro program please refer to our 

national web page at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro.1.html. 

Comment 1252: Inhumane methods of gathering these animals should be eliminated, including 

helicopter round ups and other use of motorized vehicles...these are living organisms, not 

machines. 

Response: The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended, authorizes the 

use of helicopters to assist in removal of wild horses and burros. The BLM conducts gathers in 

the most humane way possible to ensure the safety of not only personnel, but the animals. 

Within the State of Arizona, very few animals are seriously injured or die as a direct result of 

removal operations.

Public Concern 12: Other Adjacent Federal Lands 

Comment 1462 (YPG): On page 2-76 and 2-157, although the HMA is to be reduced by 

approximately 30%, the AML is proposed to remain 165 and 150 for burros and horses, 

respectively. I recommend YPG be collaborated with in periodic population and habitat 

monitoring, water development projects, and decisions regarding changes to AML, as much of 

the HMA is on YPG and horse and burro management has the potential to impact military 

mission, personnel safety, and management of other wildlife on the installation. 

Response: The YFO will continue to work collaboratively with YPG in accordance with 

existing agreements.

Comment 1023: Provide specific information regarding management plans of wild burros within 

the Imperial and Cibola NWR’s. This would include impacts and reasons for proposals and 

specific, detailed plans that clearly delineate why “minimizing burro use within these areas” is 

necessary and what those plans entail.

Response: The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended, authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to manage wild horses and burros on public lands under the jurisdiction 

of the BLM. NWRs are not part of herd management areas or herd areas as authorized under the 

law. Therefore, these NWRs acknowledge that access to the Colorado River is necessary but 

does not meet the agency objectives for the refuges, and have agreed to allow access with 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

minimum impact to the refuge.

10. Visual Resources Management 

Public Concern 1: Clarification of Information 

Comment 1034 (YVRGC): We are not aware of any detailed description of what is specifically 

allowed or disallowed in any of the VRM classifications. Without the knowledge of how these 

classifications might impact the lands, we cannot advocate their use, and we are therefore 

opposed to the use of VRM classifications within this document. 

Response: FLPMA requires the BLM to maintain a working inventory of the scenic values of 

the public lands, and the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook requires the BLM to designate 

VRM classifications. The purpose of VRM classifications are to identify, evaluate, and 

determine the appropriate management of the public lands’ scenic values. BLM Handbooks on 

VRM and Visual Resource Inventory (8400 and 8410-1) provide guidance on the classification 

and management of visual values on the public lands, and are available online or upon request. 

Desired Future Conditions for each of the four VRM classes are outlined in Section 2.13.

Comment 1011 (City of Yuma): In reference to the Visual resource classifications II and III, 

which includes the Gila Mountains area. It is recommended that the eastern (Wellton side) and 

western portions (Yuma side) of the Gila Mountains area be managed in similar management 

procedures. Low to moderate changes in landscape characteristics on BLM land should include 

minimal surface disturbance. 

Response: All alternatives of the PRMP/FEIS propose to designate most of the highest peaks of 

the Gila Mountains as a VRM Class II, where changes to the characteristic landscape should be 

low and changes should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Public lands within the 

Gila Mountains already encumbered by I-8 and the Telegraph Pass Communications Site are 

proposed as VRM Class III. Under the Proposed Plan, non-mountainous public lands on the 

eastern and western side of the Gila Mountains are proposed as VRM Class III.

Public Concern 2: Wildlife Structures 

Comment 1187 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): With the preferred alternative we are 

concerned with the significant increase in Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class 2 lands 

from previous Class 3 lands. It remains unclear if this enhanced VRM classification will become 

an obstacle or burden to wildlife conservation activities such as maintaining and constructing 

wildlife water catchments. We would hope that the Final RMP would more clearly articulate 

what is allowed or prohibited within these varied VRM classifications so that there are no future 

misunderstandings. VRM classifications should not be an obstacle to the activity but rather a 

prescription on how it is to be conducted. 

Response: BLM and the AGFD would continue to coordinate on potential wildlife conservation 

activities, such as maintaining and constructing wildlife water catchments. The purpose of VRM 

classifications is to prescribe how impacts to visual resources should be mitigated. As wildlife 

water catchments are increasingly being constructed or enhanced to better blend into the 

Page 5-96 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-97 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

surrounding landscape, it is doubtful that a VRM Class II allocation would preclude such a 

project from taking place. All VRM class objectives are considered national BLM policy, and 

the YFO does not have the authority to include additional allowances for each respective VRM 

class as suggested. 

11. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Public Concern 1: Adequacy of Analysis 

Comment 1182 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): With a combined total of 167,800 

acres there is already enough designated BLM wilderness within this planning area and the 

DRMP/DEIS presents no justifiable or documented need to provide additional opportunities for 

solitude, naturalness and primitive recreation by establishing new MWC land allocations within 

the Yuma planning area. In addition, the cumulative effect of other huge expanses of designated 

wilderness within the boundaries of this planning area, i.e., the KOFA and Cabeza Prieta 

wilderness areas should have been included in the analysis. 

Response: The primary purpose of identifying lands with wilderness characteristics is to 

maintain existing opportunities to experience naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined 

types of recreation, not to provide additional opportunities for these experiences. Section 4.15.P 

of the PRMP/FEIS has been updated to include the cumulative impacts from the existence of 

other designated Wilderness Areas within and adjacent to the planning area, including the Kofa 

and Cabeza Prieta Wildernesses. However, the identification of lands with wilderness 

characteristics has not been included as an impact to public access because the Proposed Plan of 

the PRMP/FEIS does not propose to alter existing motorized or non-motorized access within 

these areas.

Comment 848: When the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act was passed, the following areas, Little 

Horn Mountains, Little Horn Mountains West, and the East Clanton Hills were specifically 

deemed unsuitable for wilderness, inventoried by the BLM and did not qualify. They were 

inventoried for solitude, naturalness, and primitive unconfined recreation. The exact same 

qualities as defined under the MW's on page 2-105...the Little Horn Mountains, Little Horn 

Mountains West, and the East Clanton Hills should not be included for the MW's because these 

areas were specifically referenced in the law as having been inventoried by the BLM and deemed 

to be unsuitable, qualities were not of sufficient value. 

Response: BLM policy outlined in IM No. 2003-275 – Change 1 does not preclude 

identification of previously inventoried areas.

Comment 1100 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Affected Environment section 3.10 

Wilderness Characteristics. In May of 2004 and again in August of 2005 the Arizona Wilderness 

Coalition submitted recommendations to the Yuma BLM during the process that outlined which 

lands we recommended be evaluated for wilderness characteristics based on our analysis and 

how this could be carried out. In both sets of comments we reiterated our recommendations 

based on the policy direction given under IM No. 2003-275-Change 1 that all three wilderness 

characteristics need not be outstanding in order to protect one or more elements of wilderness 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

character in a given unit. Please review our previous comments for a detailed review of our 

previous rationale. 

Comment 1181 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): It is our firm belief that Section 102 of 

the 1990 Arizona Desert Wilderness Act (ADWA) clearly released these and all other BLM lands 

within Arizona from further wilderness consideration and to peck away at this fundamental 

understanding with the establishment of MWC’s further erodes any remaining trust that we 

might have regarding wilderness. The current advancement of MWC’s is clearly a move by the 

wilderness lobby to administratively gain more wilderness ground from lands that were 

inventoried previously and found not to contain wilderness character. Further advancing 

additional wilderness preservation with the MWC land allocation betrays the basic tenants of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that prescribes management for multiple 

use and sustained yield and only a single wilderness inventory iteration. For BLM lands that 

inventory was completed with the ADWA in 1990. By definition true natural wilderness cannot 

be manufactured but that is essentially what BLM is errantly attempting to do by establishing 

MWC land allocations.

Response: Policy outlined in IM No. 2003-275 – Change 1 authorizes BLM to consider 

wilderness characteristics in land use planning decisions when BLM determines that those 

characteristics are reasonably present, of sufficient value and need, and are practical to manage. 

Alternative D of the DRMP/DEIS and PRMP/FEIS proposed and analyzed identifying 301,200 

acres of public lands to maintain wilderness characteristics. 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 restriction 

(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 Proposed 

Plan of the PRMP/FEIS proposes to identify 48,400 acres of land to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. Under the Proposed Plan, other lands were not identified to maintain wilderness 

characteristics primarily due to the impracticality of maintaining wilderness characteristics on 

additional acreages within the planning area. In addition, the BLM, Kofa NWR, Imperial NWR, 

and Cabeza Prieta NWR collectively manage approximately 1,366,200 acres of designated 

Wilderness within or adjacent to the planning area where wilderness values are already 

statutorily maintained. Under the Proposed Plan, a majority of the lands proposed by the 

Arizona Wilderness Coalition that are not identified to maintain wilderness characteristics are 

proposed as VRM Class II, a Desert Mountains WHA, the Palomas Plain WHA, and/or a 

Wildlife Movement Corridor WHA. All of these proposed allocations prescribe Management 

and Administrative Actions to protect the natural, cultural, and visual resource values of these 

lands. 

Comment 1382 (AGFD): Page 2-175, Table 2-32, 2nd row, Preferred Alternative, RMP 

Statement-None identified: There will probably be impacts to wilderness characteristics during 

hunting seasons. 

Response: Table 2-32 of the PRMP/FEIS was revised and impacts of hunting were reconsidered 

as a cumulative impact and impact to wilderness characteristics from recreation. 

Page 5-98 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-99 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Public Concern 2: Clarity of Information 

Comment 1097 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Table 2-28 Wilderness Characteristics 

Management Actions by Alternative. We would like to see management actions more similar to 

that described in AWC’s comment letter submitted April 11th 2005. A clarification is needed in 

the table or on page 2-107 regarding the Project Criteria. The first cell of table 2-28 addresses 

surface-disturbing activities and in parentheses at the end of this section the reader is directed to 

the Project Criteria. It is unclear if the Project Criteria applies to all management actions or just 

this one. We are generally supportive of these management actions only under the application of 

the Project Criteria to all actions. Please clarify in the final document. 

Response: The document was clarified so that there is a clearer connection between the Project 

Criteria and the first Management Action in Table 2-28. 

Public Concern 3: Laws and Policies 

Comment 847: On page 2-104 of the RMP it states, "...to be managed to maintain wilderness 

characteristics in LUPs and prescribing goals, objectives, and management actions that would 

maintain the wilderness characteristics." BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601), 

Appendix C, page 12, item K, states, "Identify decisions to protect or preserve wilderness 

characteristics..."It is clear that BLM has the authority to manage MWC's to maintain and 

protect qualities. However, under the desired future conditions on page 2-105 it states, 

"...maintained or enhanced." BLM does not have the authority to enhance MWC's. Maintaining 

and enhancing are not the same, and if BLM thinks they have the authority to enhance they 

should provide proof of this authority in the RMP. 

An example of this difference can be found in the management actions on page 2-106. "Reclaim 

sites and areas affected by human activities when such places are no longer needed for 

authorized land uses." This is clearly an enhancement, much more than maintaining to protect 

and preserve. This action should be removed. MWC's are already pressing legal limits; BLM 

must adhere strictly to the exact direction of the guidance provided. 

Comment 1375 (AGFD): Page 2-105 and 2-172, 2.14 Desired Future Conditions, RMP 

Statement-“wilderness characteristics would be managed to be maintained or enhanced.” 

Please remove the word ‘enhance’. The referenced Instruction Memoranda (IM) on wilderness 

characteristics (page 2-104) provides national guidance on considering wilderness 

characteristics in the land use planning process. The IM states, “lands with wilderness 

characteristics may be managed to protect and/or preserve some or all of these characteristics.” 

The word “enhance” is not used in the national IM. The Department believes there is a 

significant difference between managing to protect and preserve, and managing to enhance. 

Therefore, Desired Future Conditions (DFSs) and management prescriptions to enhance 

wilderness characteristics are outside of the scope of the national IM guidance and policy. We 

believe managing to enhance wilderness characteristics is inconsistent with national policy and 

all references to enhancing wilderness characteristics should be removed from the document. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Response: The references to “enhancing” wilderness characteristics have been removed from the 

PRMP/FEIS. However, the BLM will continue to meet its statutory obligations to enhance 

resource values across all public lands within the planning area over the life of the RMP. The 

enhancement of the resource values of the public lands is one of the core responsibilities of the 

BLM. FLPMA of 1976 is titled “An Act to establish public land policy; to establish guidelines 

for its administration; to provide for the management, protection, development, and enhancement 

of the public lands; and for other purposes.” In addition, Arizona BLM policy outlined in IM 

AZ-2005-007, State Director Guidance for Arizona Land Use Planning Efforts, instructs field 

offices to describe Desired Future Conditions for wilderness characteristics using the verbs 

“maintain, enhance or manage.” Therefore, the BLM is authorized by both statute and policy to 

“reclaim sites and areas affected by human activities when such places are no longer needed for 

authorized land uses” when land use planning decisions have been made to preserve and protect 

opportunities to experience naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined types of 

recreation. As required under NEPA, the BLM would consider future proposals to enhance 

identified wilderness characteristics on a case-by-case basis in cooperation with other interested 

stakeholders.

Comment 1184 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): If BLM believes that these lands 

contain natural resources worthy of protection and preservation we would suggest that you 

instead identify them as ‘wonderful areas’ and provide protection with the same existing palate 

of management tools and prescriptions. If the stated intentions of MWC’s are true and sincere 

then the word ‘wilderness’ is not needed and it could easily be removed from the term. We 

therefore must request, once again, that any reference and use of the word ‘wilderness’ be 

removed from this land use allocation description. Any further reluctance to do so only confirms 

our fears that this new land allocation is akin to administratively creating more wilderness and 

that the resulting management practices employed by BLM staff in the future will be found 

unlawful. 

Response: Though your suggestion has merit, the YFO must follow Arizona BLM policy 

outlined in IM AZ-2004-021. This policy suggests naming these areas as “lands with wilderness 

characteristics or areas having wilderness characteristics...” This memo was developed to 

provide some consistency to the way these lands are identified throughout the different BLM 

field offices within the State. Management actions outlined in Table 2-28 propose how lands 

with wilderness characteristics would be managed in the YFO. These actions are not akin to 

management under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Comment 422: Wilderness Characteristics should not be designated in the plan... Wilderness 

Characteristics are unlawful as they were evaluated by congress for wilderness designation in 

1990 and did not meet the designating criteria. This could possibly result in a congressional 

inquiry. 

Comment 1033 (YVRGC): The Club is opposed to all areas in this Plan and others throughout 

the state, to be managed for wilderness characteristics. These lands have already been 

considered for Wilderness designation, as Wilderness Study Areas, and were not shown to 

exhibit the character of Wilderness at that time. We firmly believe that no further consideration 

should be given to these lands for any special land use designations. 

Page 5-100 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-101 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Comment 1180 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): The [Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Society] ADBSS remains fundamentally opposed to the new land allocation that prescribes 

management to Maintain Wilderness Characteristics (MWC). This implied designation is akin to 

establishing a wilderness minded management mentality for lands that have not been formally 

identified by Congress as worthy of wilderness designation or study. Our organization has 

decades of experience with wilderness and the full compliment of varied wilderness management 

practices it yields. This experience has shown that wilderness, and wilderness management in 

particular, has done more harm than good to Arizona’s wildlife populations. The real or 

perceived restrictions associated with wilderness management have become unbearable 

obstacles to active wildlife management and conservation activities. 

Comment 906: BLM must remember not to take or propose any action that effectively imposes 

Wilderness under the guise of managing for wilderness characteristics and or primitive 

recreation. Should this occur, and said actions become final, they will be unlawful. 

Response: The YFO followed BLM policy outlined in IM No. 2003-275 – Change 1, when 

developing proposals to identify lands with wilderness characteristics. Lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed according to the management prescriptions included in Table 

2-28 and not according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 or under the non-impairment standards of 

Wilderness Study Areas.

Public Concern 4: Wildlife Management 

Comment 1183 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): As a consequence of our deep 

aversion to MWC’s we respectfully must object to the creation of the two MWC allocations 

identified in the preferred alternative (48,400 acres total and apparently located in the Little 

Horn, Palomas and Tank Mtns.) because of the unknown impacts to future wildlife conservation 

activities. There simply does not appear to be sufficient implementation level guidance to allow 

an accurate evaluation of the impacts to active wildlife 

Response: Table 2-28 in Section 2.14 lists several management actions specifically meant to 

provide additional implementation-level guidance within lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Wildlife management activities would not be precluded within lands with wilderness 

characteristics. BLM would continue to coordinate with the AGFD to ensure that all wildlife 

management activities remain compatible with both agencies’ respective missions. 

Comment 1377 (AGFD): Page 2-106, Table 2-28, 3rd row, RMP Statement-Authorize new 

structures...: We recommend adding this action to the preferred alternative. 

Response: YFO removed this Management Action from the PRMP/FEIS because it was 

redundant with the first Management Action listed in Table 2-28. According to this Management 

Aaction, new structures, including roads and trails, could be approved if they meet the project 

criteria associated with Table 2-28. 

Comment 1378 (AGFD): Page 2-106, Table 2-28 Management Actions, RMP Statement-None: 

The Department recommends adding a management action that states: Allow for wildlife, 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

wildlife waters, and wildlife habitat management actions. 

Response: YFO considered your comment but made no revisions to the indicated Management 

Action in the PRMP/FEIS. The activities you describe are allowed in Section 2.14 Management 

Action #1 for wilderness characteristics.

Public Concern 5: Roads, Trails, and Transportation System 

Comment 308: Areas with wilderness characteristics should be protected and not allowed to 

degrade because of OHV or other adverse effects. 

Response: Table 2-28 in section 2.14 identifies several Management Actions the BLM would 

use to maintain wilderness characteristics.

Subconcern: Protection of Public Access

Comment 1303 (Huachuca Hiking Club): On page 2-105, Table 2-27 shows that 48,400 acres 

are proposed for management of wilderness characteristics in the preferred alternative, 

representing an area in the Little Horn Mountains and an area in the Palomas Mountains. From 

a regional perspective, it should be noted that the YFO planning area already includes 167,800 

acres of Congressionally designated wilderness, plus adjacent lands within the Kofa National 

Wildlife Refuge include another 546,700 acres of Congressionally designated wilderness. There 

are many who feel that adding more lands for management of wilderness characteristics will 

further reduce the range of recreational opportunities that draw visitors to the area, and that 

resources could be better applied to management and protection of the Congressionally 

designated wilderness areas. Also, it may be possible for BLM to manage the Little Horn 

Mountains and Palomas Mountains using the recreation opportunity spectrum to achieve the 

same intent, i.e., manage for a unique niche as a primitive recreation management zone. If these 

areas are proposed for management of wilderness characteristics in the Final RMP, suggest 

that, as a general rule, existing routes that border or lie within these areas remain a part of the 

transportation network to ensure adequate public access to these areas.

Comment 1098 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Convert old vehicle routes to use for 

bicycles, equestrian, and hiking. Allow primitive and unconfined recreational activities not 

bicycles, which is a form of mechanical transport that does not fall under primitive recreation. 

The IM 2003-275 clearly describes opportunities for primitive recreation as “where the use of 

the area is through non-motorized, non-mechanical means, and where no or minimal developed 

recreation facilities are encountered.” The preferred alternative should prohibit mountain bikes 

in areas managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Response: The Proposed Plan does not propose to close any existing inventoried motorized 

routes within the 48,400 acres of lands identified to maintain wilderness characteristics. During 

the development of future Travel Management Plans, all inventoried routes, including the 

individual routes within lands with wilderness characteristics, would be systematically evaluated 

according to the criteria outlined in Section 2.12.2.B of the PRMP/FEIS. The public will be 

provided with additional opportunities to participate in the development of the future Travel 

Management Plans. 

Page 5-102 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-103 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

11. Law and Policy Enforcement 

Comment 453: Monitor [the desert's] use and prosecute the offenders. 

Comment 966: We believe there should more enforcement of existing laws. 

Comment 1197 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): We would also hope that the Yuma 

Field Office could better channel their law enforcement efforts towards natural resource 

protection rather than relying on additional restriction and closures. 

Comment 1306: There must be a strict law enforcement policy with substantial fines to ensure 

compliance of legal OHV use on designated roads following the "closed unless open" rule. 

Response: The YFO makes every attempt to enforce the rules and regulations for public lands 

with the resources available. Monitoring public lands for any type of illegal activities, including 

vandalism and looting of cultural resources, as well as damage from unauthorized OHV use, is 

an ongoing and challenging task and BLM shares this responsibility with other land managers as 

well as State, county, and local agencies. Due to the limited staff resources, large and remote 

areas to monitor, and variety of criminal activity, BLM must rely on the public’s assistance and 

volunteers such as the Arizona Site Steward Program to report illegal activity and degradation on 

public lands. Cross-country vehicle travel is prohibited by Arizona and California State law and 

Federal policy.

Comment 234: The laws, there is no laws really for off-roaders. At least they’re not being 

enforced. You’re talking about the development areas in here, but you only have about like 1 

ranger to cover about what, in Needles they only have 1 ranger, I heard about Yuma only had 1 

rangers. You think they can handle all of this? You don’t think that our areas are going to be 

destroyed? They’re getting destroyed and their pretty well destroyed but our group here, we’re 

trying our best and we’re going to do our job is to try to protect these areas. Hopefully the BLM 

will work with us or we can work hand in hand. Like those intaglios there, they’re not, all the 

figures out there are still not fixed, they’re still not protected. That whole area’s not 

protected....The Chemehuevi Birthing Rock, people hunt out there all the time and they come see 

this, for I understand, deers and chutlers, quails and doves, just go out there. And a lot of time 

you just got hunters from the other side of the mountains, they shoot at anything that moves, and 

don’t even move, they’ll still shoot at it. I didn’t feel happy about when I went to one of these 

meetings, about hunters going into the area, and I explained why. And I’m going to explain to 

you, too. The birthing rock area to us is like a church, special areas of prayer, and it don’t feel 

good that they come out and hunt at our church area. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS contains Management Actions in Section 2.15 to manage and 

protect cultural resources. BLM will continue to work with Native American tribes to identify 

and protect traditional use areas and sacred sites from recreational impacts.

Comment 647: In managing people there must be enforcement of rules and regulations. We 

have witnessed speeding in the LTVA areas. We have witnessed the results of dumping black 

and gray water from an RV in all areas, 14 day areas, LTVA areas and in other BLM areas. We 

have witnessed RVs parked all winter in 14 day areas. Some are in locations over a mile from 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

paved highways. We have seen pick up trucks with 50 or 100 gallon water tanks filling at South 

La Posa. They don't seem to return 50 or 100 gallons of waste water. 

Response: Violations of public land rules and regulations should be immediately reported to the 

BLM YFO at 2555 East Gila Ridge Road, Yuma, Arizona 85365 or at (928) 317-3200.

Comment 377: In the 10 plus years I have been traveling the desert in the Quartzsite area, I 

have encountered no enforcement officers, how do you propose to enforce any new regulations 

and trail closures? 

Comment 1305: As a former federal law enforcement officer (LEO) who enforced OHV type 

laws, I know BLM officers would never be able to patrol and enforce the widespread traffic on 

new roads. The agency’s LEO program is markedly understaffed and increased staffing with 

dedicated field LEOs is critical. 

Response: As with all proposals included in the PRMP/FEIS, implementation, planning, 

monitoring, and enforcement of travel management policies would be completed as staff levels 

and Federal funding from the President’s budget allow.

D. ACCESS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

1. Transportation System Management 

Public Concern 1: Adequacy of Analysis 

Subconcern: Natural Resources

Comment 1109 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The DRMP/DEIS contains little 

evidence that the BLM’s proposed ORV Management Area designations would do much, if 

anything, to reverse the currently unacceptable status quo with respect to damaging ORV use. 

Examples of the extent and magnitude of on-going ORV-related degradation that would continue 

under the Preferred Alternative is evident in numerous places throughout text of the 

DRMP/DEIS and are summarized in Appendix A. Yet the ORV Management designations under 

the Preferred Alternative would do nothing to prevent or reverse the trend of ORV-related 

degradation in the short term. Moreover, relying on a policy that would limit ORV use 

throughout most of the planning area to “Existing Roads and Trails” (pending official route 

designation in a series of forthcoming Travel Management Plans) is similar to the BLM’s failed 

strategy as applied in the existing RMPs. As a result, the Preferred Alternative fails to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation of public land resources and does little to minimize the 

adverse impacts of ORV use. 

Comment 419: BLM wants to close roads, does not provide impact analysis of open roads. 

Where are the impacts? 

Response: The ecological impacts of roads and OHV travel is acknowledged throughout Chapter 

4 in sections such as Impacts to Wildlife Management, Vegetation Management, and Cultural 

Resource Management from Travel and Recreation Management. Through Management 

Page 5-104 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-105 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Actions found in Chapter 2 of this PRMP/FEIS, we attempt to minimize the ecological impacts 

from OHVs by limiting travel to existing inventoried roads in order to reduce further route 

proliferation. In addition, several additional Closed OHV Management Areas are included in the 

Proposed Plan in order to protect soils, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and cultural resources from 

degradation. 

BLM considered the cumulative impacts of existing motorized access policies on surrounding 

agency lands, including those of the Kofa NWR, Imperial NWR, Cibola NWR, Cabeza Prieta 

NWR, YPG, and the BMGR when developing the OHV Management Area proposals included in 

the PRMP/FEIS. The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS proposes to designate 5,100 acres of new 

Closed OHV Management Areas for resource protection purposes, which would result in the 

closure of six miles of inventoried routes. The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS proposes to 

limit motorized travel to 4,600 miles of existing inventoried routes across approximately 

1,145,100 acres, or 88 percent of the BLM-administered lands within the planning area.

Comment 1157 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Habitat Fragmentation from Roads: 

Travel Planning Methods to Safeguard Bureau of Land Management Lands. The Wilderness 

Society. May 2006. 

Key Points: 

• Habitat fragmentation from roads presents a major threat to the survival of wildlife 

populations throughout the United States. 

• In the United States, the public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

provide much of the remaining intact habitat— untouched by roads and unaffected by 

fragmentation from human activities—for a wide variety of species, particularly in the West. 

• The travel management planning process provides the most logical and effective context within 

which to evaluate the current level of habitat fragmentation and take steps to reduce it. 

• Robust and well-accepted metrics exist to measure habitat fragmentation and help design 

strategies to protect and improve wildlife habitat. 

• Measuring and addressing habitat fragmentation is consistent with the BLM’s legal obligations 

and its duties as a steward of the public lands. 

• The BLM can and should use various analytical methods as part of its travel management 

planning process to ensure that decisions are based on an understanding of existing habitat 

fragmentation and its impacts on wildlife, and to develop road networks that will minimize 

future habitat fragmentation. 

Response: YFO will work closely with State wildlife agencies and use various analytical 

methods during the development of Travel Management Plans to minimize habitat 

fragmentation.

Comment 317: The BLM's preferred alternative simply does not consider these impacts in the 

analysis of environmental consequences to cultural, natural, and even long term economic 

factors. There's nothing wrong with providing road access to the public lands, but the preferred 

alternative leaves way too many ORV routes open and only closes 1,100 acres of land to OHV 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

travel while opening an additional 2,000 acres to cross country travel.

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS does not propose to designate any additional 

acres of Open OHV Management Areas. This would prevent additional impacts to natural and 

cultural resources from allowing cross-country vehicle travel within these areas. The Proposed 

Plan also proposes to designate 5,100 acres of Closed OHV Management Areas to protect soils, 

wildlife habitat, vegetation, and cultural resources from motorized use. 

Comment 1118: The DRMP/DEIS Does Not Adequately Address the Impact of ORV Travel in 

Washes. In all the Travel Management sections wash/arroyo travel is only addressed in 2.12.2 

by stating that all drivable washes that are not addressed in the route designation process will be 

closed to travel. Allowing wash travel causes damage to wildlife habitat and causes direct 

disturbance to many species. Because of the increase in vegetation and down cutting around 

washes they provide thermal cover for wildlife during the hot summer months and normally have 

the highest abundance of forage, nesting habitat, and access to water during other times of year. 

Many users believe driving in washes is the least damaging to the environment because when it 

rains tire tracks disappear and there is no significant erosion evident, but they fail to realize that 

such use causes direct disturbance to wildlife and results in compaction of soils in washes as 

well as erosion where routes enter and leave washes. The BLM must address wash travel in the 

affected environment section of the EIS and close all washes to motorized vehicles in the 

preferred alternative, except in situations where major routes either cross or travel in washes for 

short distances. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS includes an inventory of roads, trails, drivable desert washes, and 

other linear features within the planning area. All routes will be evaluated and designated within 

subsequent Travel Management Plans based on the evaluation criteria listed in Section 2.12.2.B. 

The YFO will consider the impacts of motorized travel within desert washes at this time. In 

addition, the impacts from motorized travel to wildlife and wildlife habitat, including within 

desert washes, has been updated in Section 4.4.B.4 of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Subconcern: Air Quality 

Comment 1159 (EPA): Based on our review, we have rated the DEIS as Environmental 

Concerns--Insufficient Information (EC-2) (see enclosed “Summary of Ratings”). We have 

concerns regarding environmental impacts from off-highway vehicles (OHV), particularly in 

non-attainment areas, and the lack of clarity on the BLM OHV Travel Management Network 

planning process. 

To address air quality impacts, EPA recommends restricting OHV use in non-attainment areas 

and implementing mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of OHV use to air quality. EPA 

specifically recommends that the BLM not open the Blaisdell OHV Management Area because of 

potential air quality and habitat impacts. 

Comment 1150 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): BLM Directive: ORV “Areas...shall be 

located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or other resources of the public 

lands (43 CFR §8342.1(a) emphasis added). 

Page 5-106 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-107 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

ORV-Related Damage that Would Not be Minimized through Implementation of BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative. “The majority of (air pollutant) emissions in Yuma and La Paz counties 

are attributed to off-highway vehicles, OHV, and miscellaneous sources” (page 3-7). According 

to Table 3-4, OHV use represents the number one source of PM2.5 in both counties and the 

highest source of PM10 in Yuma County. For all other pollutants listed, OHVs are second only 

to emissions from vehicles on local highways. These emissions include VOCs, NOX, CO, and 

SO2. 

Support of Claim that Damage Would Not be Minimized. The DRMP/DEIS states that two new 

Open OHV Management areas totaling 1,600 acres included within the Preferred Alternative 

would be located within the PM10 non-attainment area (page 4-8). It then includes the statement 

that “it is unknown if increased dust emissions would occur from Open OHV Management Area 

designation because of the existing use of the areas.” This statement conflicts with text located 

elsewhere in the DRMP/DEIS that states “The interaction of OHV users with the landscape 

would increase with an increase in Open OHV Management Areas” (p 4-103) and with 

assumptions listed in Section 4.15, Cumulative Impacts, of the DRMP/DEIS that state 

recreational uses will continue to increase on BLM-administered lands into the foreseeable 

future (page 4-111).The section on Cumulative Impacts also contains the following statement; 

“If popularity of OHV traffic continues, particulates and dust in popular recreational areas may 

exceed standards during periods of extensive use” (page 4-112). However, no statement is made 

in the DRMP/DEIS regarding actions that would be taken by the BLM to minimize the adverse 

air quality effects of OHV use both generated within proposed Open OHV areas and throughout 

the entire planning area, nor is mitigation recommended for the anticipated increase in air 

emissions. 

Response: Section 2.12 of the PRMP/FEIS has been updated to further clarify BLM travel 

management policies. The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS does not propose to designate any 

new Open OHV Management Areas within the entire planning area, which includes the Yuma 

County PM10 non-attainment area. The restriction of OHV use within non-attainment areas and 

the development of other mitigation measures to reduce this activity’s impacts to air quality will 

be considered during the development of future Travel Management Plans. Impacts to air quality 

have been identified in Section 2.12.2.B of the PRMP/FEIS as one of the route evaluation criteria 

that the BLM would consider prior to proposing route designations in the future.

Public Concern 2: Clarity of Information 

Comment 1115 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The Definition of Routes Maintained by 

Other Government Entities Appears Ambiguous and Needs Clarification. Section 2.12.3 of the 

DRMP/DEIS states that "All paved roads and gravel/dirt roads maintained by a State, county, or 

city would automatically be open or limited for motorized use in the (Travel Management 

Network)." While this makes sense for almost any paved or graveled roads that were legally 

constructed and maintained by these entities, the RMP must include a definition of what 

constitutes a road so the public can discern whether or not the current definition applies to roads 

constructed by the federal government. At present, the definition implies that any dirt road that 

another government claims it maintains "albeit infrequently or only once" would never be 

considered for closure in future travel management plans. This appears to be in violation of 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

BLM’s statutory authority under 43 CFR §8341.2 and could prove problematic for BLM 

management in cases where it becomes known that the federal government constructed the route, 

or that the route was not legally constructed, and that ongoing use of the route could result in 

unacceptable adverse effects to resources on public lands. 

Response: The terms and definitions used in BLM travel management efforts have been updated 

throughout the text and glossary of the PRMP/FEIS. These updated definitions come directly 

from the BLM Roads and Trails Terminology Report (USDOI BLM 2006a). The use of these 

terms and definitions was established as national BLM policy through Washington Office IM 

No. 2006-173, Implementation of Roads and Trails Terminology Report, and Arizona BLM 

policy through AZ IM No. 2005-007, State Director Guidance for Arizona Land Use Planning 

Efforts.

Comment 1160 (EPA): We also recommend that the Final EIS include a comprehensive 

description of the OHV management planning process, including the type of environmental 

analysis planned in conjunction with the establishment of the Travel Management Network. 

EPA’s recommendations are further discussed in our Detailed Comments (attached). 

Response: Section 2.12.3 of the PRMP/FEIS was updated to include a comprehensive 

description of how the YFO would inventory, evaluate, designate, and implement future Travel 

Management Plans.

Comment 1329 (AGFD): In limited areas, OHV use will be limited to routes on the route 

inventory map until routes are designated in the Travel Management Plan. Therefore, washes 

and other trails not on the route inventory map in the limited areas would be closed. This 

proposed decision to close existing routes (including washes) is not clearly stated. 

Response: Both Chapters 2 and 4 of the PRMP/FEIS have been updated to further clarify the 

BLM travel management planning process and the impacts of implementing these proposed 

policies, respectively.

Public Concern 3: General Access 

Comment 386: Please do not close any more areas. The Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, the 

Colorado Indian Reservation, and the Yuma Proving Grounds to name a few areas, are already 

closed areas. 

Comment 354: Please keep the washes open in the Yuma District. 

Comment 209: There has to be some limitation or we’re going to lose all of that. We’ve lost a 

heck of a lot of it now. So, what I’m talking about or wishing would happen is that off-roaders 

would be given land to use, property to use, a place to use. But not all of it. So, there has to be 

some limitation, to save some of this. Because if it’s not saved, I think in another 20 or 30 years 

it will all be gone, it will just be like sand dunes out there, no native species, no trees, no 

animals, no rabbits, no coyotes, no nothing. So, I think we ought to let the BLM limit quite a bit 

of that and save it. 

Page 5-108 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-109 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

There’s almost no visual field anywhere you go, it’s just a maze of a lattice work, a braid of 

tracks. And, you know that desert has a little crust, anywhere you go, I mean before it’s been 

disturbed, that little crust is hard surface there. And the wind used to blow here as much as it 

blows now and there was not very much sand in the air. There was almost never would there be 

a sand storm, and now when the wind just blows a little bit, that sand kicks up in the air cause 

when that crust is broken, it allows erosion and it allows, it just gets bigger and bigger and it 

makes a track or road across the desert. After a couple of wind storms it gets bigger and bigger 

and bigger and it’s, huh, these are reasons that I’m saying now. And there used to be a hell of a 

lot of wildlife, even between here and Yuma, you would find, you know, antlers of deer, and there 

would be bighorn sheep, there’s still very few around, desert bighorns, between here and Yuma 

and the Gila Mountains. But there used to be a lot of wildlife. 

Comment 1304: Uncontrolled, unregulated public use has irreparably damaged once pristine 

desert landscapes. I have owned motorcycles, 4x4 vehicles, and I recently purchased an ATV. 

Those off-highway vehicles (OHVs) should be allowed only on existing designated roads and 

routes of travel under strictly controlled laws and regulations. However, new roads/trails must 

not be established or allowed in the planning area. 

Comment 1308: Do not allow vehicular travel in washes, except for designated route crossings, 

because the temptation is to drive out of the wash, then across interfluves, then onto areas of 

fragile desert pavement. 

Comment 619: We have lost too much riding ground due to "endangered weeds" and the 

wildlife. We ride and see sheep in other areas outside of the KOFA. They are not on the 

decrease. 

Response: To the fullest extent possible, when authorized by law and after interdisciplinary 

environmental analysis, public lands will remain open to public access. It was the will of 

Congress, as explained in FLPMA of 1976, that the public lands be used by current and future 

generations of Americans. FLPMA mandates that the public lands be managed in a manner that 

will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and 

atmospheric, water resource, and archeological 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.

Section 2.12 of the PRMP/FEIS has been updated to further clarify BLM travel management 

policies. Upon the finalization of this PRMP/FEIS, motorized use within Limited OHV 

Management Areas would be limited to existing inventoried routes appearing on Maps TMA-1 

to TMA-5 until designated. Within five years from finalizing the PRMP/FEIS, BLM policy 

requires that all inventoried routes within the planning area be designated as open, closed, or 

limited to motorized use through implementation-level travel management plans. The future 

travel management plans would provide BLM with the opportunity to systematically evaluate 

and document individual routes’ impacts to a variety of resource values encompassed in the 

BLM’s multiple-use mission. Upon completion of the future Travel Management Plans, 

motorized use within the planning area would be limited to designated routes only. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

The cumulative impacts of other Federal land management agencies’ travel management and 

public access policies have been updated in Section 4.15 B of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Subconcern: Native Americans/Tribes

Comment 765 (BIA): Please consider Executive Order 13007, which assures Native Americans 

reasonable access to sacred sites on federal land. 

Response: BLM’s responsibility to comply with EO 13007 is stated in the introduction to 

Section 2.25, Cultural Resources and in Appendix 1-B.2, Laws, Regulations and Executive 

Orders of the PRMP/FEIS. In addition, Cultural Resources Section 2.15.2 includes a 

Management Action instructing the YFO to “Accommodate requests by Native American tribes 

for use of, and access to, sacred sites and other places of traditional cultural importance that are 

identified through government-to-government consultation”. Similar statements about the 

BLM’s responsibilities pursuant to EO 13007 can be found throughout the document.

Public Concern 3: Open/Close/Limit Areas 

Comment 1110 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Compelling information contained in the 

DRMP/DEIS appears to support the closure of many proposed special management areas to 

ORV use. Such closures would appear warranted given the ecological diversity of the 1.3 

million-acre planning area and the fact that the level of ORV use and associated adverse impact 

has increased dramatically within the 20 years since BLM last designated ORV management 

areas in the region. Indeed, each of the three remaining action alternatives in the DRMP/DEIS 

propose differing degrees of motorized closures... The Preferred Alternative, however, 

incorporates no new closures and the DRMP/DEIS lacks adequate explanation regarding their 

absence.

In sharp contrast to its utter lack of ORV closures to protect sensitive resources, the Preferred 

Alternative proposes the designation and expansion of four ORV “Open” areas where 

unregulated cross-country ORV travel could occur. These Open area designations are proposed 

despite documentation within the DRMP/DEIS of potentially significant resource conflicts 

associated with ongoing and proposed cross-country travel. Consequently, the BLM’s 

designation of ORV Management Areas that comprise its Preferred Alternative stands in sharp 

contrast to that required under FLPMA, which mandates that the BLM act to minimize adverse 

impacts on public land resources. 

Response: Based on public comments, the Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS proposes to 

designate 3,700 acres of new Closed OHV Management Areas for resource protection purposes 

in the Dripping Springs ACEC, Sears Point ACEC, and Muggins Mountains SCRMA. The 

existing 400-acre Ehrenberg Sandbowl would continue to be managed as an Open OHV 

Management Area; no new Open OHV Management Areas are included in the Proposed Plan of 

the PRMP/FEIS. 

Comment 55: Eliminate the 1,000 acres of Open OHV Management Area within the Wildlife 

Habitat Areas and the additional 600 acres within the Sonoran desert tortoise habitat. These 

vehicles are not compatible with wildlife or wildlife areas. 

Page 5-110 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-111 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Comment 1163 (EPA): EPA recommends that the BLM not open the Blaisdell OHV 

Management Area (1,300 acres)...Opening this area would directly impact more than 600 acres 

of Category III Sonoran Desert tortoise habitat (pg 4-40). Wildlife habitat is more likely to be 

maintained or enhanced if OHV use were prohibited in this area. 

Comment 56: Eliminate the open OHV areas in the PM10 non-attainment area as contained in 

the preferred alternative...Particulates are a human health issue and cause breathing problems 

for children, the elderly, and anyone with a respiratory ailment. 

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS does not propose to designate any additional 

Open OHV Management Areas within the planning area, which would preclude any additional 

direct and indirect impacts to soils, air quality, wildlife, cultural resources, paleontological 

resources, and vegetation from increasing the acreage available to cross-country OHV use. In 

addition, no Open OHV Management Areas would be designated within identified Sonoran 

desert tortoise habitat, Wildlife Movement Corridors WHA, Desert Mountains WHA, or PM10 

non-attainment areas. 

Subconcern: Clarity of Information

Comment 1381 (AGFD): Page 2-171, Table 2-32, 2nd row, Preferred Alternative, RMP 

Statement- ...approximately 6 miles of closed inventoried routes: The department did not see it 

disclosed in Chapter 2 what roads were going to be closed. This proposed decision needs to be 

clearly shown in Chapter 2. 

Comment 902: On page 2-171, BLM is proposing to close 6 miles of roads in Table 2-32. I 

believe the brief rationale for this closure is not adequate, nor do I know which six miles of 

roads are going to be closed. 

Response: Table 2-32 and Map 2-9e-1 in the PRMP/FEIS have been updated to more accurately 

identify which routes would be closed within Closed OHV Management Areas included in the 

Proposed Plan. The Closed OHV Management Areas included in the Proposed Plan would close 

existing routes within portions of the Sears Point ACEC, Dripping Springs ACEC, and Muggins 

Mountains SCRMA to motorized use. Under the Proposed Plan, motorized use on any routes 

within designated Wilderness and the existing Fortuna Wash (Section 33) and La Paz Valley 

Closed OHV Management Areas would also continue to be prohibited. 

Subconcern: Special Status Animal Species

Comment 464: Protect historic habitat for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn north and south 

of Interstate 8 by limiting route densities in habitat areas. 

Response 325: Route density and Sonoran pronghorn historic habitat will be considered during 

the route evaluation process in future Travel Management Plans.

Comment 361: I don't think the bighorn sheep need a special reserve. They can co-exist with 

traffic as they do in southeastern Oregon very well. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Response: YFO does not have or proposes to designate a special reserve for bighorn sheep. For 

a description of impacts to wildlife from Travel Management see Section 4.4. 

Comment 296: I further do not believe that the desert tortoise deserves all the money and 

restriction of area use is justified.

Response: BLM policy is to conserve the Sonoran desert tortoise and its habitat through the 

RMP, which requires the mitigation and conservation measures included in Section 2.8.3 E of 

the PRMP/FEIS.

Subconcern: Cultural Resources

Comment 231: There’s something that concerns me a lot also and that’s the reference to the 

Ehrenberg Bowl that you say there. One of the, they’re increasing it to 400 acres or more and 

one of those mesas, finger mesas that come in there has a very sacred trail that’s like a, sort of 

like a J that goes all the way up to the Dome Rock Mountains and that has a great meaning to us. 

So, I would like to see how far that 400 acres that you want to increase that Ehrenberg Bowl 

goes as far as that finger mesa goes in there. 

Response: After re-evaluating the proposal to expand the Ehrenberg Sandbowl an additional 400 

acres, YFO ultimately decided that the existing use did not warrant an expansion nor was it 

appropriate with other resource values. We have revised Section 2.12.1 (Open OHV 

Management Areas) and Map 2-9e to remove the Ehrenberg Sandbowl expansion from the 

Proposed Plan.

Subconcern: Dripping Springs

Comment 52: I support the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Management Area closure of 600 acres 

at Dripping Springs and 1,400 acres at Sears Point in Alternative D. 

Comment 457: Closing Dripping Springs is not needed, the [steepness] of wash keeps everyone 

within the wash and is a very nice ride for older folks. 

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS proposes to designate a 400-acre Closed OHV 

Management Area at Dripping Springs, as depicted on Map 2-9e-1. The proposal would not 

affect existing motorized access on the north-south route on the western edge of Dripping 

Springs, which is identified as route LP458 on Map TMA-2 of the PRMP/FEIS. However, the 

short spur route which heads east from the wash to Dripping Springs (identified as route LP458) 

would be closed to motorized use for resource protection purposes. YFO has proposed to 

develop this spur route to allow pedestrian traffic into Dripping Springs, and would consider the 

needs of the physically challenged during the implementation of this proposal. In addition, an 

existing hiking trail connecting Dripping Springs to route LP458 south of the spur route already 

provides a longer, but far less steep approach to the site.

Subconcern: Interstate 10 and Plomosa Road Area

Comment 984: Do not close trails to Dripping Springs or area north of I-10 Plomosa Road 

Page 5-112 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-113 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

area. 

Response: The BLM lands near I-10 and Plomosa Road are proposed to be designated as a 

Limited OHV Management Area, where motorized travel would be limited to existing 

inventoried routes until designated. If routes in this area do not appear on Map TMA-2: La Posa 

Travel Management Area, the general public will be provided with an additional opportunity to 

notify the BLM of their existence during the development of the La Posa Travel Management 

Plan. In addition, the travel management planning process will also provide the general public 

with opportunities to identify which particular routes they feel should be designated as open to 

motorized use.

Subconcern: Wilderness Characteristics

Comment 456: We do not need to close any more lands under a guise of wilderness. 

Comment 982: There seems to be enough wilderness area set aside. If the area is closed we will 

sure miss it. 

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS does not propose to designate any Closed 

OHV Management Areas in lands with wilderness characteristics.

Subconcern: Economic Impacts

Comment 632: The economy in the Quartzsite area depends largely on the snowbirds, who are 

mostly elderly, who come to this area to enjoy the desert and surrounding areas. I feel that if you 

were to close some of these areas, it would have a great effect on the economy of this area. 

Comment 871: We come here from Michigan to spend all our money and ride our quads. I'd 

hate to have to find a new area! 

Response: BLM considered the economic impacts of the Closed OHV Management Area 

proposals included in the PRMP/FEIS. The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS proposes to 

designate 5,100 acres of new Closed OHV Management Areas for resource protection purposes, 

which would result in the closure of six miles of inventoried routes. Of these routes proposed for 

closure, less than one mile is located in the Quartzsite area. The Proposed Plan of the 

PRMP/FEIS proposes to limit motorized travel to 4,600 miles of existing inventoried routes 

across approximately 1,145,100 acres, or 88 percent of the BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area. The small mileage of routes currently proposed for closure through the 

designation of Closed OHV Management Areas is not likely to have a discernible effect on the 

Town of Quartzsite. 

Comment 948: All travel routes have an economic value and should be evaluated carefully 

before making a decision to discard them. 

Response: The economic impacts of travel management proposals have been evaluated and the 

PRMP/FEIS has determined that no discernible economic impacts would occur. Future Travel 

Management Plans will also evaluate the economic values of individual routes prior to 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

designation, and the general public is encouraged to participate in these upcoming planning 

processes.

Subconcern: Cultural Resources

Comment 233: I’m a Chemehuevi Indian from the Colorado River Indian Tribe and I live in 

Needles, California... As I see that the San Bernardino County Supervisor, the Nevada 

Supervisor, the Arizona Supervisor are not in agreement about some of these closed roads 

because it’s public land. They feel they have a right to come into these public lands. And I think 

these closed roads was done by inputs from not only BLM but the Tribes themselves. What the 

supervisors or these counties, these county supervisors are not really aware that they have 

Indian people in their county. And they don’t deal with the Indian people. They talk about off 

roads, we had like you said mention about the intaglios, but we also have other areas which are 

sacred sites. A lot of these have long done been destroyed, and the people that are looking at this 

to organize to make it open roads for everybody actually are not native people of the area. They 

don’t seem to understand or don’t care less about our areas. Where do they come from, the 

majority of them? Well, if you stand along the freeway, I don’t know about Blythe, but in the 

Needles area on the weekends you’ll see, especially the holidays, you’ll see hundreds and 

hundreds and hundreds of vehicles pulling a trailer with ATVs, dirt bikes, 5th-wheels, and the 

RVs. Bring all of this area here, where you going to load them at? What are they going to do 

with them? Jet skis, too. It’s tearing our desert up. They’ve always been tearing our desert up. 

Response: The impacts from OHV use on natural and cultural resources will be systematically 

evaluated during the future travel management planning process. As a part of this process, BLM 

will coordinate and consult with all interested Native American tribes. We encourage your 

participation, and appreciate your interest in working with us to address these concerns.

Subconcern: Sears Point

Comment 445: I oppose ending vehicle access to Sears Point closing the massive number of 

acres proposed. Alternative future plans should still allow vehicles to enter by special permit to 

within a very short walking distance to this extraordinary site. Plus education and enforcement. 

Comment 98: I support the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Management Area closure of 600 acres 

at Dripping Springs and 1,400 acres at Sears Point. 

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS proposes to designate a 1,400-acre Closed 

OHV Management Area at Sears Point, as depicted on Map 2-9e-1. The Closed OHV 

Management Area proposal would not affect existing motorized access to Sears Point via 

Avenue 761⁄2 E from the Spot Road exit off of I-8, and identified as route GR021 on Map TMA4: Gila River Valley Travel Management Area. The public would continue to be able to drive to 

the existing Sears Point parking area, which is within a short walking distance to the area’s 

central mesas.

Public Concern 3: Motorized/OHV Only 

Comment 92: I am opposed to any development in what remains of the southwest deserts. I also 

Page 5-114 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-115 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

am opposed to any motorized vehicle use in the deserts. 

Response: OHV use has been identified as a legitimate use of the public lands through several 

applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, including FLPMA, 43 CFR 8340, and the BLM’s 

National Management Strategy Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands. 

Comment 1304: Uncontrolled, unregulated public use has irreparably damaged once pristine 

desert landscapes. I have owned motorcycles, 4x4 vehicles, and I recently purchased an ATV. 

Those off-highway vehicles (OHVs) should be allowed only on existing designated roads and 

routes of travel under strictly controlled laws and regulations. However, new roads/trails must 

not be established or allowed in the planning area.

Response: FLPMA and a variety of other statutes require the BLM to provide access to mining 

claims, private property, and other valid existing rights on the public lands. In many instances, 

this may require the establishment of new roads that must undergo additional site-specific 

environmental analysis.

Subconcern: Laws and Policies

Comment 1108 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Proposed ORV Management Areas 

Designations Fail to Prevent Unnecessary Degradation of Public Lands. The Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires the BLM to “take any action necessary to 

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands” and “minimize adverse impacts on the 

natural, environmental, scientific, cultural, and other resources and values (including fish and 

wildlife habitat) of the public lands involved.” 43 U.S.C. §§ 1732(b), 1732(d)(2)(a). Yet the BLM 

clearly has prioritized motorized access over resource protection in its selection of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Comment 1156 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): BLM Directive: ORV “Areas...shall be 

located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed 

recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands” (43 CFR §8342.1(c) emphasis 

added). 

ORV-Related Damage that Would Not be Minimized through Implementation of BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative. The DRMP/DEIS makes the following eye-opening claim: “Most of the 

planning area is available for at least some level of OHV use” (pages 4-101). As stated 

previously, 43 CFR §8342.1 requires the BLM to minimize the adverse effects of ORV use. Yet 

text found throughout the DRMP/DEIS attempts to justify maintenance of the status quo by 

claiming that the Preferred Alternative alone provides “balance between the needs of public 

access... and the protection of sensitive resources”(DRMP/DEIS at 4-104). What the BLM 

describes as “balanced,” however, appears heavily skewed toward providing maximum OHV 

opportunities that in many instances override the agency’s mandate to protect sensitive 

resources (such as air quality, soils, wildlife and desert tortoise, etc.) as described above. 

Consequently, we hold that the Preferred Alternative is unbalanced in this regard as it clearly 

favors providing OHV opportunities over both resource protection and non-motorized 

recreational activities. Such an outcome would stand in sharp contrast to BLM legal mandates. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Moreover, the DRMP/DEIS contains language that demonstrates the striking similarities 

between OHV Management Area designations under the Preferred Alternative and those of 

Alternative B, the alternative that “places emphasis on consumer-driven uses and...motorized 

recreation opportunities” (DRMP/DEIS, page 2-1). There appears to be little difference between 

the two alternatives with respect to designation of OHV Management Areas and, for all intents 

and purposes, the environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative are no different than those 

under Alternative B. This is evident in text throughout the DRMP/DEIS including page 4-104, 

which states: “The expected environmental impacts (of Alternative C) are similar to those of 

Alternative E. Under this alternative, OHV Management Areas would be designated as follows: 

2,400 (acres) Open, 171,300 Closed, and 1,144,300 Limited...This alternative is similar to 

Alternative B” (emphasis added). 

Support of Claim that Damage Would Not be Minimized. The DRMP/DEIS contains the 

following statement: “Closed OHV Management Areas would continue to benefit recreationists 

seeking non-motorized opportunities” (page 4-103). This statement recognizes that the 

experiences sought by motorized and non-motorized recreationists are often not compatible. 

However, no such new "Closed areas" are proposed under the BLM’s Preferred Alternative. 

Presumably, therefore, the unacceptable status quo of OHV use throughout most of the planning 

area would continue and recreationists seeking non-motorized opportunities would not benefit 

under the Preferred Alternative. 

Response: The YFO removed the Blaisdell, Martinez Lake, and Ehrenberg Sandbowl Expansion 

Open OHV Management Areas from the Proposed Plan. The removal of these 2,000 acres of 

Open OHV Management Area proposals would preclude any additional direct and indirect 

impacts to soils, air quality, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and 

vegetation from authorizing cross-country OHV use on these lands. In addition, the Proposed 

Plan now proposes to designate 5,100 acres of Closed OHV Management Areas to protect 

sensitive natural and cultural resources within the planning area. The BLM would minimize 

impacts to resource values of the public lands from OHVs through the development of Travel 

Management Plans, which would designate all inventoried roads, primitive roads, trails, and 

drivable desert washes. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook defines the designation of 

individual routes as implementation-level decisions, which are not required to be completed in 

the RMP process.

Comment 1421 (Quechan Tribe): The Tribe requests that BLM not open any of its lands to 

‘limited’ off-road use until it has performed an adequate survey of lands adjacent to inventoried 

routes to ensure that cultural resources are not located nearby such routes that could be 

impacted by stray off-road vehicles. BLM will violate its trust obligation to the Tribe and 

applicable laws such as the NHPA if it authorizes off-road vehicle use on lands that have not 

been adequately inventoried for the presence of cultural resources. 

Response: BLM IM No. AZ-2006-043: Section 106 Compliance for Designating Off-Highway 

Vehicle Routes and Areas in Land Use Plans, and BLM IM WO-2007-030: Clarification of 

Cultural Resource Considerations for Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Designation and Travel 

Management outline national and Arizona policies by which the BLM travel management 

planning will consider cultural resources. These policies set standards on determining the Area of 

Potential Effect adjacent to existing routes, cultural resource inventorying requirements, and how 

Page 5-116 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-117 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

future route designations must comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. These policies also 

reiterate the BLM’s commitment to coordination with affected tribes and SHPOs for travel 

management planning purposes. In addition, this PRMP/FEIS includes a proposal to not allow 

vehicles to pull-off of routes on public lands with known sensitive cultural resources, such as 

ACECs and SCRMAs. 

Subconcern: Soil (Disturbance, Erosion, Compaction)

Comment 202: Dust, etc. at Rainbow Acres 55 1/2 & Ruby corner - every New Year's riders, 

unsupervised riders, etc., breaking crust -- too much dust. 

Response: Section 2.12.2.B of the PRMP/FEIS identifies the impacts to air quality from OHV 

use as one of the criteria the BLM will consider during future Travel Management Plans. The 

evaluation and designation of routes in the Quartzsite area would take place during the 

development of the La Posa Travel Management Plan, and the BLM encourages additional 

public participation in this planning process.

Subconcern: Wildlife/Animals

Comment 352: If you need to have cisterns for wildlife, just close the trail to the cistern. 

Response: The AGFD installs and maintains wildlife water catchments within the planning area. 

Impacts to wildlife from OHV use on the routes leading to the catchments will be considered 

during the future travel management planning process prior to proposing route designations.

Comment 880: ATV/OHV are not the menace to wildlife... If an area is impacted by OHV at 

lambing time - close the trails in the area for a short time and reopen after the danger has 

passed. Close side roads to cisterns and allow authorized vehicles only. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS provides several citations of peer-reviewed scientific research on 

the direct and indirect impacts of OHV use on a variety of desert wildlife. Impacts to wildlife 

from OHV use during bighorn sheep lambing season and on routes leading to wildlife water 

catchments will be considered during the future travel management planning process prior to 

proposing route designations. BLM has the ability to temporarily close trails during sensitive 

times to wildlife, such as during severe droughts and lambing seasons, and any such limitations 

would be proposed within future Travel Management Plans.

Subconcern: Wilderness Characteristics

Comment 290: Manage all areas with wilderness characteristics as closed to OHV use. 

Response: Alternative D of the DRMP/DEIS and the PRMP/FEIS proposed and analyzed the 

impacts of designating an additional 56,600 acres of Closed OHV Management Areas on lands 

identified to maintain wilderness characteristics.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Subconcern: User Conflicts

Comment 438: Current laws for ATV use in LTVA's and 14 day areas, as explained to me by a 

BLM Law Enforcement Officer, confirms that ALL ATV's can ride anywhere past my RV awning 

if there is any faint trace of any slight track...LTVA areas are not presently managed as 

campgrounds by BLM with normal campground safety rules. Future plans for the areas where 

camping and OHV use mix must be clarified and enforced as either an Open area or Limited use 

area for safety and dust health reasons...Fifteen miles per hour is far too fast in the congested 

areas, current signs are rare, and little enforcement is available. 

Response: During the development of future Travel Management Plans, the public will have the 

opportunity to identify any roads within the LTVAs that should be designated as closed to 

motorized vehicle use. The BLM is required to consider impacts to noise and air quality when 

designating routes on the public lands. Routes within the Imperial Dam LTVA will be evaluated 

and designated as a part of the Greater Yuma Travel Management Area, and routes within the La 

Posa LTVA will be evaluated and designated as a part of the La Posa Travel Management Area. 

Subconcern: Camping 

Comment 428: The 100 ft. rule on off-highway roads would impede camping opportunities. 

Comment 898: BLM is going to all but eliminate the enjoyment of outdoor camping, should they 

finalize the 100 foot rule of all "inventoried" vehicular routes. Again, should BLM/YFO use the 

definition of legal vehicular routes as it is contained in the no-action alternative, camping 

locations will at least continue to exist until the final route transportation planning process is 

completed and implemented. 

Response: BLM IM No. AZ-2005-007: State Director Guidance for Arizona Land Use Planning 

Efforts, authorized Arizona BLM field offices to allow vehicles to pull off 100 feet either side of 

a designated route’s centerline through an RMP-level decision. Except along the Anza Trail and 

within proposed ACECs, SCRMAs, and Closed OHV Management Areas, this PRMP/FEIS 

proposes to allow this type of use within Limited OHV Management Areas. In addition, the 

PRMP/FEIS has included 1,400 miles of additional inventoried routes to Maps TMA-1 to TMA5, which would reduce the potential impacts to motorized access and overnight camping. 

Subconcern: Hunting 

Comment 1324 (AGFD): Restrictions on the use of motorized vehicular travel off 

inventoried/designated routes throughout the document prohibit the retrieval of downed big 

game through motorized means. The Department finds it essential to use big game hunts and 

hunters as part of our strategy to achieve management objectives and wildlife population goals. 

Thus, it is imperative for hunters to safely, effectively, and in a timely manner retrieve dead and 

downed game to avoid the unlawful waste of game meat and to facilitate our Challenged Hunter 

Access/Mobility permit (CHAMP) Program. The department recommends allowing the use of 

motorized vehicular travel off-road for the retrieval of downed big game. 

Response: Current BLM policy and Federal law prohibit cross-country vehicle travel on the 

Page 5-118 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-119 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

public lands, including for the retrieval of downed big game. BLM is willing to coordinate in the 

future to address issues related to AGFD’s CHAMP program. Any other changes that would 

affect national or State BLM policy should be addressed at that level.

Subconcern: Value to Individuals, Families, Seniors, Disabled, etc.

Comment 212: We cannot walk to these places that the government keeps closing off and we 

cannot go to these things because there’s no access. Our access now, since we can’t get around 

very good, is on ATVs. 

Comment 1438: Our nation and southwest AZ in particular are experiencing a huge aging 

population. This aging population presents physical and health limitations to the ability of the 

local population to use areas of no auto traffic or accessed only by walking or hiking. This 

would limit said aging population from use of restricted areas which would in fact create a 

denial of use to our public lands. 

Response: BLM is bound by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794). 

After the adoption of this RMP, YFO will begin evaluating and designating individual 

inventoried routes throughout the planning area. Senior citizens and disabled persons will have 

vehicular access to the greatest extent possible. However, it is impossible to provide vehicular 

access throughout the entire 1.3 million acre planning area. 

2. Non-System and User-Created Routes 

Public Concern 1: Border Issues 

Comment 211: And another one of the big problems I see down here is all the problem with the 

illegals. Particularly in the Barry Goldwater with all the helter skelter travel with all the illegals 

and the Border Patrol. 

Response: The cumulative impacts associated with activities along the International Boundary 

have been included in Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS.

3. Route Analysis 

Public Concern 1: Adequacy of Analysis 

Comment 284: Take aerial photos of the areas and put the existing trails on the map before 

closing the area. 

Comment 897: The definition of vehicular routes in the no-action alternative should reflect the 

current and finalized route inventory map in the RMP/EIS. The route inventory map in the draft 

RMP does reflect all vehicular routes (including washes) that BLM currently allows the public to 

use. Bottom line...the YFO should fix the map and take the no-action verbiage for legal 

vehicular routes and make it the language in the preferred alternative. BLM must make these 

changes regarding vehicular routes in order to stay away from a possible NEPA violation. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Comment 946: I am disappointed when I compared my on the ground travels with the Map 

TMA-2: La Posa Travel management Area, showing inventoried routes. Many existing and 

much used roads are not shown. Almost all the washes used as travel routes are not 

shown...Both types of travel routes are necessary to provide variety in the recreation experience. 

I consider my finding of the MTA route inventory not being very complete reasonably 

representative of most of the planning area. 

Comment 1036 (YVRGC): The network of roads, trails, drivable washes, and other legal routes 

have unfortunately been omitted from the document we have reviewed. Our comments, 

specifically regarding roads, trails, drivable routes, including washes, should reflect that the 

Draft reviewed was far from inclusive of the entire travel network known to exist within the 

planning area. 

Response: The YFO included an additional 1,400 miles of linear features on Maps TMA-1 to 

TMA-5 of the PRMP/FEIS. These linear features, which may include roads, primitive roads, 

trails, and drivable washes, have not yet been verified on the ground by the BLM. These linear 

features were identified by the public as routes during the DRMP/DEIS public review and 

comment period and were also identified by the BLM from 2005 aerial photos. Recreational 

routes are described in Section 3.14.1 B. All interested stakeholders will have additional 

opportunities to identify routes missing from the TMA maps during the development of 

subsequent Travel Management Plans. 

Comment 855: H-1601... [allows] the option of extra time (5 years) for the delineation of the 

travel management network provided certain factors are present. Please include information 

regarding why YFO has not been able to complete the Final Travel Management Network as 

part of the RMP (size, complexity, controversy, incomplete data, etc.) By deferring the 

delineation of the travel management network, BLM has the potential of inadvertently 

predetermining route designations. Planning decisions will be made before the routes have been 

defined. The only way to assure the public that current open routes will stay open is to complete 

the Final Travel Management Network as part of the RMP. 

Comment 896: The Transportation Plan occurring after the plan is finalized is nothing more 

than a ploy to demonstrate public involvement, only to have BLM do what they want 

afterwards...All we can hope for is that BLM recognizes land use allocations should not decrease 

vehicular routes. 

Response: The Proposed Plan defers individual route designations until after the RMP process 

for the following reasons: (1) developing the complex and controversial proposals for 4,600 

miles of route designations would have prolonged the total length of the RMP process, (2) Maps 

TMA-1 to TMA-5 have been updated to include 1,400 miles of additional linear features that 

have not yet been verified on the ground by the BLM, and (3) developing Travel Management 

Plans for each travel management area will provide the BLM, the public, and other interested 

stakeholders with enhanced opportunities to better focus on establishing a travel management 

network for individual geographic regions within the planning area.

The evaluation criteria that will be considered by the YFO to develop individual route 

designation proposals have been listed in Section 2.12.2.B of the PRMP/FEIS. The 

Page 5-120 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-121 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

predetermination of individual route designation decisions would violate NEPA and would not 

be feasible due to the fact that there are a total of 4,600 miles of inventoried routes and linear 

features within the planning area. 

Public Concern 2: Route Removal/Decommissioning 

Comment 1116 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Restoration of Unauthorized Routes 

Should Allow Only a Limited Number of Pullout Areas. Text found on page 2-101 of the 

DRMP/DEIS regarding the restoration of unauthorized motorized routes appears to be 

inconsistent. On one hand, the text states that “restoration would be limited to that portion of the 

route...that is in line of site from an open route.” It is our understanding that such an approach 

has proven highly successful in other BLM districts in minimizing the likelihood of ORV trespass 

on unauthorized routes through the concealment of the former route. On the other hand, text 

found at the bottom of page 2-101 states that the restoration of closed routes would include 

leaving unrestored the first 100 feet of a closed route in order “to provide pullout areas or 

camping opportunities.” This action would appear to contradict the intent of the proposed 

management action to hide or disguise closed routes and could in fact exacerbate ORV trespass 

onto closed routes as some riders might be reluctant to stop and turn around after the first 100 

feet of travel. Consequently, we recommend that the BLM clarify in the Final RMP/EIS this 

apparent discrepancy and minimize the extent to which portions of closed routes will be left 

unrestored in order to provide pullout areas or camping opportunities. 

Response: The list of possible route restoration methods included in Section 2.12.2.B of the 

PRMP/FEIS are meant to provide the BLM with flexibility to utilize the best method available 

for each individual site. The method of leaving the first 100 feet of a closed route unrestored 

would complement the travel management policy allowing vehicles to pull off 100 feet from a 

route’s centerline for overnight camping purposes. The existence of 100-foot pull offs would 

provide the public with convenient undeveloped overnight campsites, which could potentially 

reduce the amount of new impacts that would occur from allowing the public to pull off and 

camp in existing undisturbed areas adjacent to routes.

E. RECREATION MANAGEMENT

1. Recreation Management 

Public Concern 1: General

Comment 1050 (Yavapai-Apache Nation): The [Yavapai-Apache] Nation supports recreational 

activity within the Yuma District to the extent that it does not compromise or adversely effect, 

riparian habitat, significant cultural resources or the forage of native herbivores. 

Response: Federal laws like NEPA, NHPA, and the ESA ensure that the BLM considers impacts 

to wildlife, vegetation, cultural resources, and other elements of the environment from 

recreational activities. We will continue to coordinate and follow Native American coordination 

and consultation procedures for any site-specific projects, so that the tribe has an opportunity to 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

provide input on recreation-related projects.

Comment 1192 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society: The section pertaining to recreation 

was quite complicated and we must trust that it contains no limitation on vehicular access and 

dispersed semi-primitive undeveloped camping within traditional wildlife hunting areas and 

mountainous regions. We would suggest that no Special Recreational Management Areas 

(SRMA) be placed within 5 miles of occupied or suitable bighorn sheep habitat and that the 

majority of the planning area remains unchanged. 

Comment 1322 (AGFD): The Department continues to be concerned with the lack of specific 

national or state guidance and/or policy from the Department of Interior on implementing the 

new market-based recreation program [including Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), 

Recreation Management Areas (SRMA and ERMA), and Recreation Management Zones (RMZ)], 

as well as areas managed for wilderness characteristics. These concepts and allocations are 

being used separately or concurrently in the same plan and across planning areas without clear 

guidance or policy that included decisions will be made or should be implemented on the 

ground. Thus, we are unable to assess the impacts to fish and wildlife, their habitats, and the 

Department’s ability to manage wildlife and wildlife-dependent recreation. We believe these 

uncertainties will create situations where managers may interpret decisions differently, creating 

inconsistencies in management and coordination, ultimately impacting the Department’s mission 

and authorities across the state. The Department recommends careful consideration be taken 

when applying allocations where no overarching direction is available and that specific 

language be included within the plan to clarify how the associated decisions should be 

implemented and/or how they may affect other resources or uses. The department further 

recommends the impact analysis consider the full range of implementation decisions possible in 

the absence of guidance and policy.

Response: Section 2.12 on Travel Management in this PRMP/FEIS outlines proposed policies 

on vehicular access within the planning area. The PRMP/FEIS proposes to allow vehicles to pull 

off up to 100 feet from the centerline of routes for dispersed overnight camping purposes, except 

within existing and proposed ACECs, SCRMAs, and along the Anza Trail.

The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1, requires that all public lands be allocated as 

a SRMA or ERMA. Recreation management proposals included in this PRMP/FEIS would not 

supersede the BLM’s statutory responsibilities for wildlife habitat management. The purposes of 

proposed Destination, Community, and Undeveloped SRMAs are outlined in Section 2.11.1 of 

the PRMP/FEIS. Section 2.11.3 of the PRMP/FEIS identifies the primary recreation 

management objectives for all Recreation Management Zones within the proposed SRMAs. The 

direct and indirect impacts from proposed recreation management allocations to fish and wildlife 

management have been updated in Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS.

Subconcern: Visual Resources

Comment 1009 (City of Yuma): The City of Yuma has proposed to designate the Gila Mountains 

within its General Plan as preserved for Resort Recreation and Open Space. The general 

purpose of the Resort, Recreation, and Open Space land use designation is to support a very low 

density of development, agriculture, and areas available for public visitation and recreation with 

Page 5-122 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-123 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

or without developed facilities. The Gila Mountains are, in essence, a visual gateway into the 

Yuma area and therefore must be preserved and viewed as such. 

Response: Except for the communications site at Telegraph Pass and the I-8 corridor, all 

alternatives in the PRMP/FEIS have proposed to designate the highest peaks of the Gila 

Mountains as a VRM Class II. Management objectives for VRM Class II lands require that 

future developments should cause a low level of change to the characteristic landscape and that

any changes must not attract the attention of the casual observer. 

Public Concern 2: Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA)

Comment 1299 (Huachuca Hiking Club): On page 2-86, the desired future condition for the 

Yuma East Undeveloped SRMA is described. The description implies that the primary objective 

is to enhance the area’s attraction as a regional hunting destination. I believe that the desired 

future condition should be more inclusive and reflect the need to preserve and enhance primitive 

and semi-primitive, motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities that draw visitors to 

this area. 

Response: The primary recreation management objective for the proposed Dispersed Use RMZ 

has been modified in the PRMP/FEIS to read as, “Throughout the life of the RMP, ensure that 

the RMZ continues to provide undeveloped and wildlife-based recreation opportunities through 

motorized and non-motorized means.” The Dispersed Use RMZ would be the primary nonwilderness component of the proposed Yuma East Undeveloped SRMA. 

Comment 1335 (AGFD): The Department recommends restricting activities in the Laguna 

Mountains to wildlife viewing. We would be pleased to partner with YFO to develop a wildlifeviewing program for the Laguna Mountains. 

Response: The Laguna Mountains are located in the proposed Greater Yuma Community SRMA 

(referenced in Sections 2.11.2 B and 2.11.3 M) and are currently being used for various 

activities, including wildlife viewing. Numerous miles of existing inventoried mountain biking 

and OHV trails are located within the Laguna Mountains and are heavily used by local area 

residents (please refer to Section 2.11.3 M, Laguna Mountains RMZ). BLM encourages AGFD 

to participate in the evaluation and designation of routes within the Laguna Mountains to ensure 

the protection of desert bighorn sheep. Routes within the Laguna Mountains would be 

designated as part of the Greater Yuma Travel Management Plan. 

Public Concern 3: Recreation Management Zones 

Comment 1336 (AGFD): We have a general concern with RMZs that stress or focus on 

recreational use and wildlife viewing. As popularity and use (including wildlife viewing) of an 

area increases, the resulting number of visitors can adversely impact wildlife. We recommend 

the YFO add language to allow for adaptive management by stating visitor use and impacts to 

wildlife will be monitored in partnership with the Department to minimize impacts to wildlife in 

areas of increasing visitation. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Response: The purposes of proposed Destination, Community, and Undeveloped SRMAs are 

outlined in Section 2.11.1 of the PRMP/FEIS. Section 2.11.3 of the PRMP/FEIS identifies the 

primary recreation management objectives for all Recreation Management Zones within the 

proposed SRMAs. Recreation management allocations proposed in the Proposed Plan of the 

PRMP/FEIS are meant to manage existing use in these areas. In addition, a lack of recreation 

management can also cause more severe impacts to wildlife and other resource values included 

in the BLM’s multiple-use mission. Recreation management proposals included in this 

PRMP/FEIS would not supersede the BLM’s statutory responsibilities for wildlife habitat 

management and coordination with AGFD. The direct and indirect impacts from proposed 

recreation management allocations have been updated in Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS.

Subconcern: Bighorn Sheep

Comment 1334 (AGFD): The Laguna Mountains RMZ proposes a number of recreational 

activities, including OHV, mountain biking, and horseback riding for the Laguna Mountains. The 

Laguna Mountains and adjacent unnamed hills along the Colorado River south of Fisher’s 

Landing support a significant population of bighorn sheep. ...The potential impacts on this herd 

of bighorn sheep as a result of the proposed increase in recreational activity (including the 

proposed OHV area discussed above) was not discussed/analyzed in the EIS. 

Response: Horseback riding, geo-caching, and picnicking have all been removed as Primary 

Activities of the Laguna Mountains RMZ in the PRMP/FEIS. The Laguna Mountains RMZ was 

included in the Gila River Undeveloped SRMA under Alternative D of both the DRMP/DEIS 

and PRMP/FEIS. The impact analysis of the PRMP/FEIS has been updated to better identify the 

anticipated impacts from SRMA allocations by alternative. YFO will continue coordinating with 

AGFD according to Section 5.3.C to plan for wildlife-compatible recreational activities in the 

Laguna Mountains RMZ.

Comment 1364 (AGFD): Page 2-90, 2.11.3 H Gila Mountains RMZ, RMP Statement-None: The 

Department notes that BLM lands in the Gila Mountains South of Interstate 8 support bighorn 

sheep. We recommend focusing recreational activities in this RMZ north of I-8 or possibly 

dividing the RMZ into sections north of I-8 and south of I-8, with recreational activities being 

concentrated north of I-8. Recreational activities south of I-8 should be limited in, or near, the 

mountains to protect the sheep. 

Response: All public lands within the Gila Mountains have continued to be included in the 

proposed Gila Mountains RMZ in the PRMP/FEIS. This is due to the fact that hiking and OHV 

riding commonly occur throughout the foothills and interior of the Gila Mountains both north 

and south of I-8. The Gila Mountains RMZ was included in the Gila River Undeveloped SRMA 

under Alternative D of both the DRMP/DEIS and PRMP/FEIS. The impact analysis of the 

PRMP/FEIS has been updated to better identify the anticipated impacts from SRMA allocations 

by alternative. The BLM will continue coordinating with AGFD according to Section 5.3.C to 

plan for wildlife-compatible recreational activities in the Gila Mountains RMZ. 

Comment 1365 (AGFD): Page 2-91, 2.11.13 L Intensive Day-Use RMZ, RMP Statement-None: 

The Department recommends removing the Plomosa Mountains from this RMZ because of their 

importance to bighorn sheep. 

Page 5-124 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-125 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS has been modified to allocate most of the 

Plomosa Mountains north of Plomosa Road as an ERMA, where recreation management would 

solely focus on protecting resource values and public health and safety. The Proposed Plan of 

the PRMP/FEIS continues to propose including most of the Plomosa Mountains south of 

Plomosa Road in the Intensive Day-Use RMZ due to the high amounts of visitor use in this area. 

Section 2.11.3.L states that the primary recreation management objective of the Intensive Day 

Use RMZ is to "reduce the recreational impacts to the RMZ's natural and cultural resources 

through effective interpretation and environmental education."

Comment 1366 (AGFD): Page 2-91, 2.11.13 M Laguna Mountains RMZ, RMP Statement-None: 

the Department notes that the Laguna Mountains also support bighorn sheep. We recommend 

limiting recreational activities in this area to protect the sheep population. 

Response: The Laguna Mountains currently provides a multitude of recreational opportunities in 

the greater Yuma area. The Recreation Management Objectives of Section 2.11.13 M (Laguna 

Mountains RMZ) states: “Throughout the life of this RMP, reduce user group conflicts and 

impacts to wildlife and cultural resources while ensuring that a wide variety of trail-based 

activities remain available.” With this objective in mind, BLM would ensure impacts to wildlife, 

including desert bighorn sheep, are minimized so that these recreational opportunities exist in 

concert with wildlife populations. YFO would use adaptive management, including emergency 

restrictions, if resource management conflicts are of serious magnitude.

Comment 1371 (AGFD): Page 2-96, Table 2-22 Management Actions, 2nd row, RMP 

Statement-Identify an interconnected system...: The Department recommends limiting 

recreational activities in the Laguna Mountains to protect the bighorn sheep population. 

Comment 1372 (AGFD): Page 2-96, Table 2-22 Management Actions, 4th row, RMP StatementEstablish designated motorized trail connectivity...: The Department notes this area has a 

significant bighorn sheep population and we request that motorized access be extremely limited 

in this area. 

Response: BLM recognizes the importance of proper coordination with AGFD regarding 

bighorn sheep populations in the Laguna Mountains. The area currently has an interconnected 

trail system for mountain biking, hiking, and OHV use. The travel management planning process 

will be instrumental in designating roads for appropriate recreational use.

2. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Public Concern 1: Clarity of Information

Comment 1117 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The DRMP/DEIS Includes an 

Inappropriate Application of the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum. The DRMP/DEIS fails to 

disclose existing Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) designations within the planning area 

as a result of previous planning efforts. Specifically, the DRMP/DEIS fails to disclose earlier 

ROS designations under the 1986 & 1987 Yuma District Resource Management Plan (as 

amended), the 1988 Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (as amended), and the 1983 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Lower Gila North Management Plan (as amended). ROS designations from these plans that 

coincide with lands within the current RMP planning area must be shown on maps and 

summarized for each alternative in the Final Yuma RMP/EIS. 

The DRMP/DEIS fails to describe the origin or rationale for changes made to the ROS that 

eliminate the management class known as Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Since its inception, the 

ROS has included six classes as defined in 1979 by Roger N. Clark and George H. Stankey2 that 

have been used by both the U.S. Forest Service and BLM for decades for classifying existing and 

desired recreation environments along a continuum ranging from primitive, low-use, and 

inconspicuous administration to urban, high-use, and a highly visible administrative presence. 

Included among the spectrum is the class Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Yet the ROS as 

described in Section 3.13.1 of the DRMP/DEIS (and shown on Table 2-11) is devoid of this class. 

In its place, however, the BLM has substituted a classification of Semi-Primitive and provided a 

definition for this new classification that does not preclude motorized uses (DRMP/DEIS, page 

3-89). No explanation is given in the DRMP/DEIS for this change in the ROS classification 

system. A comparison of the ROS classes listed in the DRMP/DEIS versus the traditional ROS 

classes still in use today is provided in Table 2 [see letter]. 

As shown in Table 2, the six ROS classes have been altered substantially by the BLM in the 

DRMP/DEIS and no longer match the six classes of the long-accepted ROS. The net effect of this 

alteration gives the appearance that motorized recreation will be allowed to dominate all 

recreational settings—other than within designated Wilderness—throughout the 1.3 million-acre 

planning area. Text provided in the DRMP/DEIS indicates that motorized recreation under the 

Semi-Primitive ROS class may be limited by “topography, and absence of existing roads, or 

resource protection measures.” It is assumed, therefore, that few limitations to motorized uses in 

this classification would be sought otherwise. 

Remarkably, the description for the ROS provided in the DRMP/DEIS Glossary of Terms 

matches that of the traditional ROS and includes the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

classification. The glossary’s description does not include the truncated ‘Semi-Primitive’ 

classification nor does it include the BLM’s presumably new classification system that includes 

‘Rural Natural,’ ‘Rural Developed,” and ‘Suburban’ (as shown in Table 2) Text located within 

the glossary’s footer includes a date of July 2006, inferring that the Yuma BLM adjusted its ROS 

classification system after that date. 

To remain consistent with the agency’s long-standing policy for use of the ROS, the BLM must 

reinstate the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized class in the current Yuma RMP and determine 

corresponding landscape units that merit this classification. To not include the Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized class would be inconsistent with accepted academic and agency practice. Should 

the BLM choose not to include the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized classification in the Final 

Yuma RMP, however, text in the RMP must provide a rationale for any deviation from accepted 

protocol while providing appropriate disclosure of the fact that BLM’s application of the ROS 

has been altered for the purposes of this RMP. 

Response: The prescribed recreation settings/ROS classes and definitions proposed in the 

DRMP/DEIS were applied appropriately in regards to BLM policy. The 1986 and 1987 Yuma 

District Resource Management Plan, as amended, the 1988 Lower Gila South Resource 

Page 5-126 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-127 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Management Plan, as amended, and the 1983 Lower Gila North Management Plan, as amended, 

did not establish any ROS classes, which is why none were disclosed under Alternative A (the 

No Action Alternative) on Table 2-11. The PRMP/FEIS has been updated to include this 

information. 

The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook instructs the BLM to “prescribe recreation setting 

character conditions required to produce recreation opportunities and facilitate the attainment of 

both recreation experiences and beneficial outcomes...(the recreation opportunity spectrum is 

one of the existing tools for both describing existing setting character and prescribing desired 

setting character)” (BLM Manual H-1601-1, Appendix C, pages 15-16). The handbook did not 

establish a standard set of ROS classes and definitions to be used consistently throughout the 

BLM. 

BLM Manual 8320 – Planning for Recreation Resources (04/16/1981) provides additional policy 

guidance on the use of the ROS in BLM land use planning efforts. Appendix 1, page 1 of the 

manual provides a description of the various prescribed recreation settings/ROS classes, which 

coincide with the ROS classes recommended in the comment. However, the manual states that 

“these descriptors provide a general overview of the opportunities included in each class. These 

overview statements do not describe each class in detail, but rather provide a point of departure 

from which the planner or manager can develop more precise prescriptions for each class based 

on specific situations encountered in field operations.” In fact, a cursory review of other 

approved BLM land use plans shows that BLM field offices commonly tailor prescribed 

recreation settings/ROS classes to suite their specific needs, as provided for under BLM policy. 

A few of the prescribed recreation settings/ROS classes found in other BLM land use plans 

include Residential, Industrial, Agricultural, Front Country, Middle Country, and Back Country. 

These prescribed recreation settings/ROS classes represent a far wider departure from the 1979 

Clark-Stankey ROS system than the prescribed recreation settings/ROS classes proposed in the 

YFO PRMP/FEIS.

Motorized recreation on the public lands is primarily managed through the decisions proposed in 

Section 2.12, Travel Management, which includes the designation of OHV Management Areas 

and the evaluation criteria to be used for future individual route designations. Prescribed 

recreation settings are identified as one of several types of evaluation criteria to be considered 

during the designation of routes. As the commenter states, motorized recreation within Semiprimitive prescribed recreation settings/ROS classes may be limited by “resource protection 

measures,” which could include various types of future route designations. 

The inclusion of the “Semi-primitive Non-Motorized” ROS class in the Glossary of the 

DRMP/DEIS was an error, and the definitions of all prescribed recreation settings to be used 

within the YFO have been included and/or corrected in the PRMP/FEIS.

The BLM does not maintain a long-standing policy and/or protocol for the use of ROS. The YFO 

has determined that the prescribed recreation settings/ROS classes and their corresponding 

definitions included in the PRMP/FEIS would provide sufficient recreation planning guidance 

over the life of this plan. Deviation from the 1979 ROS classes and definitions is allowable 

under existing BLM policy.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

3. Motorized Recreation Management 

Public Concern 1: Wildlife and Animals

Comment 1195 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): Based on our limited understanding 

of the various settings and classifications we would favor the classifications of rural-natural and 

semi-primitive, motorized as these settings appear to be the best fit towards leaving things as 

they presently are. We see no compelling reason to advance more primitive or semi-primitive, 

non-motorized recreation and we view these setting as potential threats to wildlife conservation 

activities and responsive wildlife dependent recreations. 

Response: Recreation management proposals included in this PRMP/FEIS would not supersede 

the BLM’s statutory responsibilities for wildlife habitat management. The direct and indirect 

impacts from proposed recreation management allocations have been updated in Chapter 4 of the 

PRMP/FEIS.

Comment 353: All ATV riders love wildlife and do not destroy the land. As for the low count of 

sheep - they moved on due to mountain lions in certain areas. Please choose Alternative A - no 

action. 

Response: There are many factors aside from predators that may influence changes in bighorn 

sheep populations, but it is unclear which factor has the biggest influence. For example, 

predators, lack of rainfall, and human disturbances could all be influencing bighorn sheep 

populations. Even if human disturbance is not the main cause of the population decline, easing 

that extra stress would benefit the population. Predator control and other management tools may 

also be needed to help this valuable resource. BLM’s goal is to manage habitat to sustain healthy 

populations of bighorn sheep and provide recreation opportunities. 

Public Concern 2: Airstrips and Airplanes 

Comment 223: There needs to be someplace people can fly in here. This town is growing and it 

needs an airport, BLM has the land. 

Response: Any applications for an airport must meet FAA regulations and would be considered 

on a case-by-case basis.

4. Developed Recreation Facilities 

Public Concern 1: General 

Comment 420: BLM should develop something for the public to use. 

Response: Within the 1.3 million acre planning area, the YFO operates and maintains 24 

designated recreation sites identified in Table 3-19, which include boat ramps, day-use areas, 14-

day camping areas, and LTVAs.

Page 5-128 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-129 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Public Concern 2: Campgrounds and Picnic Areas 

Comment 21 (Tamarack Lagoon Corp.): Further clarify maximum length of stay at recreation 

concessions. Paragraph 3.13.3 of the Draft RMP states, "The maximum length of stay within 

concessions is limited to 150 days per year". The question is whether this applies to RV trailers 

or individual occupants, and if the latter, what procedures are in place to monitor the length of 

stay of individuals? 

Response: The length of stay policy within concessions applies to individuals. Monitoring and 

compliance of this policy is the responsibility of the concession lease holder. Concessions are 

managed according to 43 CFR 2920.

Comment 24 (Tamarack Lagoon Corp.): Further define plans for Sandy Cove Campground 

("Hippy Hole"). Expanded use of this area has resulted in a significant public health risk due to 

lack of public restrooms or portable toilets. Please include specific plans to deal with this. 

Response: The BLM finalized the Oxbow Recreation and Wildlife Area Management Plan and 

Environmental Assessment in 2005. This plan calls for recreational improvements to address 

existing public health and safety, wildlife habitat, water quality, and wildland fire management 

issues at Sandy Cove. However, land status and jurisdictional issues must first be resolved prior 

to implementing any improvements, which would then be completed as funding and staff levels 

allow.

5. Non-Motorized Recreation Management 

Public Concern 1: General

Comment 206: Foot, bicycle, and horse traffic causes damage if also used or confined to too 

small use area. 

Response: Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS acknowledges that pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian 

use of the public lands can cause direct and indirect impacts to a variety of resource values. 

Impacts from these route uses will also be systematically evaluated during the travel 

management planning process.

Public Concern 2: Dispersed Camping 

Comment 256 (Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona): I would recommend that campsites be set up, 

[the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail] is a long distance trail. It is something over 

400 miles in Arizona, a total distance of 1,200 miles in California and Arizona. 

Response: The need and suitability for campsite designations and other supportive facilities will 

be considered during the future on-the-ground planning and development of a recreational Anza 

Trail. Most public lands within the planning area are already available for dispersed overnight 

camping for up to 14 consecutive days within any 28-day period.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Public Concern 3: Equestrian/Pack Animals 

Comment 331: I would like to register my request for more horseback riding trails and 

accommodations. The tremendous residential growth we are experiencing in and around Yuma -

- especially out in the country has significantly shrunk the available land for trail riding. 

However, there has not been a decrease in the number of horse owners in the area, in fact those 

numbers, I'm sure, have increased as well.

Response: While the primary focus of the BLM’s future Travel Management Plans is for 

motorized OHV trails, the planning process will also include the designation of routes for nonmotorized uses, such as horseback riding, hiking, and mountain biking. The BLM has the ability 

to designate trails for specific uses, such as for hiking only or for equestrian use only. During the 

travel management planning process, all public land users will have the opportunity to 

recommend how individual trails should be designated. Horseback riders should also be 

prepared to identify maintenance needs for routes that provide access to existing or potential 

equestrian trailheads so that vehicles with horse trailers can safely reach their destinations.

Comment 1369 (AGFD): Page 2-95, Table 2-20 Management Actions, last row, RMP 

Statement-In the Trigo Mountains Wilderness, limit equestrian use...: We do not believe it is 

necessary to limit equestrian use to inventoried routes in the whole wilderness area at this time. 

Response: This Management Action was modified in the PRMP/FEIS to limit only equestrian 

groups authorized by SRPs to pre-selected trails in all wilderness areas. The Management 

Action is stated as follows: “Limit equestrian use authorized by SRPs to pre-selected trails on a 

case-by-case basis.”

Comment 905: BLM must not limit access by horse anywhere, including Wilderness. One of the 

best ways to enjoy a wilderness experience would be by horseback... 

Response: Proposed equestrian use limitations are mitigation measures to protect sensitive 

natural and cultural resources, since horse tracks can cause permanent and irreparable damage to 

identified significant resource values. This type of mitigation is particularly effective in areas 

with a high concentration of intaglio features and other cultural sites that are listed on the NRHP, 

such as the Blythe Intaglios and Indian Springs. In addition, many of these mitigation measures 

would only apply to horseback riders participating in activities authorized by the BLM’s SRP 

program, and not to individual horseback riders casually recreating on the public lands. 

Comment 1373 (AGFD): Page 2-96, Table 2-22 Management Actions, last row, RMP 

Statement-Within the Southern Desert Communities...: We do not believe that it is necessary to 

limit equestrian use to inventoried or designated routes in the whole area at this time. 

Comment 1374: Page 2-97, Table 2-23 Management Actions, last row, RMP Statement-Limit 

equestrian use...: We do not believe that it is necessary to limit equestrian use to inventoried or 

designated routes in the whole ACEC at this time. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS continues to propose limiting equestrian use within the Big Marias, 

Dripping Springs, and Sears Point ACECs to existing inventoried routes until designation in 

Page 5-130 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-131 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

order to protect sensitive cultural resources within these areas. The PRMP/FEIS no longer 

proposes to limit equestrian use to existing inventoried trails within the Southern Desert 

Communities, Gila Mountains, Laguna Mountains, Trigo Mountains, and Ehrenberg-Cibola 

RMZs. The PRMP/FEIS also proposes to limit equestrian use authorized by SRPs to pre-selected 

trails on a case-by-case basis. 

Public Concern 4: Other Recreational Uses 

Subconcern: Rockhounding

Comment 1440: We also do a little rock-hounding but so many areas close in are being closed 

off. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS includes no proposals that would impose additional restrictions or 

limitations on rockhounding throughout the 1.3 million acres of public land within the planning 

area. Other applicable laws and regulations would still apply to rockhounding activities, such as 

acceptable uses of motor-vehicles and limits to amount of material removed.

Subconcern: Hot Air Ballooning

Comment 203: I own a hot air balloon, which I have flown in the area in the past. Current 

regulations prohibit hot air balloons from landing or taking off in the LTVAs, unless authorized 

in advance. In recent years we have been actively discouraged from flying anywhere in the area 

and that a permit would not be granted. I have reviewed the DRMP and did not find any 

comment regarding balloons or other aircraft. I am requesting that the Yuma office consider 

permitting this low impact activity, similar to BLM policy in other desert areas. 

Comment 204: Permitting balloons in un-congested areas (perhaps 1,000 feet from any rv/camp 

site) would ensure public safety and provide for this popular recreational activity. 

Response: Specific activities within the LTVAs, such as hot air ballooning, were addressed in 

the Long-Term Visitor Area Supplemental Rules and hot air ballooning was specifically 

prohibited (unless authorized in advance by the BLM authorized officer). Hot air ballooning 

within designated recreation sites poses safety concerns and would not normally be authorized. 

Hot air ballooning on public lands outside of designated recreation sites might be available, but 

travel off existing inventoried routes to recover equipment would not be allowed and the 

individuals participating could be held liable for damage to vegetation or other resources. Hot 

air ballooning for commercial activities in all cases would require an authorized permit and 

payment of appropriate fees.

Public Concern 5: User Fees 

Comment 473: You can preserve the wide open solitude of the desert by implementing a fee for 

recreation program in the area. By charging people to use the land while you subsidize 

commercial interests for using up the land, you will cause recreationists to look for hiking 

opportunities elsewhere. This will be an economic boon to the area because by reducing the 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

number of people who come, you will attract solitude seekers who are willing to pay top dollar 

for walking around in the desert. 

Wait maybe I am wrong here, do not start a fee for recreation program. Hikers seeking solitude 

are usually not a big money type group and you may be better off getting the big money 

organizations you currently subsidize to pay their fair share for consuming the land rather than 

just using it. 

Response: The BLM is only authorized by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and 

43 CFR 2930 to collect fees on the public lands at developed recreation sites and for commercial 

operations, organized group events, competitive events, and use of specially designated areas.

6. Recreation Permitting 

Comment 205: Current access should carry user responsibility to provide the best experience 

for most people. Only licensed and insured vehicles operated by licensed operators. License 

would require mufflers and safety gear. Modified off-road only rigs (ATV, bikes, truck) induce 

"wild" behavior. 

Response: OHV vehicle licensing and insurance requirements are regulated and enforced by 

State governments. Federal vehicle operation standards for use on the public lands are identified 

in 43 CFR 8343.

7. User Education and Research 

Public Concern 1: General Education 

Comment 645: Education of the general public requires easily accessible literature written in a 

language easily understood. The literature must be available at all entrances to the LTVA areas, 

at all ATV related businesses, at libraries, Chambers of Commerce, RV parks, living areas (such 

as Rainbow Acres), and all other public facilities. The literature must contain detailed maps, 

simplified rules and regulations. Also included must be easily understood reasons for safety, 

health issues (dust), protection of the land, vegetation, and animals. 

Comment 439: Education programs are absent for many BLM land users outside the LTVA's. 

LTVA rules are too long, and are not emphasized by the volunteers. They are not read by the 

casual visitor. No rules are distributed to RV parks and all local public organizations around 

the heavy use area of Quartzsite. A growing number of users in the North La Posa come from 

outside and create dust, speed and new roads where people pay to live. 

Comment 260 (Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona): I don’t know if you visited the Hohokam 

Cultural Center of the Gila River Indian Tribe. They have, in fact the first exhibit was ancestral 

trails. If you haven’t seen that, I think you would find that very interesting and try to develop 

something within the Yuma district of that type. 

Response: The development of interpretive and educational materials is not considered an 

RMP-level decision. However, the YFO will continue striving to provide the public with the 

Page 5-132 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-133 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

best quality informational, interpretive, educational signs, maps, and brochures possible as 

funding allows. The BLM supports the use of easily understood plain language in all public 

documents.

Public Concern 2: Cultural Resources 

Comment 743: Education and roping off the petroglyphs and making pathways to direct 

pedestrians may help protect them. 

Response: Installing fencing, defined pathways, and interpretive materials is often a successful 

way to reduce impacts to important petroglyph sites from public visitation. The Proposed Plan of 

the PRMP/FEIS identifies these types of protection measures at important cultural sites within 

proposed ACECs and other public use cultural resource sites throughout the planning area.

8. Volunteers, Partners 

Comment 622: I belong to the Quartzsite Gem and Mineral Club and the Quartzsite Metal 

Detector Club and I am sure there would be members who would be willing to help [marking 

trails]. Would this type of help be of interest to BLM?

Comment 351: We need to have more interaction with BLM and be watchdogs for them -- we 

have an abundance of volunteers that would be glad to work to keep our lands in accordance 

with BLM rules. 

Comment 374: As a group of a very large group of senior citizens in the Quartzsite area who are 

concerned about our use of BLM land, we could easily be used to promote the correct use of 

existing trails by helping mark these trails and help as we do now collect litter. 

Response: The YFO is always interested in providing additional volunteer opportunities. The 

signing and maintenance of the designated travel management network will be no small task. 

You or your club should contact the YFO early in the travel management planning process for 

the areas you’re interested in and identify your willingness to volunteer. Travel Management 

Plans will also address identified route maintenance needs, providing you or your club with an 

excellent opportunity to actively assist in managing the future Travel Management Network. 

F. LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT 

1. Public Land Ownership/Boundaries 

Public Concern 1: Private Property/Inholdings 

Comment 39: Several private owners in the Walters Camp area of the Colorado River ... object 

to any effort to include their private property within the plan. Provide me with a map showing 

the adjusted boundaries which do not include the privately owned properties except those folks 

who may have specifically agreed to the inclusion of their respective properties in the plan .. If 

you prefer, a simple letter stating private property is not included within the boundaries of the 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

plan would be sufficient. 

Response: A letter was sent to the commenter on February 15, 2007 stating “...In accordance 

with FLPMA and the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), a planning area boundary 

includes all lands regardless of jurisdiction: however, BLM will only make decisions regarding 

lands that fall under the BLM jurisdiction.” The private property within the boundaries of the 

SCRMA would not be impacted by the plan, as private land is outside the jurisdiction of the 

BLM.

Public Concern 2: Wilderness Areas 

Comment 899: In regard to the boundary of the Eagletail Mountain Wilderness, I believe BLM 

has wrongfully placed the boundary to encompass 20,000 plus acres which should not be 

wilderness according to the Proposed Action described in the Lower Gila South Final EIA of 

1987. 

Comment 1193 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): We could not help but notice on page 

2-6 that your listed inventory of designated wilderness acreage differs significantly from the 

enumerated acreages contained within Title 1 of the 1990 Arizona Desert Wilderness Act. In one 

case, the Eagletail Mountains Wilderness is nearly 10,000 acres, or more than 10% larger than 

what Congress approved in the enabling legislation. We trust that your office will identify these 

anomalies and correct these errors. 

Response: The Eagletails Wilderness acreage reflects the intent of the congressional Wilderness 

designation, including Cemetary Ridge, from the February 1990 map included in the Arizona 

Wilderness Act of 1990. The acreage for this Wilderness Area was merely estimated to be 

89,900 acres. The completed survey of the Wilderness Area was filed in 2001 yielding 98,675 

acres. For this RMP, YFO rounded this acreage to 98,600 acres, to compromise between 

different computing methods which yielded slightly different results (+/- 100 acres). The 

wilderness boundary has not been enlarged. It is clear that the boundary the BLM has used since 

the passage of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 is that depicted on the February 1990 

map. 

2. ROW Corridors 

Public Concern 1: General 

Comment 266: No new utility corridors [ROW corridors] should be approved. 

Response: FLPMA mandates, as stated in Section 2.18.1.C.1, that in order to minimize adverse 

environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate ROWs, the utilization of ROW Corridors 

would be required to the extent practical, and each ROW or permit shall reserve to BLM the 

right to grant additional ROWs or permits for compatible uses on or adjacent to existing ROWs. 

New corridors are being proposed to align established corridors with adjacent BLM field office 

corridors in California and Arizona.

Page 5-134 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-135 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Public Concern 2: Adequacy of Analysis 

Comment 1120 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The DRMP/DEIS Fails to Demonstrate 

a Need for the Proposed Number of Utility Corridors [ROW corridor]. Not only does the EIS fail 

to provide justification for seven new utility corridors [ROW corridor], it fails to justify retention 

of two of the three existing utility corridors [ROW corridor] (Palo Verde-Devers and Interstate 

10). The attempted justification and analysis for the utility corridors [ROW corridor] is sketchy 

and outdated. The EIS states that designated utility corridors [ROW corridor] will be consistent 

with the Western Utility Group (WUG) Corridor Study (pp. 2-132, 3-102), but this is not 

demonstrated in the EIS, nor is it clear which “Western Utility Group Corridor Study” is being 

invoked. A search of the “References Cited” section of the EIS fails to turn up a reference to the 

document. Western Regional Corridor Study that is in the process of being revised? According to 

the BLM National Energy Initiatives web page (http://www.blm.gov/energy/task25.htm), which 

was accessed on March 11, 2007, “The Western Utility Group’s (WUG) Western Regional 

Corridor Study is currently being updated to identify proposed corridors by priority that is tied 

to future energy related transmission needs.” Thus, it would appear that the EIS is either using 

an out-of-date study from the early 1990s, or an as-yet incomplete document. In either case, this 

rationale for designating the utility corridors [ROW corridor] is faulty. 

The EIS similarly fails to consider other planning documents in proposing designation of utility 

corridors [ROW corridor]. The need for more utility corridors [ROW corridor] is nowhere 

related to any other sources projecting future proposals for utility lines such as electrical 

transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, and petroleum or petroleum product pipelines. On the 

state level, the EIS ignores the Arizona Corporation Commission’s recently-issued Fourth 

Biennial Transmission Assessment, 2006-2015 (Arizona Corporation Commission Staff and 

KEMA, Inc., 2007). On the federal level, the EIS fails to mention the West-Wide Energy Corridor 

Programmatic EIS (West-Wide PEIS; http://corridoreis.anl.gov/). BLM is one of four lead 

agencies in this process. Are the utility corridors [ROW corridor] proposed by BLM in 

Alternative E of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) to be considered input to this process? 

Nowhere is it stated that the RMP may have to be amended to accommodate the outcome of the 

West-Wide PEIS and designating additional utility corridors [ROW corridors] at this time may 

be premature given the West-Wide PEIS process. 

Response: Information from the Western Utility Group 1992 Western Regional Corridor Study, 

the Draft West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS, and public input was considered for the 

development of the range of alternatives in this PRMP/FEIS. All the corridors identified in the 

Proposed Plan, except for US Highway 95 California and portions of I-10, were designated or 

proposed as corridors in the Western Utility Group 1992 Western Regional Corridor Study. The 

West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS is not complete as of the publication of this 

document. The ROW Corridors identified in the YFO’s Proposed Plan meet the needs identified 

in the Draft West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS and attempts to meet the local needs 

for ROW developments in the planning area. The YFO PRMP/FEIS and the Draft West-wide 

Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS are considered two separate planning documents, and there 

are separate review processes for each. The 1992 Study has been added to the “References 

Cited” section of the PRMP/FEIS.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

The continued need for the four existing ROW Corridors is demonstrated by the numerous 

ROWs within those four corridors. It is anticipated that future applications for ROWs would be 

proposed within those corridors. After further analysis and review of proposed corridors, two 

ROW Corridors [South Muggins (ROW 3) and Gila Mountains East (ROW 6)] have been 

removed from the PRMP/FEIS Proposed Plan. In addition, the Parker Blaisdell ROW Corridor 

was modified to remove the part south of Blaisdell. The four additional ROW Corridor proposals 

that are included in the Proposed Plan are currently encumbered by numerous ROWs and would 

be utilized to minimize future adverse environmental impacts. Confining new authorizations 

within established corridors where possible would inhibit the proliferation of separate ROW 

routes outside corridors and would be consistent with Section 503 of FLPMA. In addition, these 

ROW Corridors would align corridors with adjacent BLM field offices in California and Arizona 

to facilitate transmission of electricity, communications, and oil-based products between states. 

The Palo-Verde Mountains Reroute ROW Corridor would realign a portion of an existing 

corridor (identified as Corridor J in the El Centro Field Office), which currently cuts through the 

Palo Verde Mountains Wilderness in California. Its location in Wilderness and the narrow width 

of the existing corridor prohibits future use. 

The Fourth Biennial Transmission Assessment (Assessment) became available after the YFO 

DRMP/DEIS was published in December 2006. The YFO has since acquired and reviewed a 

copy of the Assessment. The Assessment is focused on electrical transmission facilities and does 

not evaluate other facilities that may be included in ROW Corridors. The Assessment’s purpose 

is to determine the adequacy of the existing and planned transmission facilities in Arizona to 

meet present and future energy needs in Arizona. The proposed corridors in the YFO 

PRMP/FEIS would facilitate this goal and in addition would facilitate transmission of energy 

between Arizona and other states within the region. The ROW Corridors would also provide for 

routing other facilities such as oil and gas pipelines and fiber optic lines to meet public demand.

Comment 1121 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): We also question whether the utility 

corridors [ROW corridor] need to be one mile (5280 feet) wide. The West-Wide PEIS is 

analyzing corridors that are 3500 feet wide 

http://corridoreis.anl.gov/documents/docs/Energy_Corridor_PPT_for_Senate_Feb06.pdf,slide 

10). A one mile swath of land covers a very large area and increases the likelihood of significant 

negative impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and cultural and archaeological sites. 

Comment 1126 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The Environmental Impacts of the 

Remaining Eight Proposed Designated Utility Corridors [ROW Corridors] Are Insufficiently 

Analyzed. Assessing the potential environmental impacts of the remaining proposed seven and 

one existing utility corridors [ROW corridors] is not possible given the paucity of information 

provided in the DEIS. In this respect, the DEIS fails to meet NEPA standards. It is clear that 

there is an excess of proposed corridors in the southern part of the planning area. Since the 

utility corridors [ROW corridors] aren’t labeled on Maps 2-12a through 2-12e, it is also difficult 

to correlate them with the names used in Table 2-30 (p. 2-125) of the DEIS. We question why so 

many utility corridors [ROW corridors] are needed lacking any documented specific demand in 

the DEIS and given that each utility corridor [ROW corridors] is one mile wide. The proposed 

Devers-Palo Verde #2 transmission line would have a right-of-way of 130 feet (California Public 

Utilities Commission and U.S. Bureau of Land Management 2006:ES-8); in one mile (5280 feet), 

forty such transmission lines could be built, although we recognize that the full corridor may not 

Page 5-136 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-137 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

be available because of terrain, biological, cultural, or other resources. Still, a one mile corridor 

seems to allow for multiple power and pipe lines both above and below ground without 

encroachment on other rights-of-way. Thus we see a need for no more than one utility corridor 

[ROW corridor] going east to west in the southern part of the planning area, and we continue to 

question whether a one mile width is necessary. It is impossible to express a preference for a 

specific utility corridor [ROW corridor] in this area lacking more detailed information, which is 

desperately needed for an analysis under NEPA. 

We also doubt that US 95 needs to be designated a utility corridor [ROW corridor] throughout 

the Yuma Field Office boundaries. We recognize that there is an existing 161 kilovolt Parker to 

Gila transmission line along US 95. We are also unaware of any proposal to build large power 

lines (230 kilovolts and up) along this route. If it is necessary to replace the existing power line, 

that could be handled through an EIS at the appropriate time, rather than designating a utility 

corridor [ROW corridor along US 95. 

Ringing the Muggins Mountains Wilderness Area with a new utility corridor [ROW corridor] on 

the southwest in addition to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric power line and corridor 

along the northern boundary of the Muggins Mountains Wilderness is unjustified by any 

discussion in the document and we urge BLM not to designate it as a utility corridor [ROW 

corridor]. 

Lacking sufficient information for its utility corridor [ROW corridor] proposals, we recommend 

that BLM do a more detailed analysis that would provide justification for designating or not 

designating utility corridors [ROW corridors]. This should include more information on demand 

and potential impacts on the environment, and opportunities for public proposal and comment. 

We are also concerned that if BLM designates the proposed utility corridors [ROW corridors] in 

Alternative E without the sufficient analysis we have requested, BLM may employ only an 

environmental assessment rather than an environmental impact statement to assess impacts from 

specific proposed projects. This would result in insufficient analysis of the impacts of the project 

at both the planning (RMP) and project levels. 

Response: Previous RMPs encompassing the current planning area analyzed and approved four 

one-mile wide ROW Corridors. Designation of a one mile wide corridor does not mean the 

entire one mile width would be disturbed or even utilized. In accordance with Section 503 of 

FLPMA, the intent of the designation of ROW Corridors is to minimize adverse environmental 

impacts and the proliferation of separate ROWs. The one mile width allows for the alignment of 

the linear ROW to be proposed where it would avoid special designation areas and 

environmentally sensitive areas to the maximum extent possible. Appropriate mitigation would 

be required when avoidance is not possible. The one mile width determination is consistent with 

BLM policy at this time. The Western Utility Group recommended designating the ROW 

Corridors widths between two miles and five miles wide. The West-wide Energy Corridor 

Programmatic EIS recommends maintaining existing corridors at the original width.

New applications for ROWs within any designated ROW Corridor would be analyzed through 

the appropriate NEPA document at the time of the application. If significant impacts to natural 

and/or cultural resources were found during the analysis of the proposed ROW within a ROW 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Corridor, the proper mitigation measures, including possible rerouting a portion of the ROW, 

would be required to avoid any sensitive areas. Section 2.18.1.C.1 of the PRMP/FEIS was 

reworded to state under Management Actions Common to All Alternatives that rights of way 

would avoid special designation areas and environmentally sensitive areas such as SCRMAs and 

WHAs to the maximum extent possible. Appropriate mitigation would be required when 

avoidance is not possible.

Comment 1422 (Quechan Tribe): The Tribe requests that BLM clarify how the designation of 

new energy corridors in the Draft RMP relates to the West-Wide Energy Corridor Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement currently being developed by BLM and the U.S. Forest Service 

pursuant to Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Comment 84: Protect our public lands in Western Arizona by limiting utility corridors [ROW 

corridors] to the existing corridors. Consideration of additional power lines should first 

examine the impacts on wildlife and should not be allowed in sensitive areas. Proposals like the 

Devers to Palo Verde 2 line should be rejected. 

Comment 1125 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The Interstate 10 Utility Corridor [ROW 

Corridor] Faces Serious Constraints on Its Use. The Lower Gila South Resource Management 

Plan (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1985:4) provided that: “The Interstate 10 corridor, 

because of resource concerns, will have a restriction regarding overhead lines. Due to the close 

proximity of important bighorn sheep waters and lambing grounds north of the Interstate and 

because of terrain features north of the Interstate, overhead transmission lines will not be 

allowed north of I-10 between townships 16 W. and 18 W. 

In practice, BLM has declined to approve overhead transmission lines either north or south of I10, as was the case in both Southern California Edison applications to construct the DeversPalo Verde #2 transmission line, in the late 1980s and most recently. We share BLM’s concerns 

over the effect of construction, operation and maintenance of electric transmission lines on 

bighorn sheep, and add further concerns from the effect of constructing underground lines 

through this area as well. Since this designated utility corridor [ROW corridor] faces serious 

limitations on its use as a utility corridor [ROW corridor], including terrain features, we ask 

that BLM un-designate this utility corridor [ROW corridor] as part of this RMP process. 

Response: Table 2-30 in Section 2.18 of the PRMP/FEIS shows four existing ROW Corridors in 

the planning area under Alternative A. There are a total of eight ROW Corridors included in the 

Proposed Plan (three are existing within Alternative A), reduced from the 10 ROW Corridors 

that were proposed in the Preferred Alternative of the DRMP/DEIS. After reviewing public 

comments on the ROW Corridors, YFO re-evaluated the corridor proposals and determined that 

it was appropriate to remove the Gila Mountains East (ROW 6), South Muggins (ROW 3), and a 

segment of Highway 95 between Blaisdell and San Luis from the PRMP/FEIS Proposed Plan. 

A ROW Corridor in itself has no impacts on the landscape. The designations of ROW Corridors 

serve as boundaries to confine ROW authorizations in order to minimize adverse environmental 

impacts and the proliferation of separate ROWs. Each application for ROW proposals are 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis and are subject to individual NEPA reviews. ROW 

authorizations would be confined to designated corridors wherever feasible. The magnitude of 

Page 5-138 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-139 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

potential disturbance will determine the appropriate NEPA documentation, regardless of the 

location. A ROW authorization inside a corridor does not preclude a full NEPA analysis simply 

because it is placed within a designated corridor. 

This document does not analyze the implementation of site-specific ROWs. The Devers to Palo 

Verde 2 transmission line is an implementation level decision outside the scope of this plan. 

Implementation-level decisions such as these go through an independent and site-specific NEPA 

analysis to ensure that an appropriate environmental review is conducted and the proposed 

transmission line would be in compliance with all other laws and regulations. 

Comment 1127 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Wind Energy Development Needs 

Further Analysis. We strongly support use of renewable energy generation, but as with all 

generation, it must be appropriately sited. We are concerned about potential wind energy 

development in the Trigo Mountains and Little Horn Mountains areas because of the designated 

and potential wilderness characteristics (DEIS, p. 3-104 to 3-105) and the conflicts with those 

wilderness characteristics. We also have concerns about potential negative effects on bighorn 

sheep in the Dome Rock Mountains. Sheep, especially during lambing time, are easily disturbed 

by various intrusions. Visual resource concerns apply to the Telegraph Pass area in the Gila 

Mountains. Just because these areas could meet wind speed criteria for wind energy 

development doesn’t necessarily mean that they should be developed for wind energy. 

Likewise, the BLM should include criteria for siting of any solar panels, dishes or other 

renewable resources. Wilderness areas, and areas with sensitive wildlife, ACECs, should be 

avoided. The BLM should seek to generate any power needed for refuge offices or facilities with 

solar panels, however. 

Response: This issue was addressed under section 2.18.1, Land Use Authorizations. Solar or 

wind generating facilities would not be allowed in VRM Classes I or II. The Little Horns is 

designated VRM Class II. The area south of the Trigo Mountains Wilderness is predominantly 

VRM Class II, excluding a ROW Corridor and the area north of the Wilderness is VRM Class 

III.

Comment 1171 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The YFO Draft RMP/EIS may need to be 

amended due to construction associated with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion project. North 

Baja Pipeline, LLC has submitted an amended Right-of-Way Grant application to the BLM for 

the crossing of Federal lands. Approval of the application would require an amendment to the 

California Desert Conservation Plan and the Yuma District RMP, due to pipeline construction 

across the Milpitas Wash Special Management Area. Table 2-30 does not reference this utility 

corridor [ROW corridor]. 

EPA recommends that table 2-30 be revised to include references for the construction associated 

with the North Baja Pipeline Expansion project. 

Response: The designation of the Milpitas Wash Special Management Area is not being carried 

forward to the PRMP/FEIS. If the Proposed Plan is approved as proposed, the Palo Verde 

Mountains Re-route ROW Corridor would provide for the North Baja Pipeline. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Public Concern 3: Clarity of Information 

Comment 724 (USIBWC): Map_2_12b_Lands_Realty_Mineral_AltB1.pdf. The map shows a 

utility corridor [ROW corridor] in the Limitrophe Reach. Is that so, or is this a 

misrepresentation by the reviewer due to possibly to the width of the symbol used for utility 

corridors [ROW corridor]? 

Response: The Proposed Plan was changed in the PRMP/FEIS to remove the ROW Corridor 

segment referred to in your comment. This is identified as the Parker-Blaisdell ROW Corridor 

from the intersection of sections 20, 21, 28, and 29, T. 8 S., R. 21 W., to the International 

Boundary.

Public Concern 4: Agency Rules, Plans, Policies 

Comment 1123 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The Existing Palo Verde-Devers Utility 

Corridor [ROW Corridor] Fails to Meet BLM’s Own Standards for a Utility Corridor [ROW 

Corridor] and Needs to Be Undesignated. The DEIS states that designated utility corridors 

[ROW corridor] will be one mile wide. Along the BLM-designated Palo Verde-Devers corridor, 

there are already an electrical transmission line (Southern California Edison’s) and a natural 

gas pipeline. Southern California Edison (Edison) has applied to construct a second electrical 

transmission line along the same route (Devers-Palo Verde #2), and BLM supports use of that 

route. If Edison is successful in obtaining all required permits and approvals, the second power 

line passing through the KOFA National Wildlife Refuge, along with the existing Edison power 

line and the natural gas pipeline, will completely fill the area between adjacent wilderness areas 

on the refuge. No room will be available for more above or below ground utility lines because of 

insufficient separation. 

In addition, the KOFA National Wildlife Refuge has just issued a compatibility determination 

which states that the second power line (Devers-Palo Verde #2) is incompatible with refuge 

purposes (the decision document can be found online 

at:http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/arizona/Kofa%20NWR%20Compatibility%20Determin

ation- SCE%20ROW.pdf). As far as designating a utility corridor [ROW corridor] is concerned, 

it doesn’t make any difference whether the Edison Devers-Palo Verde #2 transmission line is 

ultimately built through the refuge or not. It just doesn’t make sense to designate a utility 

“corridor” [ROW corridor] up to the east and west sides of the refuge because a) if Devers-Palo 

Verde #2 is built across the refuge, no further pipelines or power lines can be accommodated 

there, and b) while BLM can designate utility corridors [ROW corridors] on BLM-administered 

land, but not US Fish & Wildlife Service-administered National Wildlife Refuges, and the Fish & 

Wildlife Service doesn’t designate utility corridors [ROW corridors] as part of their planning 

process, and since the Fish & Wildlife Service has found Devers-Palo Verde #2 to be 

incompatible with the mission and purposes of the refuge, and without buy-in from the Fish & 

Wildlife Service, a utility corridor [ROW corridor] that requires crossing a National Wildlife 

Refuge is meaningless. We therefore ask that BLM un-designate the Palo Verde-Devers Utility 

Corridor [ROW Corridor] as part of this planning process.

Response: The Palo Verde-Devers is an existing designated ROW Corridor, which was 

designated in the 1987 Yuma District RMP. This corridor has existing authorizations within, and 

Page 5-140 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-141 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

it is appropriate under FLPMA to maintain as an existing corridor in order to minimize 

environmental impacts and reduce ROW proliferation. Each new ROW proposal will require an 

individual, site-specific NEPA Analysis. These authorizations are approved only after 

compliance with NEPA, applicable environmental laws, and other land-use plan decisions. 

Stipulations and mitigation measures are included in all land-use authorizations which must be 

adhered to throughout implementation.

Public Concern 5: Cultural Resources 

Comment 104: Utility corridors [ROW corridor] should not disturb or destroy significant 

cultural areas. 

Comment 1423 (Quechan Tribe): The proposed development of utility corridors [ROW 

corridors] could result in destruction or significant damage to cultural resources. The Tribe 

requests BLM to limit both the number and allowed width of proposed corridors. The Tribe also 

requests BLM to avoid locating utility corridors [ROW corridors] in areas with cultural 

resources of significance to the Tribe. BLM must also comply with its obligations under the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and other environmental and cultural resources 

protection laws, including notice to and consultation with the Tribe, prior to approving any sitespecific utility development plans... Finally, as trustee to the Tribe, BLM should reject any 

proposals to develop utility corridors [ROW corridors] within the exterior boundaries of the 

Fort Yuma Reservation absent the express consent of the Quechan Tribe. 

Response: Following review of public comments, YFO staff re-evaluated the ROW Corridor 

proposals in the Proposed Plan. The PRMP/FEIS removed two ROW Corridors at South 

Muggins and East Gila Mountains and a segment of a third corridor in the Limitrophe along the 

lower Colorado River south of Yuma. Several of the proposed ROW Corridors in the Proposed 

Plan overlap with areas of known cultural resource sensitivity, such as SCRMAs. If land use 

authorizations proposed within those ROW Corridors cannot be redesigned to avoid culturally 

sensitive locations (i.e., cultural sites or SCRMAs that are allocated to Traditional Use, 

Conservation for Future Use, or Public Use), direct and indirect impacts to cultural values would 

be minimized pursuant to applicable cultural resource laws and regulations. For any cultural 

properties identified inside ROW Corridors, YFO will comply with Section 106 of the NHPA to 

mitigate impacts to significant sites. These management actions to protect cultural sites can be 

found in the Chapter 2 Cultural Resources section. In addition, YFO will notify and consult with 

all interested Native American tribes for proposed actions within ROW Corridors that have a 

potential to impact cultural sites of importance to the tribes.

3. Communication Sites and Facilities 

Comment 59: Communication sites should also be limited and the KOFA and Airway Beacon 

communication sites retired. 

Response: The Proposed Plan does not include Airway Beacon and Kofa as designated 

communication sites as shown in Section 2.18, Table 2-30.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

4. Land Actions or Tenure 

Comment 330: I would really like you to attempt to do a land swap with the Yuma Proving 

Ground to open up access to the Cinnabar Mine. People are going there anyway, lets make it 

legal. I would also encourage land swaps instead of sales. 

Response: The YPG lands were withdrawn for military purposes and management of those lands 

lies with YPG. Access to the Cinnabar Mine remains the responsibility of YPG.

5. Disposals 

Comment 60: Limit the amount of land available for disposal to only those lands already 

identified in the 1992 amendment to the RMP, a total of 4,614 acres. 

Response: All land disposal actions are discretionary and are required to be analyzed through 

NEPA prior to final decision. Section 203 of FLPMA states three criteria to apply in identifying 

public lands suitable for disposal by public sale. The criteria 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 would serve important public objectives. 

G. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. Designations/Management 

Public Concern 1: Clarity of Information 

Comment 1169 (EPA): The FEIS should specify why BLM selected Preferred Alternative E, 

which contains three ACECs, rather than Alternative D, which contains seven ACECs. The FEIS 

should also clarify why the Limitrophe should be classified as a CMA, rather than an ACEC. On 

March 9, 2007, we spoke to Micky Baily (BLM) who provided additional clarification on this 

topic. The explanations she provided regarding the designations were reasonable and should be 

incorporated in the FEIS. The reasons for this decision and the benefits associated with it should 

be more clearly described in the FEIS. 

Response: Please refer to new sections in Appendix 2-A, Proposed Plan Management Strategy 

for each ACEC.

Public Concern 2: Protection of Public Access 

Comment 254: The designation of something for critical area study, the designation of 

something as wilderness, all of this is additional ways to keep the public from having access to 

public lands. 

Page 5-142 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-143 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS does not propose to entirely restrict public access to the public 

lands. The public will continue to be provided with non-motorized access within proposed 

Closed OHV Management Areas. 

Subconcern: Recreation

Comment 1297 (Huachuca Hiking Club): I am concerned that recreational opportunities 

within the Yuma East Undeveloped SRMA may be drastically limited by the following proposed 

designations: 1) Palomas Plain ACEC; 2) the Desert Mountains WHA; 3) the Palomas Plains 

WHA; and 4) the Wildlife Movement Corridors WHA. If not carefully implemented, these 

designations could have a cumulative adverse impact on BLM’s goals for recreation 

management. I support the DRMP decision to exclude the Palomas Plain ACEC from the 

preferred alternative, as it would in my view add an unnecessary layer of complexity and 

restrictions. 

Response: As a major component of multiple-use public land management, sustainable 

recreation opportunities would continue to be planned and managed within all areas proposed for 

designations or allocations.

Subconcern: Off Highway Vehicle Use

Comment 1114 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Landscapes with Special Designations 

Must be Protected Via Restrictive ORV Management Designations. We concur with inclusion of 

the proposed 11,700-acre Dripping Springs ACEC within the Preferred Alternative. We assume 

that potential access needs to private property or valid existing mining claims preclude the BLM 

from closing the core 640 acres of the proposed ACEC outright to ORV use. We further assume 

that the BLM currently is proposing to designate motorized uses in the 640-acre area as Limited 

to Authorized Uses. As such, we encourage the BLM to also apply the ORV designation of 

Limited to Authorized Uses to a large portion of the remainder of the proposed ACEC. 

Other landscapes proposed for special designation by BLM for designation as ACEC include 

sensitive archaeological resources and rare and biologically important riparian habitat (e.g., the 

Gila River Cultural Area/Sears Point ACEC) that are adversely being impacted by ORV uses. 

The Preferred Alternatives must consider closure to ORV use in such areas in order for the BLM 

to better protect these and other important resources. At a minimum, the ORV management area 

designations for these areas should be Limited to Authorized Uses. 

The ramification of BLM’s designation of ORV management areas within the current RMP will 

be felt for decades to come. The agency will not be in a position to enact area-wide ORV 

closures as part of the forthcoming Travel Management Plan (TMP) process, as described in the 

DRMP/DEIS, because BLM authority largely will be limited to either accepting or limiting in 

some manner ORV use on inventoried routes. Given that ORV management area designations 

can only be changed through amendment to theRMP, it is unlikely that the BLM would have the 

political will to enact area-wide closures once the ORV-riding public has become accustomed to 

having legal access within sensitive landscapes. Therefore, we are concerned that the BLM 

intends to forego an important opportunity via the current RMP to curtail damaging ORV use 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

within landscapes identified as in need of heightened protection. It is our hope that the BLM 

would exercise its authority via the RMP to preclude damaging ORV use in these sensitive 

landscapes or portions therein and rely on the forthcoming TMP process to refine appropriate 

travel management networks in landscapes where ORV use poses fewer conflicts. 

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS proposes to designate a 400-acre Closed OHV 

Management Area within the proposed Dripping Springs ACEC. The remainder of the proposed 

11,700-acre ACEC is proposed as a Limited OHV Management Area where motorized travel 

would be limited to existing inventoried routes until designation. The Proposed Plan of the 

PRMP/FEIS proposes to designate a 1,400-acre Closed OHV Management Area at the proposed 

Sears Point ACEC and a 1,900-acre Closed OHV Management Area in the proposed Muggins 

Mountains SCRMA.

Subconcern: ROW Corridors

Comment 1122 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): We appreciate the BLM’s Management 

Action that utility corridors [ROW corridors] will “Avoid special designation areas and 

environmentally sensitive areas such as SCRMAs and WHAs.” (DRMP/DEIS, p. 2-131). 

However, these utility corridor [ROW corridor] exclusion areas should explicitly include 

wilderness (and areas immediately adjacent to it), ACECs, and Cooperative Management Areas 

(CMAs) and “avoid” should mean true avoidance without exception. Too often these areas have 

been chosen as a “preferred alternative” for utility corridors [ROW corridors] such as the 

decision to locate the existing San Diego Gas & Electric transmission line adjacent to the 

Muggins Mountains Wilderness Area and this RMP’s proposals to locate 1900 acres of utility 

corridor [ROW corridor] in the Big Marias ACEC and 300 acres of utility corridor [ROW 

corridor] in the proposed Limitrophe Cooperative Management Area (DEIS, pp. 4-74 to 4-75). 

The RMP should explicitly state that utility lines will not permitted in the Big Marias ACEC and 

proposed Limitrophe CMA because of the significance and sensitivity of their cultural or natural 

resources. 

Response: The ROW Corridors were re-evaluated based on public comments and two additional 

corridors (Gila Mountains East [ROW 6] and South Muggins [ROW 3]) were removed from the 

PRMP/FEIS Proposed Plan. New ROW applications in these two areas would be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis. All the remaining ROW Corridors proposed in the Proposed Plan are located 

within areas where utility lines currently exist. Limiting corridors to these established areas 

minimizes impacts to resources. The Wilderness Act does not provide for buffers surrounding 

Wilderness boundaries to minimize impacts from actions such as ROW Corridors. However, the 

document has been revised by adding a Management Action in Section 2.18.1.C as quoted here: 

“Avoid special designation areas and environmentally sensitive areas such as SCRMAs and 

WHAs to the maximum extent possible. Appropriate mitigation would be required when 

avoidance is not possible.” 

Comment 145: Nothing ruins the sight of a wilderness area like a bunch of utility poles. 

Response: Wilderness management is guided by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Arizona 

Wilderness Act of 1990. The BLM can not buffer Wilderness Areas by refusing authorizations 

adjacent and outside Wilderness Areas. The aforementioned policies apply only to those areas 

Page 5-144 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-145 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

directly within Wilderness boundaries. For more information on the location of ROW Corridors, 

please see Map 2-12e. Individual ROW applications are analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Public Concern 3: Palomas Plain 

Comment 517: The Palomas Plain parcel of the planning area is one example of an 

exceptionally valuable unfragmented habitat for game animals. Many of these areas also 

happen to be inviting places for ORV use and this poses a major threat to the critical qualities 

and the planning area that invite ORV use will demand proactive measures and active 

monitoring values harbored in these tracts. Disturbance of desert pavement or stabilized soils 

has a high probability of altering water run-off and creating a cascade of long-duration changes 

in vegetation affecting an area far out of proportion to the original changes. Maintaining these 

parcels so as to ensure they remain contiguous, viable game habitat that are connected to 

adjacent areas and secure from uncontrolled ORV incursion needs to be a top agency priority. 

Response: The Proposed Plan would designate the Palomas Plain as a WHA to maintain the 

existing functional unfragmented wildlife habitat (see Section 2.7.2 D of the PRMP/FEIS). In 

addition, The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS proposes to designate the area as the Yuma East 

Undeveloped SRMA, which would be proactively managed to intentionally sustain dispersed and 

undeveloped recreation opportunities and experiences. 

Public Concern 4: Walters Camp 

Subconcern: Cultural Resources

Comment 1417 (Quechan Tribe): The Walter’s Camp area, which is a continuation of the 

Indian Pass area, is of significant importance to the Tribe. Many cultural features, including a 

sacred trail network, are present in this area. The Tribe requests that BLM designate the 

Walter’s Camp as an ACEC, the lands should be managed for long-term preservation as an 

SCRMA with a ‘traditional use’ designation... The Tribe requests that BLM designate the 

Walter’s Camp area as an ACEC and close the protected lands to all OHV use. 

Page 2-22 of the DRMP, regarding the Walter’s Camp ACEC, states that BLM will coordinate 

and collaborate with Indian tribes’ and other agencies on issues relating to the Walter’s Camp 

lands. The Tribe has attempted to relay its concerns with the management of these lands to BLM 

on many occasions, but BLM has not acknowledged the Tribe’s concerns. What specific steps 

will BLM take to ensure the Tribe’s concerns are appropriately acknowledged in the future? 

What specific steps will BLM take to ensure that the cultural resources within the Walter’s Camp 

lands are not harmed by OHV users? 

Response: Based on information provided by the Quechan during coordination and consultation 

for this RMP revision, the Walters Camp SCRMA has been re-allocated in the PRMP/FEIS to 

Conservation for Future Use and Traditional Use (see Section 2.15.4). BLM looks forward to 

working with the Quechan to reduce impacts to resources in the Walters Camp area, and will 

coordinate and consult with the Quechan for any management or planning for that area as 

required by NHPA and NEPA. The upcoming travel management planning process for the 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Ehrenberg-Cibola Travel Management Area would designate OHV routes in the Walters Camp 

area to reduce impacts to cultural resources.

Comment 27 (Tamarack Lagoon Corp.): The North Bank Milpitas Wash area (Southern 1/4 of 

Section 6) requires continued protection and inclusion in the SCRMA due to the presence of the 

sacred Xam Kwitcam trail. Map 2-8e (Alternative E) shows the present 122 acre Restricted Area 

removed. 

Comment 28 (Tamarack Lagoon Corp.): The North Bank Milpitas Wash area (Southern 1/4 of 

Section 6) requires continued protection and inclusion in the SCRMA due to the proximity of the 

BLM RV Park concession and the high ORV use known to impact this area. Map 2-8e 

(Alternative E) shows the present 122 acre Restricted Area removed. 

Response: In the DRMP/DEIS, the Walters Camp SCRMA did not include the North Bank 

Milpitas Wash travel management restriction area within its boundaries. The document has been 

revised under the Proposed Plan to extend the Walters Camp SCRMA polygon to the north, so 

that it includes BLM-administered lands in Township 11 South, Range 22 East, Section 6 S1⁄2, 

San Bernardino Meridian, Imperial County, CA.

Subconcern: Lands and Realty Actions

Comment 29 (Tamarack Lagoon Corp.): Tamarack Lagoon has proposed that BLM include and 

manage that portion of Section 7 west of Walters Camp Road under the ACEC and/or SCRMA 

designation. Please confirm BLM's intent and the status of this arrangement (MOU). [This 

area] is owned by Tamarack Lagoon Corporation, a non-profit corporation comprised of 10 

local homeowners dedicated to preserving the desert environment. Inclusion of TLC land in the 

proposed ACEC and/or SCRMA is contingent upon similar designation of 122 acres of the 

adjacent Section 6 and limiting the RV park concession to the 18 acres currently in use. 

Response: Under the Proposed Plan, all BLM lands within the Walters Camp polygon on Map 

2-12d would be managed as a SCRMA. Management prescriptions for the Walters Camp 

SCRMA would apply to BLM-administered lands only. The YFO has modified Maps 2-2d, 2-

12b, and 2-12d in the PRMP/FEIS to include the 122 acres in Section 6 within the Walters Camp 

ACEC and SCRMA proposals. Any proposals for new or expanded concessions would be 

assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Public Concern 5: Limitrophe 

Subconcern: Adequacy of Analysis 

Comment 1064 (National Wildlife Federation): We are also concerned that even under 

Alternative D, the guidance for management of the Limitrophe ACEC is somewhat vague. BLM 

identifies as desired future conditions balancing public health and safety, protecting and 

maintaining riparian and marsh vegetation, protecting characteristics identified as significant by 

the Cocopah Indian Tribe, and providing for tribal sacred site access. Although we agree that 

these are appropriate as desired future conditions, we believe considerably greater attention 

should be given to the specific means of achieving those objectives -- whether through BLM 

Page 5-146 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-147 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

actions, actions by other agencies or jurisdictions, or through partnerships with Tribal, private, 

and other stakeholders. ACEC designation should be viewed as an important step towards 

cooperative management efforts, not as an alternative to such efforts.

Specifically, the Draft RMP/EIS indicates that BLM would "prepare an ACEC management plan 

in coordination with stakeholders: allow no surface occupancy for leasable minerals (i.e., oil 

and gas), and prohibit recreational shooting, as well as "work[ing] collaboratively with 

interested stakeholders for coordinated management purposes." This does not answer questions 

such as what would be the vegetation management strategy, what resources would be available 

for restoration, and how would conflicts between Tribal and Border Patrol goals be addressed 

or resolved? 

Comment 1068 (National Wildlife Federation): The Limitrophe CMA section states that a CMA 

management plan would address such issues as invasive species, habitat restoration, public 

safety, etc. The Yuma RMP, however, provides no detail as to exactly how any of the 

management issues for the Limitrophe CMA might be addressed, save through collaborative 

work with interested stakeholders. It appears that management actions for the CMA were 

decisions that were deferred until a later date. As such, these various management actions [at] 

some time in the future would require separate NEPA processes. Nonetheless, the lack of clarity 

on the management of the Limitrophe CMA in the Yuma RMP is not sufficient for the public to 

understand the implications of the CMA. 

Response: YFO currently participates in two different stakeholder groups related to the 

Limitrophe area for which no formal agreements exist. These are the Borderlands Management 

Task Force composed of agencies and law enforcement entities with jurisdiction on the 

Limitrophe; and the Colorado River International Conservation Area (CRICA) organized by the 

Cocopah Tribe with assistance from the National Wildlife Federation and composed of numerous 

stakeholders from the United States and Mexico. The intention of the proposed Limitrophe CMA 

is to continue working with the two groups, formalize roles and responsibilities through an MOU 

which identifies stakeholders, their statutory obligations and jurisdictions, and outlines goals and 

objectives for the group. A CMA is not a designation or allocation under FLPMA, but identifies 

actions prescribed for an area. 

The PRMP/FEIS lists management actions that BLM could apply to the Limitrophe. However, 

the MOU and management plan (listed as Management Actions) would be developed by the 

group and would be more specific, incorporating information from other stakeholders. BLM 

would be a participant in the group, but would not manage the group or make decisions for the 

group. BLM is only authorized to make decisions for public land in accordance with Federal law. 

State Director guidance directed the use of less restrictive management options in land use 

planning due to overarching border issues that include significant public health and safety, and 

national security concerns that could result in the waiver of environmental compliance. BLM 

staff considered that the Limitrophe area could be managed effectively as a CMA and allow the 

needed flexibility to address complex management issues affecting this area. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Subconcern: Clarity of Information

Comment 1073 (National Wildlife Federation): It is unclear how management strategies, 

environmental and cultural resources protection, benefits to fish and wildlife, and environmental 

consequences might differ between the ACEC and CMA....BLM should clarify why the 

stakeholder collaboration of a Limitrophe CMA is preferable to the stakeholder collaboration of 

a Limitrophe ACEC. While a CMA may be a "flexible" mechanism to manage the Limitrophe, 

the CMA does not appear to have any real means of enforcement...the Yuma RMP must make 

that point explicitly clear. And, if that is the case, it would be beneficial for BLM to explain why 

a Limitrophe CMA is preferable to a Limitrophe ACEC...BLM should disclose the "jurisdictional 

complexities" argument and in what ways this determined the preference of a CMA over an 

ACEC...Over the last five years, Colorado River Internationals Conservation Area (CRICA) 

committee members have consulted on the management and protection of the Limitrophe and 

collaborated to identify the mechanism best suited to meet those objectives. Through these 

consultations, CRICA members identified and agreed that an ACEC was the most appropriate 

BLM management mechanism for the Limitrophe. 

The Yuma RMP does not disclose what type of resources BLM would commit either to a 

Limitrophe ACEC or a Limitrophe CMA. The Yuma RMP should clarify the resources being 

committed by BLM, including staff, monetary, equipment and other resources, to each 

designation. BLM should explain any differences in resource allocation. 

Response: It is true that the Limitrophe ACEC and the CMA descriptions in the DRMP/DEIS 

are similar. This is because the goals for each type of area are similar, and the boundaries are the 

same. For the Limitrophe CMA, YFO is proposing to write a management plan in cooperation 

and coordination with other stakeholders. A CMA is not an allocation under FLPMA, whereas an 

ACEC is a designation under FLPMA. For the CMA, YFO proposes an MOU which would 

outline the vision for the area, stakeholders, authorities and jurisdictions. The group would write 

a multi-jurisdictional plan together. YFO would be a participant in the group, which would 

operate independently from BLM. YFO would maintain decision-making authority for BLMadministered land. Other agencies and jurisdictions would exercise their authorities as allowed 

by legal constraints. The group would assist in the decision making process by keeping YFO 

informed and collaborate for an effective community-based partnership.

Comment 1075 (National Wildlife Federation): What would it mean to "balance public health 

and safety issues...with resource protection and appropriate recreation opportunities, while 

considering diverse agency constraints" (page 2-24)? What are the applicable agency 

constraints? What specifically would this mean with regard to, for example, the removal and 

restoration of riparian vegetation? Both the ACEC and CMA description repeatedly mention 

"agency constraints" and propose litter and dumping control as "funding and personnel allow." 

What are those agency, funding, and personnel constraints? How would they be affected by the 

various alternatives? 

Response: The YFO is working with the CRICA steering committee and supports collaboration 

of this nature for the Limitrophe area. As described in the CMA proposal, BLM would like to 

pursue an MOU with stakeholders, where authorities, jurisdictions, roles and responsibilities of 

stakeholders would be identified. Until an MOU and plan is written, or the group develops an 

Page 5-148 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-149 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

action plan for the area, YFO does not have a clear sense of the complex jurisdictions of the area. 

The agency constraints are the laws and responsibilities that drive each agency and organization. 

The text has been revised to clarify what management actions BLM would like to propose to the 

group for a Coordinated Management Plan. One of the purposes of a plan is to identify projects 

that can be implemented with a budget. Funding could become available through the various 

stakeholders for actions identified in the plan.

Subconcern: Coordination

Comment 1066 (National Wildlife Federation): According to a presentation by the BLM to the 

Colorado River International Conservation Area (CRICA) group on February 8, 2007, a CMA is 

a flexible, diverse, community and partnership-based approach to land management that 

involves the participation of, but is not directed by, the BLM. Given this description, it would 

appear that BLM's intent is to avoid application of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. While 

we strongly endorse the involvement of multiple stakeholders in sharing information regarding 

conditions and objectives of the Lower Colorado River, we note that attempts to conduct a 

stakeholder process while simultaneously avoiding the Federal Advisory Committee Act may 

well render such a process ineffective. In particular, we note that if any sort of working group is 

to offer specific advice or recommendations to the BLM, the likelihood of FACA application is 

substantially increased. If BLM intends to try to circumvent FACA, any working group 

established would be constrained in its ability to accomplish what should potentially be its most 

useful function -- providing consensus- based recommendations for management. 

Response: The special requirements of FACA apply to many groups that advise or make 

recommendations to Federal agencies, Congress or the president. In specific terms, FACA 

applies to committees, boards, commissions, councils, conferences, panels, task forces, or other 

similar groups "established by" or "utilized by" the federal government. If a federal agency 

creates, manages, or controls such a group, it must be specially chartered and must follow FACA 

rules. 

The CRICA group is an informal steering committee composed of land managers and 

stakeholders that meet to coordinate management of lands in the Limitrophe area, the group is 

not managed or controlled by BLM. CRICA was not established by or utilized by BLM to reach 

consensus on the management of BLM-administered lands in the Limitrophe area. BLM 

appreciates CRICA’s contributions toward finding solutions for managing the Limitrophe area as 

a whole, recommendations on individual projects and comment letters from the group and its 

members have been considered during the BLM decision-making process.

Comment 1076 (National Wildlife Federation): We believe that inter-governmental, interagency, and governmental/nongovernmental cooperation are essential to achieving what we 

hope are common goals for the continued vitality of the Lower Colorado River. 

Response: YFO would continue to be involved in several partnerships and coordination groups 

that include State, Federal and local agencies, NGOs and international interests regarding lower 

Colorado River goals. NEPA requires Federal agencies to work cooperatively with Federal, 

State, and local governments (and other concerned public and private organizations). NEPA 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

emphasizes agency cooperation early in the process. Additionally, agencies that have special 

expertise with respect to issues must be invited to participate in the analysis as Cooperating 

Agencies. 

Comment 1419 (Quechan Tribe): The proposed Limitrophe ACEC falls within the traditional 

lands of the Quechan Tribe. The Tribe has previously informed BLM of its significant ties to this 

area; however, BLM has not included the Tribe in consultations or sought the Tribe’s input 

regarding this area. To date, there has not been any cultural resource study conducted for this 

area. The Tribe requests that BLM conduct a complete cultural resource study in the proposed 

Limitrophe ACEC, and that BLM consult with the Tribe in determining the proper designation 

and management policies for this area. If BLM does not designate the Limitrophe areas as an 

ACEC, and manages it as a Coordinated Management Area, the Tribe requests to be a party to 

the MOU referred to on page 2-24 of the DRMP. 

Response: BLM agrees that Quechan representatives should be involved in all management and 

planning for that area. The Tribe will continue to be informed of planning meetings for the 

Limitrophe. In addition, the Tribe is welcomed and encouraged to become a party to an MOU for 

the proposed CMA or to actively participate in the development of an ACEC plan, depending 

upon which designation is carried forward in the ROD. We understand that it is important to the 

Quechan that the Limitrophe be properly evaluated for cultural resources. BLM will comply with 

the NHPA and follow the guidelines as outlined in 36 CFR 800.4 for determining the level of 

effort necessary for the identification of cultural properties in the Limitrophe area.

Subconcern: Coordinated Management Area (CMA)

Comment 468 (Environmental Defense): These comments are limited to the BLM's management 

responsibilities and objectives in the limitrophe reach of the Colorado River, from Morelos Dam 

to the Southerly International Border. We support the Coordinated Management Area 

framework proposed for the limitrophe in BLM's preferred alternative. The limitrophe area is 

unique, because it is a rare and valuable example of native habitat on the Lower Colorado River, 

and because it is subject to an extraordinary number of overlapping jurisdictions, each with 

distinct concerns and management objectives. The goals of the CMA are sound, to unite the 

mandates of these multiple jurisdictions, and to provide resource protection. In particular we 

are pleased to see BLM note the importance of including stakeholders and agencies from Mexico 

in planning for this binational reach of the Colorado. 

Response: The YFO acknowledges and appreciates the support for the Limitrophe area CMA. 

The CMA was incorporated into the Proposed Plan in the PRMP/FEIS.

Comment 1070 (National Wildlife Federation): The Limitrophe CMA, and its description in the 

Yuma RMP, should be guided by a set of standards. For example, BLM and Sonoran Institute 

produced "A Desktop Reference Guide to Collaborative, Community-Based Planning" which 

outlined "guiding principles for successful collaboration." BLM must be absolutely transparent 

about the "decision space" allowed within a collaborative stakeholder committee for the 

Limitrophe CMA and clearly outline "decision-making authority." 

Response: Section 2.4.2 was rewritten to clarify that BLM would participate in an MOU if the 

Page 5-150 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-151 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

group agrees one is needed. The MOU and CMA plan could be written involving all 

stakeholders to guide management of the area. BLM agrees that the decision space of each entity 

participating in the group needs to be clarified, as well as roles and responsibilities. Several 

other jurisdictions and land managing entities are involved in the area; the CMA would clarify 

roles and responsibilities. If the group is effective, BLM decision-making would benefit by 

information shared by the group. 

Comment 1067 (National Wildlife Federation): The Limitrophe CMA also includes a series of 

"management actions" with prohibitions on surface use for mineral extraction and recreational 

shooting. These are, in our view, appropriate. 

Response: While the surface occupancy restrictions for leasable minerals were retained in the 

PRMP/FEIS, the proposal to restrict recreational shooting within the Limitrophe CMA has been 

removed from the Proposed Plan. For the life of the RMP, the BLM will continue to monitor for 

impacts and conflicts from recreational shooting within the Limitrophe and throughout the rest of 

the YFO to determine if recreational shooting restrictions are warranted. Recreational shooting 

restrictions are not considered RMP-level decisions, and 43 CFR 8364 provides the BLM with 

the authority to establish recreational shooting restrictions at any time to protect persons, 

property, and public lands and resources. 

Comment 1065 (National Wildlife Federation): The Yuma RMP also proposes the creation of a 

Limitrophe CMA in Alternative B and Preferred Alternative E. Although we agree in principle 

that inter-governmental, inter-agency, and governmental/nongovernmental cooperation is 

critical towards proper management of the Lower Colorado, a Coordinated Management Area 

approach seems, particularly if BLM does not intend to seek a Federal Advisory Committee 

charter, unlikely to be effective in achieving those objectives. 

Response: BLM encourages coordination and partnerships without developing a charter to guide 

these partnerships in accordance with FACA. A CMA would allow BLM and other participating 

agencies and groups to share information and use it for informed decision-making. The group 

would function independently from all the multiple agencies and jurisdictional authorities 

present in the area, and no agency or organization would control or dominate the group. The 

group can function under an MOU and develop goals and objectives for the area. If the group 

wanted to have voting authority for management over or for any of the agency authorities, then a 

charter would be needed under FACA. YFO would be in conformance with the plan and follow 

management prescriptions for riparian values, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, etc. on BLMadministered lands. 

Subconcern: Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)

Comment 1071 (National Wildlife Federation): While the relevance and significance criteria 

could certainly justify ACEC designation, the BLM proposes ACEC designation for the 

Limitrophe only under Alternative D, the "preservation" alternative. It is unclear how BLM 

determined that the Limitrophe CMA was preferable to an ACEC, or what alternative 

designations might actually mean in practice for issues of vegetation management, fire control, 

water management, cultural resources, health and safety, or wildlife habitat. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Comment 1077 (National Wildlife Federation): Below, we outline the multiple justifications for 

the Limitrophe ACEC to be included in the preferred alternative. The Limitrophe ACEC is a 

significant riparian corridor...provides significant biological support for maintaining bird 

populations that attracts many birders every year to the Yuma Birding Festival...would support 

the Lower Colorado Multi-Species Conservation Program...is valuable for its shallow 

wetlands...would respect Cocopah's tribal sovereignty...and their interest in protecting natural 

values...recognize the Cocopah's bi-national collaboration [efforts]...can lead to management 

strategies that include the removal of invasive plant species...will have no impact on any of 

BLM's plans for economic development, environmental protection, and other goals...Therefore 

we strongly support the Cocopah's nomination of the Limitrophe ACEC and its inclusion in the 

preferred alternative for the Yuma RMP. 

Response: Because of the complexity of the border issues a CMA is the Proposed Plan for 

management of the Limitrophe area. The values for which ACECs are designated are considered 

the highest and best use for those lands, and protection of those values would take precedence 

over multiple uses. An ACEC Evaluation Report can be found in Appendix 2-A which clarifies 

special management attention needed for each area proposed as an ACEC under the Proposed 

Plan. Appendix 2-A also describes other management prescriptions which would provide 

adequate resource protection for areas not proposed as ACECs in the Proposed Plan. The values 

attributed to the Limitrophe area under the various management sections in Chapter 2 would 

continue to be considered in the CMA. 

Comment 725 (USIBWC): Map_2_1d_Special_Area_Designations_Alt_D1.pdf. The 

designation "Proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concern" (ACEC) seems to be proposed 

for the entire Limitrophe Reach. The United States Section, International Boundary and Water 

Commission (USIBWC), owns property at the Morelos Diversion Dam and nearby boat 

ramp/cable crossing. Indicate the USIBWC property on the map and on realty maps. 

Recommended is portraying the USIBWC property in a manner indicating the developed 

portions fall into a "Developed Facilities" category or the "Urban/Development" category. The 

facility is for international operations, and is maintained by Mexico. Indicate that the facility is 

not entirely in the proposed ACEC. 

Response: BLM acknowledges developed facilities owned by USIBWC within ACEC 

boundaries. An ACEC designation can include land ownership other than public land. 

Participation in the management prescriptions for an ACEC designation is discretionary by the 

land owner. The “Urban/Development” category is terminology used to describe ROS and is 

specific to public land planning.

Public Concern 6: Dripping Springs 

Subconcern: Wildlife Management 

Comment 1191 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): We are especially concerned with the 

Dripping Springs ACEC because it encompasses a very important bighorn sheep population 

adjacent to the New Water Mountains and the designation could cause increased human use and 

additional administrative implications with our conservation efforts. Sportsman advocacy is also 

a key element to survival of wild sheep populations and this ACEC designation threatens this 

Page 5-152 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-153 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

advocacy with its associated access, hiking, camping, hunting and shooting restrictions. We 

would agree, however, to making the 640 acres surrounding the perennial water source day use 

only but feel it needs to remain open to hunting. Otherwise you are creating an unnatural and 

compressed refuge in a miniature park like setting and problems associated with overcrowding, 

forage, soil erosion, disease, competition and predation will likely arise. We would also agree to 

withdraw this 640 acre area from mineral entry and development. 

Response: The proposed ACEC designation would not restrict hunting (See Section 2.3.5 B, 

Desired Future Conditions for the Dripping Springs ACEC). Management Actions for the 

proposed Dripping Springs ACEC would help protect the water supply. 

Subconcern: Mining and Mineral Entry 

Comment 1132 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): We concur with BLM’s proposal to 

designate 11,700 acres as the Dripping Springs ACEC. However, because of the rare and fragile 

resources of this area, including a live spring and bighorn sheep and other animals that utilize it 

as a water source in an area subject to frequent drought, the whole 11,700 acres should be 

withdrawn from mineral entry (subject to valid existing claims and any in-holdings), not just the 

proposed 600 or 640 acres (the figure appears to vary on the same page of the DEIS at 2-17). 

Mining would be inconsistent with the purposes for which this area is established and could 

destroy the live spring that gives the area its name and reason for designation, as well as 

permanently disturb the wildlife. 

Response: All proposed ACECs have been reviewed and core areas of sensitivity have been 

highlighted for recommendation for withdrawal from mineral entry. When ACEC Management 

Plans are developed subsequent to the RMP process, additional lands may be recommended for 

withdrawal. 

Subconcern: Recreation Management 

Comment 1341 (AGFD): Page 2-17, Section 2.3.5 B Management Actions, 2nd bullet, RMP 

Statement-Overnight camping would not be permitted: We do not believe it is necessary to close 

the whole ACEC to overnight camping. However, we do support closing the 640-acre area 

around the spring to overnight camping. 

Response: The Proposed Plan has been revised to prohibit only the 640-acre core area of the 

proposed Dripping Springs ACEC to day-use only. 

Comment 1344 (AGFD): Page 2-17, Section 2.3.5 B Management Actions, last bullet, RMP 

Statement- Close 640 acres of the area to...: We recommend changing to: Close 640 acres of the 

area around the spring to... We also recommend defining severe drought conditions as -2 or 

worse on the Palmer Drought Severity Index or another specific measure of drought severity.

Response: The PRMP/FEIS has been revised to read: “Close the proposed 640-acre core area 

around the spring to public use during extreme or severe drought conditions to protect desert 

bighorn sheep populations, as recommended by AGFD.” 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Comment 1345 (AGFD): Page 2-17, Section 2.3.5 B Administrative Actions, 3rd and 4th bullets, 

RMP Statement- Prohibit dead, downed...; Prohibit recreational shooting...: We do not believe 

it is necessary to close the whole ACEC to firewood collection and recreational shooting at this 

time. We believe it would be sufficient to just close the 640-acre area around the spring. 

Response: The YFO interdisciplinary team evaluated this issue and believes that the firewood 

collection prohibition is justified because of the scarcity of dead, downed and detached wood and 

the large numbers of winter visitors in this vicinity of the planning area. The proposal to restrict 

recreational shooting within all ACECs has been removed from the Proposed Plan of the 

PRMP/FEIS. For the life of the RMP, the BLM will continue to monitor for impacts and 

conflicts from recreational shooting within ACECs and throughout the rest of the YFO planning 

area to determine if recreational shooting restrictions are warranted. Recreational shooting 

restrictions are not considered RMP-level decisions, and 43 CFR 8364 provides the BLM with 

the authority to establish recreational shooting restrictions at any time to protect persons, 

property, and public lands and resources. 

Subconcern: Access

Comment 327: I adamantly oppose any closing of the Dripping Springs area. To call Dripping 

Springs a perennial water supply is really pushing a point. That spring doesn't produce enough 

water to keep one bighorn sheep alive, much less a herd. The topography of the immediate area 

surrounding the spring keeps all but foot traffic away from the petroglyphs and the spring itself. 

To call Dripping Springs a "World Class Cultural Resource" is ludicrous. That is putting a few 

petroglyphs on par with the Parthenon and the Pyramids. 

Response: BLM coordinates with AGFD for wildlife management including providing water for 

wildlife (see Section 5.3 of the PRMP/FEIS). The analysis showed Dripping Springs has relevant 

and important values and requires special management attention to protect these values 

(Appendix 2-A). One tool for protecting Dripping Springs is closure to motorized vehicles, 

which is done in the Proposed Plan for the east portion of the “core area”. This would close 

access to 1⁄4 mile up to the spring.

Public Concern 7: Sears Point 

Comment 1136 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): We support expansion of the Sears Point 

ACEC to 28,500 acres, as proposed in the Preferred Alternative E. We do have concerns about 

BLM’s plans to make this a “heritage tourist destination.” Visitation needs to be managed 

carefully so that the cultural and natural resources are not adversely impacted as a result of too 

many visitors. Conflicting uses also need to be eliminated from the area. We recommend that the 

whole area be withdrawn from new mineral entry, not just the proposed 5900 acres. Visitors 

should stay on designated trails and overnight camping should be prohibited. Vandalism and 

removal or rock art are important concerns, and this is why we recommend no overnight 

camping. IF BLM anticipates considerable numbers of visitors, a regular on-site presence needs 

to be established, in order to both assist in interpretation and prevent activities injurious to the 

cultural and natural resources. 

Response: YFO agrees that public visitation to the Sears Point interpretive area needs to be 

Page 5-154 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-155 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

managed carefully so that the cultural and natural resources are not adversely impacted. The 

purpose of developing an ACEC Plan is to mitigate potential conflicts from increasing visitation. 

The management actions for the Sears Point ACEC include prescriptions that limit visitors to 

designated trails, establishing a visitor host to interpret and maintain a presence in the area, and 

limiting visitation to day-use only in the 3,700-acre core area. The interdisciplinary team 

evaluated the entire 28,500-acre proposed ACEC for withdrawal from mineral entry and 

determined that a smaller area was sufficient because there is low mineral potential in the area 

(USDOI BLM 2005e). 

Subconcern: Adequacy of Analysis

Comment 1418 (Quechan Tribe): BLM evaluated an alternative that would designate 140,400 

acres of land along the Gila River Terraces and Trails as a protected ACEC. DRMP, at p.2-18. 

This ACEC, if adopted would provide a comprehensive network of protection to cultural 

resources along the Gila River Terraces. BLM acknowledges that this large area contains 

‘prolific cultural resources.’ However, BLM, without adequate explanation, declined to adopt 

this ACEC in its preferred alternative. The Tribe requests that BLM include the Gila River 

Terraces ACEC within its preferred alternative. Such designation would provide significant 

protection to the resources in this area over the coming decades. 

Comment 1416 (Quechan Tribe): Sears Point ACEC: Upon closer review of BLM’s proposal, 

BLM intends to ‘promote the Sears Point mesas as a heritage tourist destination to enhance 

public understanding and appreciation.’ DRMP, p. 2-20. BLM proposes to establish parking 

areas, construct host and visitor facilities, and promote tourist access through interpretative 

trails. DRMP, p. 2-21. The Tribe is extremely concerned with, and does not approve of, this 

aspect of BLM’s proposal. The Tribe does not consider its cultural resources as tourist 

attractions. The affected resources are sacred to the Tribe and should be managed for long-term 

preservation and traditional use. The Tribe has specifically informed BLM that it does not want 

this sacred area developed, but BLM has ignored the Tribe’s concern. 

BLM fails to describe how promotion and management of the Sears Point ACEC as a tourist 

destination is in the best long-term interest of tribal cultural resources. Given BLM’s limited 

enforcement resources, it is unlikely that drawing additional tourists to the Sears Point area is 

consistent with ‘protection and preservation of cultural and natural resources.’ For example, 

public overnight camping should not be allowed without assurance of adequate enforcement and 

monitoring. Without additional monitoring, how will BLM ensure that visitors or overnight 

campers will not touch or deface petroglyphs or other sacred sites? Also, how does BLM intend 

to ensure that visitors stay on ‘designated’ trails? 

Finally, OHV routes should not be allowed through any portion of the Sears Point ACEC. 

Response: The Sears Point mesas have been managed according to the Gila River Cultural Area 

ACEC Management Plan, which was developed and approved by the Phoenix District in 1990. 

The plan states that “The public use category will be the primary use allocation for the Sears 

Point cultural area” (USDOI BLM 1990b). When Sears Point lands were transferred to the YFO 

planning area in the early 1990s, YFO continued to follow the prescriptions outlined in the 1990 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Management Plan. Currently, hundreds of visitors are going to the Sears Point mesas annually. 

Section 2.3.5 F of this RMP includes several protective measures that are intended to reduce 

impacts from increasing public visitation, including firewood collection restrictions, limiting 

visitors to designated walking trails, establishing a parking area, installing interpretation, 

withdrawing portions of the ACEC from mineral entry, and establishing an onsite visitor host to 

watch over Sears Point. In addition, the document has been revised to include camping 

restrictions for the ACEC area. Under all alternatives, an ACEC plan would be prepared for the 

Sears Point mesas. This plan, which would be developed in coordination and consultation with 

all interested tribes, would balance public visitation and interpretation with resource protection.

We understand the tribe’s concerns over impacts from OHV use to the resource values in the 

Sears Point ACEC. The Proposed Plan has been revised to include a Closed OHV Management 

Area that would protect the Sears Point mesas from OHV damage. In addition, a Travel 

Management Plan for the Gila River Valley TMA would be prepared within five years of the 

ROD for this RMP. For this plan, all inventoried routes in the Sears Point area would be 

evaluated and then designated as either open, limited, or closed. We would greatly appreciate the 

Tribe’s input into these Travel Management Plans, and encourage your participation. 

Subconcern: Recreation Management

Comment 1346 (AGFD): Page 2-21, 2.3.5 E Management Actions, 5th, 6th, and 7th bullets, 

RMP Statements- ...Limit overnight camping; Prohibit collection of...; Prohibit recreational 

shooting...: The Department does not believe it is necessary to limit overnight camping or 

prohibit firewood collection and recreational shooting in the whole ACEC at this time. We 

believe it would be sufficient to restrict these activities in the core area or in specific sensitive 

areas. 

Response: YFO changed the PRMP/FEIS by reducing the firewood collection and day-use 

restrictions in the Sears Point ACEC from 29,500 acres to 3,700 acres. The day-use restrictions 

are necessary to protect cultural resource values within the 3,700 core area with the highest 

concentration of cultural features. Firewood collection restrictions are necessary to protect the 

integrity of the nearby mesquite bosque within the ACEC. The proposal to restrict recreational 

shooting within all ACECs has been removed from the Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS. For 

the life of the RMP, the BLM will continue to monitor for impacts and conflicts from 

recreational shooting within ACECs and throughout the rest of the YFO planning area to 

determine if recreational shooting restrictions are warranted. Recreational shooting restrictions 

are not considered RMP-level decisions, and 43 CFR 8364 provides the BLM with the authority 

to establish recreational shooting restrictions at any time to protect persons, property, and public 

lands and resources.

Public Concern 8: Big Marias 

Comment 1134 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): The Big Marias ACEC should be 

expanded from 4500 acres to the 9200 acres proposed in Alternative D. It is hard to understand 

why BLM would not want to give further protection to an area that has “the single greatest 

concentration of geoglyphs in North America.” (DEIS, p. 2-A.1). In fact, this argues for seeking 

national monument status and perhaps World Heritage Site status for the Big Marias cultural 

Page 5-156 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-157 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

sites, rather than just ACEC status. The mineral and material quarries should be acquired and 

the area should be closed to vehicle access except on a limited number of designated, existing 

roads. Visitor access should be limited to designated trails. BLM should refrain from designating 

a utility corridor [ROW corridor] through such a sensitive area. Designating a utility corridor 

[ROW corridor] through the Big Marias ACEC violates BLM’s planning criteria that “Utility 

corridors [ROW corridors] will avoid areas of designation such as priority wildlife habitat, 

special status species management areas, ACECs, wilderness, and cultural areas.” (DEIS, p. 1-

12).The most crucial objective for this area is to protect the cultural and natural resources from 

further degradation, while allowing for traditional Native American cultural practices. 

Response: See Appendix 2-A for the rationale behind the Proposed Plan management strategy 

for the Big Marias ACEC. Routes in the Big Marias ACEC will be systematically evaluated 

during the upcoming travel management planning process for the Ehrenberg-Cibola Travel 

Management Area. Management Actions to protect relevant and important resource values in the 

ACEC have been incorporated into Section 2.3.4.A, Special Designations, and 2.12.3, Travel 

Management. The resource values within the existing 4,500-acre Big Marias ACEC, originally 

designated in the 1987 Yuma District RMP, continue to warrant special management attention as 

an ACEC. The 4,700-acre expansion area can be managed according to standard or routine 

management prescriptions. Under the Proposed Plan these 4,700 acres would be managed 

according to the Big Maria Terraces SCRMA and the Desert Mountains WHA allocations. 

The Highway 95 California ROW Corridor has been retained in the Proposed Plan, since several 

existing authorizations follow this route and the corridor connects with ROW Corridors in 

adjacent BLM field offices. To resolve the contradiction in the document, the Management 

Action in Section 2.18.1.C.1 has been revised as follows: “New utility facilities within ROW 

Corridors would avoid impacts to natural and cultural resources within ACECs and SCRMAs to 

the greatest extent possible. If impacts could not be avoided, mitigation would be required.” 

Subconcern: Blythe Intaglios

Comment 232 (Sacred Sites Protection Circle): I’m here with other group members from the 

Sacred Sites Protection Circle...what we are wanting is the introduction or the starting of the 

Memorandum of Understanding with our group concerning the Blythe intaglio... We as the 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe, recognized by the Secretary of 

Interior maintaining a government to government relationship with the United States. And so 

what we had proposed to them was to become in partnership with our community, our committee 

in seeking that the BLM release the Blythe Intaglios into our stewardship. So we were just 

wanting to bring up what the standing of that was with regards to the resolution that was 

requested by BLM and that [of] the desert conservation council. 

Comment 236: The Blythe Intaglios are sacred sites and they have an urgent need to be 

protected from the public misuse. We can see the misuse with all the power wheels, the 

desecration of the land that we go see and there’s totally no public awareness... Make a priority 

of protecting the Blythe giant intaglios and all the sacred sites in your jurisdiction. 

Response: BLM agrees that the Blythe Intaglios site is extremely important and needs to be 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

protected. The Management Actions found in Section 2.3, Special Designations Management, 

for the Big Marias ACEC are meant to address this concern. In particular, the document proposes 

a Cultural Resource Management Plan for the ACEC, which would be developed in consultation 

with interested Native American tribes. The plan should be a vital tool for long-term preservation 

of the intaglios. BLM is developing a partnership with nonprofit organizations and other 

interested stakeholders that is dedicated to identifying funding to protect and interpret the Blythe 

Intaglios. We are optimistic that this partnership and assistance from groups like the Sacred Sites 

Protection Circle will help expedite the BLM’s protection of this sacred site.

Comment 238: Intaglios [are] in fact very definitely a cultural landmark that’s got to be 

protected. And very definitely there has been destruction of the area... You just don’t have the 

manpower and resources to do so, whether they have to be video taping or something like that 

set up there. There should be some kind of increased security definitely over the intaglios that we 

have in the area.

Response: YFO understands that intaglios along the Colorado River in the vicinity of Blythe are 

very important to the Sacred Sites Protection Circle. To address your concern over growing 

impacts to intaglio features, we are proposing to develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan 

for all intaglio features that are located in the Big Marias ACEC. This new management action 

can be found in Section 2.3 Special Designations Management. There are also additional 

management actions in this same section and in Section 2.15 Cultural Resource Management that 

would provide increased protection for the intaglios. BLM would need to work with its partners 

and interested Native American tribes and groups to implement the measures that would protect 

the intaglios.

2. Wilderness 

Public Concern 1: General 

Comment 65: I strongly support more wilderness, no roads and less humans. 

Response: Wilderness is a Congressional designation and is outside the scope of this RMP.

Comment 94: I am opposed to any development in what remains of the southwest deserts. I 

believe in limiting the number of humans that are allowed to enter wilderness areas and if you 

[can't] go on foot you can't go. 

Response: There are approved management plans for all Arizona Wilderness Areas within the 

planning area, except the Trigo Mountains Wilderness. These plans address public access and 

permitting for access to these areas.

Public Concern 2: Study Areas 

Comment 1095: We reiterate our position regarding the Utah Settlement Agreement. We 

absolutely believe that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA - sections 201 & 

202) provides the authority to BLM to inventory and identify lands of wilderness character, to 

establish Wilderness Study Areas, and to apply management conditions that will ensure nonPage 5-158 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-159 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

impairment of that wilderness character through the life of Resource Management Plans (RMP). 

We expect that legal review of the Utah Settlement Agreement will inevitably reestablish the 

direction provided by HB 6310-1. On August 8th 2005, US District Judge Dee Benson lifted his 

court ordered approval on the April 11th 2003 Utah settlement case that prohibited BLM from 

creating new Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). This increases the likelihood that this settlement 

could be reversed in the near future. If there is any change in the settlement, these areas could 

soon become available for full wilderness consideration. 

Comment 240: We do not need any more wilderness study areas. This fall I had the chance to be 

near Kanab Creek Wilderness, Saddle Mountain Wilderness, and the Eagletail wilderness, and I 

did not see one single person having any solitude out there. The only people I saw were hunters. 

We have, BLM manages 47 wilderness areas, 1.4 million acres. I don’t know how many million 

acres we need to solitude in. I just think we got enough. 

Response: BLM no longer has the authority to establish Wilderness Study Areas. As stated in 

BLM’s October 23, 2003, IM No. 2003-275 – Change 1: “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 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 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.” There are no Wilderness Study Areas 

within the YFO planning area, and no Wilderness Study Areas can be established through this 

RMP process. YFO evaluated lands with wilderness characteristics in the DRMP/DEIS and 

PRMP/FEIS.

3. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Public Concern 1: General 

Comment 1131 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): All seven areas identified as ACECs by 

the Draft Resource Management Plan (DRMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

merit designation. All of these ACECs should be withdrawn from any further mineral 

development. They are areas of critical environmental concern and multiple use is not 

appropriate. They are designated for specific purposes. Similarly, target shooting should be 

prohibited in these areas as this will provide greater safety for the public. Target shooting is 

much more appropriately done in designated shooting ranges. Vehicles in ACECs should be 

limited to designated routes, rather than existing inventoried routes. 

Response: YFO re-evaluated management actions that would apply to ACECs based on public 

comment. Portions of the Big Marias, Dripping Springs, and Sears Point ACECs are proposed 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

for mineral withdrawal under the Proposed Plan. Inventoried routes within proposed ACECs will 

be designated as open, limited, or closed for specific types of uses at the earliest possible 

opportunity, either through Travel Management Plans or ACEC Management Plans. Please refer 

to Appendix 2-A for evaluations of the Proposed Plan management strategy for ACEC proposals.

Public Concern 2: Laws and Policies 

Comment 1128 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): BLM failed to meet its obligations under 

FLPMA by not prioritizing the protection and designation of Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACECs) in the DRMP/DEIS. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

obligates the BLM to “give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical 

environmental concern [ACECs]” when preparing land use plans. 43 U.S.C. §1712(c)(3). 

ACECs are areas “where special management is required (when such areas are developed or 

used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to 

important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural 

systems or processes.” 43 U.S.C. § 1702(a).

Comment 1129 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): BLM’s ACEC Manual (1613) provides 

additional detail on the criteria to be considered in ACEC designation, as discussed in the 

applicable regulations, as well. See, Manual 1613, Section .1 (Characteristics of ACECs); 43 

C.F.R. § 8200. An area must possess relevance (such that it has significant value(s) in historic, 

cultural or scenic values, fish & wildlife resources, other natural systems/processes, or natural 

hazards) and importance (such that it has special significance and distinctiveness by being more 

than locally significant or especially rare, fragile or vulnerable). In addition, the area must 

require special management attention to protect the relevant and important values (where 

current management is not sufficient to protect these values or where the needed management 

action is considered unusual or unique), which is addressed in special protective management 

prescriptions. For potential ACECs, management prescriptions are to be “fully developed” in 

the RMP. Manual 1613, Section .22 (Develop Management Prescriptions for Potential ACECs). 

The DRMP/DEIS for the Yuma Field Office does not comply with (and does not adequately 

address) BLM’s obligations with respect to designation of new ACECs. In Appendix 2-A, the 

DRMP/DEIS assessed expansion of the two existing ACECs (Big Marias and Sears Point 

(formerly Gila River Cultural Area)) and five proposed ACECs (Dripping Springs, Gila River 

Terraces and Trails, Limitrophe, Palomas Plain and Walter’s Camp). All seven were found to 

meet BLM’s relevance and importance criteria, including acknowledgments that the areas have 

values that render them “fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, 

threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change.” Nonetheless, the preferred alternative proposes 

maintaining the existing Big Marias ACEC at its current size, expanding the existing Sears Point 

ACEC, and adding the proposed Dripping Springs ACEC. As a result, while 44,700 acres are 

protected through ACEC designation, an additional 583,000 acres of relevant, important and 

vulnerable values are left unprotected. See, DRMP/DEIS, pp. 2-15 – 2- 22; Appendix 2-A. 

Response: The values for which ACECs are designated are considered the highest and best use 

for those lands, and protection of those values would take precedence over multiple uses. An 

ACEC Evaluation Report can be found in Appendix 2-A which clarifies special management 

attention needed for each area proposed as an ACEC under the Proposed Plan. Appendix 2-A 

Page 5-160 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-161 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

also describes other management prescriptions which would provide adequate resource 

protection for areas not proposed as ACECs in the Proposed Plan.

Public Concern 3: Natural Resources 

Subconcern: Wildlife Management

Comment 1190 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): We cannot support the formation of 

any Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) because the designation appears to 

present more of a threat than a benefit to wildlife conservation and hunting opportunity; even 

those that are represented as being for the benefit and protection of bighorn sheep. Wild sheep 

populations require more active care and attention than this designation affords and protecting 

‘natural systems’ could present unintentional consequences to the area’s wildlife. 

Response: BLM will continuously coordinate with AGFD for wildlife management inside 

designated ACECs and throughout the planning area (see section 5.3 of the PRMP/FEIS).

Public Concern 4: Cultural Resources 

Comment 519: An additional benefit of ACEC designations is the likelihood that cultural 

resources will be better preserved. The planning area definitely encompasses a large swath of 

the region that once was home to the Patayan people. Archaeologists have conducted only 

limited surveys and excavation in the area, meaning that without cautious management, 

resources are at potential risk of being lost to science. Many of the remnants and features left by 

the Patayan are subtle, increasing the chances for their unwitting destruction by even wellintentioned land users. 

Response: YFO agrees that protection of cultural resources in the planning area is important, 

and that the ACEC designation is a good tool for achieving increased protection of important 

cultural sites. The Proposed Plan would continue the Big Marias ACEC, expand the Sears Point 

ACEC, and establish the Dripping Springs ACEC. These three ACECs have relevant and 

important cultural resource values, and the ACEC designation would allow the BLM to provide 

special management attention to protect significant cultural resources in these three areas.

Comment 1415 (Quechan Tribe): The Tribe strongly objects to the allowance of Off-Highway 

Vehicle (OHV) access in designated ACEC areas. BLM has limited resources to monitor OHV 

users and to restrict OHV use to designated trials. The Tribe has previously informed BLM of 

damage to cultural sites from OHV use on BLM lands, and BLM often responds that it has 

limited resources to monitor the affected sites. Given BLM’s limited enforcement resources, 

opening ACEC areas to any OHV use is likely to result in further destruction of cultural 

resources. BLM states that it will ‘implement protection measures to stop, limit, or repair 

damage to cultural resources sites.’ DRMP, at p. 2 14. However, the DRMP does not explain 

whether or how BLM will obtain adequate funding to increase its monitoring and enforcement 

presence on BLM lands. Unless there is an adequate monitoring and enforcement presence 

(which is likely not possible), allowing even ‘limited’ OHV use in ACEC areas will be disastrous 

for cultural resources. The Tribe requests BLM to prohibit OHV use on all ACEC lands that 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

contain cultural resources. 

Due to BLM’s limited monitoring and enforcement presence, the Tribe is also concerned with 

other proposed uses for ACEC areas such as equestrian trails, overnight camping, special 

recreation permits, and commercial tour operations. How will BLM ensure that these uses do not 

interfere with or result in damage to cultural resources? Given BLM’s existing inability to 

adequately monitor and enforce protected sites, the Tribe objects to promoting increased 

visitation and access to areas with cultural resources of significance to the Tribe. The Tribe 

requests that BLM significantly revise its ACEC proposals to manage those areas in a way that 

will ensure long-term preservation and protection of the affected resources. 

Response: The Proposed Plan in the PRMP/FEIS has been revised to include Closed OHV 

Management Areas in the Dripping Springs and Sears Point ACECs to protect cultural resources 

from OHV damage. In addition, the Proposed Plan includes a Closed OHV Management Area in 

the Muggins Mountains SCRMA, which would reduce damages to this important landscape. In 

addition, routes within ACECs will be systematically evaluated during the upcoming travel 

management planning process for the La Posa, Gila River Valley, and Ehrenberg-Cibola TMAs. 

For these plans, all inventoried routes in ACECs will be evaluated and then designated as open, 

limited, or closed. We would greatly appreciate the Tribe’s input into these Travel Management 

Plans, and encourage your participation. 

Section 2.3.5 of the PRMP/FEIS includes several protective measures that are intended to reduce 

impacts from increasing public visitation to ACECs. The section proposes several restrictions on 

public use of these areas, including Management Actions that limit hiking, vehicle parking, 

overnight camping, and firewood collection. The Management Actions also attempt to reduce 

visitor impacts by increasing interpretation ,establishing an onsite visitor host for continuous 

monitoring, and withdrawing portions of the ACECs from mineral entry. Under all alternatives, 

additional planning efforts (i.e., ACEC plans or Cultural Resources Management Plans) are 

prescribed for each ACEC in the Proposed Plan. These plans would attempt to balance 

increasing public visitation with resource protection needs, and would be developed in 

coordination with all interested Native American tribes.

Public Concern 5: Transportation and Access 

Comment 1343 (AGFD): Page 2-17, Section 2.3.5 B Management Actions, 6th bullet, RMP 

Statement-Discourage new routes...: We recommend changing to: Prohibit new routes... 

Response: Section 2.3.4, Management Actions Common to All ACECs, in the PRMP/FEIS has 

been revised to read: “Prohibit new routes within the proposed ACEC except as needed to 

manage and interpret resources or as required by law, such as access to valid mining claims or 

private property.” 

Public Concern 6: Recreation 

Comment 904: BLM must not prohibit overnight camping, firewood collection, nor recreational 

shooting in ACEC's...There is not sufficient rationale for these provisions. 

Page 5-162 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-163 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Comment 853: The following actions are overly restrictive and should be removed from the 

plan. Please justify the need for these requirements. Dripping Springs ACEC (page 2-17). 

Management actions: Overnight camping would not be permitted. Limit public use to the single 

motorized route within the 640-acre area to hiking only. Administrative actions: Require visitors 

to stay on the designated interpretive hiking trail in the vicinity of the spring. Prohibit dead, 

downed, and detached firewood collection inside the proposed ACEC. Prohibit recreational 

shooting, except for legal hunting, within the proposed ACEC boundaries. 

Comment 854: The following actions are overly restrictive and should be removed from the 

plan. Please justify the need for these requirements. Sears Point (Gila River Cultural Area) 

ACEC (page 2-20). Management actions: Throughout the life of the plan, determine public 

demand for overnight camping opportunities within the ACEC. If overnight camping 

opportunities should be provided, designate a campground within the proposed ACEC expansion 

area at a reasonable distance away from sensitive resources. Limit overnight camping within 

the entire ACEC to this campground upon designation. Prohibit collection of dead, downed, and 

detached firewood and of vegetative materials inside the ACEC. Prohibit recreational shooting 

except for legal hunting within ACEC boundaries. Administrative actions: Require visitors to 

stay on the designated interpretive hiking trail in the interpretive area once the trail is 

constructed. 

Response: The guidance for ACEC management is included in FLPMA and states that Federal 

agencies are directed to protect and conserve ecosystems in need of “special management 

attention” by designating them as “areas of critical environmental concern” in their land use 

planning process (FLPMA 43 U.S.C. § 1702 [a]). By definition, proposed ACECs require 

special management (43 CFR 1601.0-5[a]) to “protect the area and prevent irreparable damage to 

resources or natural systems.” 

The special management prescriptions for the protection of relevant and important resource 

values within the Big Marias, Dripping Springs, and Sears Point ACECs have been revised in 

this PRMP/FEIS. These revisions include reducing the proposed overnight camping restrictions 

by approximately 35,800 acres, reducing proposed firewood collection restrictions by 

approximately 26,300 acres, and removing all recreational shooting restrictions from ACEC 

proposals. The revised special management prescriptions for the three ACECs are outlined in 

Section 2.3.4, Map 2-1e-1, Map 2-1e-2, and Map 2-1e-3.

Comment 1035 (YVRGC): With regard to ACECs, we believe that any ACEC designation that 

further restricts hunting, camping, firewood collection, OHV use, equestrian use, or any other 

public recreation that is not already restricted, is unnecessary. In summary, the Club would 

support the No Action Alternative or Alternative A for ACECs. 

Response: In response to public comments, the YFO interdisciplinary team made adjustments to 

Management Actions in Section 2.3.4 of the Proposed Plan related to equestrian use, OHV 

closures, and firewood collection in ACECs. 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

4. Back Country Byways 

Public Concern 1: General 

Comment 850: How does YFO plan to manage the dramatic increase in visitors? How does YFO 

plan to fund any needed new equipment, personnel, etc? Information should be included in the 

RMP. 

Comment 1327 (AGFD): Specific research on impacts to desert bighorn sheep and mule deer 

from BCB designations and/or improvements to BCB does not exist. The Department feels it is 

BLM’s responsibility under NEPA to collect this type of information and use it in the analysis of 

potential impacts before proceeding with the nomination of BCBs. 

Comment 1425 (Quechan Tribe): Page 2-12 of the DRMP contains a list of issues that must be 

addressed in byway management plans. This list improperly fails to mention protection of 

cultural resources. Given the extensive use of OHVs on the national byway system, it is crucial 

that BLM survey the byways for the presence of cultural resources and prohibit access to areas 

that contain sensitive resources. At minimum, the byway management plans should contain 

provisions of mitigation of impacts to affected cultural resources. If use of a byway could result 

in damage to cultural resources, BLM should consider closing the byway until an adequate 

treatment plan can be developed and implemented for the affected cultural resources. 

Comment 851: On page 2-13 under administrative actions it states, "Develop maps and 

brochures of the byways" and on page 2-13 under management actions it states, "If visitor use is 

adversely impacting wildlife or other resources, byway use may be limited through issuing 

permits or other means." Through marketing and advertising use is going to increase, then BLM 

will have to say they have been forced to close the road. Why don't we just leave it like it is and 

then it won't have to be closed due to overuse? Please do not include any backcountry byways in 

the RMP. 

Comment 423: Do not designate Back Country Byways. BCBYs contradict desired future 

conditions for undeveloped recreation. 

Comment 493: Remove the [backcountry byway] that bisects the Dripping Springs ACEC. 

Response: The Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS only proposes to nominate and designate the 

Plomosa Road and Agua Caliente Road as National Back Country Byways, which are both 

maintained roads usable by two-wheel drive vehicles. These byways are included in the 

PRMP/FEIS to connect to proposals from the BLM Lake Havasu and Lower Sonoran Field 

Offices. These two field offices would serve as the lead agencies in the development of the two 

byway management plans, which would address mitigation measures to ensure that the byways 

remain compatible with the BLM’s multiple-use mission. The two byway management plans 

must be implemented in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and BLM policies outlined 

in IM AZ-2006-043, Section 106 Compliance for Designating Off-Highway Vehicle Routes and 

Areas in Land Use Plans and IM WO-2007-030, Clarification of Cultural Resource 

Considerations for Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Designation and Travel Management. 

Page 5-164 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-165 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

The Proposed Plan does not propose to nominate and designate the Gold Nugget, Brenda, 

Clanton Hills, Red Cloud Road, or Red Raven routes as National Back Country Byways. 

Because these 199 miles of routes would not be managed as National Back Country Byways, no 

additional impacts to wildlife, including desert bighorn sheep and mule deer, cultural resources, 

soils, vegetation, or wilderness resources would occur from increased motorized use through 

byway marketing efforts. In addition, no byways in the planning area would be located within 

the proposed Yuma East Undeveloped SRMA or Dripping Springs ACEC. 

Comment 1189 (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society): We thank you for removing the Red 

Cloud backcountry byway route from your preferred alternative but remain concerned with the 

proposed Gold Nugget, Brenda and Plomosa backcountry byways because they traverse 

occupied bighorn sheep habitat and would encourage increased human use and disturbance. We 

can understand the need and benefit for the Plomosa route because it is paved but strongly 

object to the Gold Nugget and Brenda byways because they are dirt and offer limited tourism 

benefits. Please leave these dirt roads in place but do not call unnecessary attention to them by 

designating them as a byway. We are especially concerned with the southern Gold Nugget byway 

south of I-10 to the NKWR boundary because of its closer proximity to occupied bighorn habitat. 

We also fail to understand the reasoning to establish the Gold Nugget Segment 2 portion as a 

type IV byway limiting it to only quads and motorcycles. This limitation appears to beg more 

OHV abuse. At a minimum the byway type should be changed to a class III so as to not 

negatively impact hunting access and discriminate against hunting opportunities. 

Response: The Brenda and Gold Nugget Back Country Byways have been removed from the 

Proposed Plan due to public and agency concern for wildlife habitat and public safety. However 

the Plomosa Back Country Byway would remain in the Proposed Plan, which would connect 

with the byway proposed by the Lake Havasu Field Office.

Comment 1463 (YPG): Under Alternative B, the Red Cloud back country by-way crosses YPG 

at the southwest boundary (see Map 2-1b). If the proposed by-way road(s) are not already 

accessible to the public, this will create an encroachment situation on YPG. 

Response: The Red Cloud Back Country Byway was not included in the Preferred Alternative 

of the DRMP/DEIS or the Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS. YFO will continue coordination 

efforts with YPG for future projects. 

Comment 336: Not to advertise any roads/Byways. Find them on your own. 

Response: The BLM typically publishes and distributes OHV Access Guides identifying 

designated routes within individual field offices. These guides inform public land visitors of the 

appropriate routes to drive on and can prevent the public from becoming lost in parts of the 

undeveloped desert. The Proposed Plan proposes to nominate and designate the Plomosa Road 

and Agua Caliente National Back Country Byways. However, these byway proposals were 

developed to connect to proposals from the BLM Lake Havasu and Lower Sonoran Field 

Offices, who would serve as the lead agencies which would plan for and market the byways 

within this planning area.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Public Concern 2: Clarity of Information 

Comment 1339 (AGFD): Page 2-11, Section 2.3.3, RMP Statement-None: The Department 

understands that there is a specific process in nominating and designating backcountry byways. 

This process should be explained in the RMP along with what part of the process, if any, will be 

completed or conducted in the RMP. 

Response: The PRMP/FEIS identifies roads that would be available in the future for BLM and 

interested partners to nominate and designate as part of the National Back Country Byway 

Program. While this PRMP/FIES would not immediately designate any Back Country Byways 

within the planning area, the Desired Future Conditions, Management Actions, and 

Administrative Actions identified for potential byways would preclude the need to develop an 

RMP amendment for such a designation in the future. The nomination and designation process 

for future Back Country Byways would be carried out according to the BLM Byways Handbook, 

H-8357-1, and would be subject to additional NEPA processes. 

Public Concern 3: Wildlife Management 

Comment 1340 (AGFD): Page 2-12, Section 2.3.4 Desired Future Conditions, RMP StatementNone: The department recommends adding a DFC that states byway plans will strive to minimize 

impacts to wildlife and will provide appropriate wildlife viewing opportunities. 

Response: The Desired Future Condition statement recommended in your comment has been 

added to Section 2.3.3 of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Public Concern 4: Protection of Public Access 

Comment 1328 (AGFD): Under the preferred alternative BLM is also proposing to restrict a 

portion of the Gold Nugget BCB to quads and bikes. This road provides important hunting 

access to remote areas including the New Water Mountains Wilderness. Many people access this 

area using 4-wheel drive jeeps and pickups. The proposed restrictions would deny many people 

access to currently used hunting areas. Again, the disclosure and analysis of this potential 

impact are not in the EIS. 

Response: The types (Types I – IV) of proposed byways included in the DRMP/DEIS and 

PRMP/FEIS identify the type of vehicle the BLM recommends for the public’s safe navigation 

of individual byways and byway segments. Identified byway types do not propose to restrict the 

public’s use of certain types of vehicles on the routes, which is why no impacts to public access 

were disclosed in Chapter 4 of the DRMP/DEIS. While the Gold Nugget Back Country Byway is 

no longer included in the Proposed Plan of the PRMP/FEIS, the entire route is now proposed as a 

Type III byway under Alternatives B and C. 

Page 5-166 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-167 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

H. SOCIAL AND ECONOMICS 

1. Border Related Issues 

Public Concern 1: Adequacy of Analysis 

Comment 1148 (Center for Biological Diversity et al.): Though the U.S./Mexico border is not 

strictly within the lands of the Yuma planning area, the impacts of border enforcement and 

infrastructure are. The DRMP/DEIS does not address this issue, despite the substantial impacts 

of this land use. Each of the multiple uses assessed in the RMP must be assessed in context of the 

border situation. Infrastructure projects must be considered in the cumulative impacts section of 

the final RMP. 

Response: The Limitrophe area of the lower Colorado River forms an International Boundary 

with Mexico. Portions of the Limitrophe are public land. Impacts of the border are considered in 

cumulative impacts.

Public Concern 2: Health and Safety 

Comment 1049 (Yavapai-Apache Nation): We have concerns for the safety and health of 

children who are at risk because of decisions made by others to cross the border illegally. We 

are aware of the tragic deaths of children in the deep desert through no fault of their own and it 

is our hope the BLM will take the steps necessary to mitigate these unfortunate incidents to the 

extent you are able for the sake of these innocent children. 

Response: The Limitrophe ACEC and CMA and public health and safety sections of the 

document address border safety. 

5.6 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Table 5-1 

List of Preparers 

Name Job Title 

Years of 

Expertise Primary Responsibility 

Yuma Field Office BLM 

Alexander, Bill Lead Park Ranger 8 Recreation, Travel Management 

Allen, Steve Geologist 13 Minerals, Paleontological Resources 

Arnold, Sandra Archaeologist 7 Project Management, Cultural Resources, 

Paleontological Resources, Special 

Designations 

Bailey, Micki Planning & Environmental 

Coordinator 

16 RMP Team Lead, Socioeconomics, 

Environmental Justice 

Behrens, Mike Fire Ecologist Wildland Fire 

Briceno, Venessa Realty Specialist 2 Lands and Realty 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-1 

List of Preparers (cont.) 

Name Job Title 

Years of 

Expertise Primary Responsibility 

Yuma Field Office BLM (cont.) 

Conde, Ruben Colorado River District Law 

Enforcement Ranger 

Vegetation, Travel Management 

Cook, Lori Public Affairs Specialist 9 Public Outreach 

Curtis, Aaron Outdoor Recreation Planner 4 Project Management, Recreation, Visual 

Resource Management, Travel Management, 

Wilderness Characteristics, Special 

Designations 

Daniels, Dave Planning & Environmental 

Coordinator 

27 Wildland Fire, Travel Management, 

Wilderness Characteristics, RMP Team 

Lead 

Dorsey, Keith Law Enforcement Ranger 18 Vegetation, Travel Management 

Emery, Ryan Environmental Planner 1 Project Management 

Fusilier, Steve Lands & Minerals Team Lead 8 Lands and Realty, Public Health and Safety, 

Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice 

Grace, Jim GIS Specialist 6 Maps and Tables 

Green, Jennifer Natural Resource Specialist 6 Vegetation, Soil, Air, and Water 

Heick, Becky District Manager 6 Management Oversight 

Holzer, Candy Land Law Examiner 17 Lands and Realty 

Lopez, Arturo Realty Specialist 4 Lands and Realty 

Lowans, Mark Assistant Field Manager 18 Recreation 

Morfin, Ron Recreation and Wilderness 

Team Lead 

18 Special Designations, Recreation, 

Wilderness Characteristics, Travel 

Management 

Mueller, Francisca Realty Specialist 7 Lands and Realty 

Nicoulin, Tim Law Enforcement Ranger 5 Travel Management 

Oyler, Roger Senior Rangeland 

Management Specialist 

31 Wild Horse & Burros, Livestock Grazing, 

Soil, Air, and Water 

Plis, Matt Geologist 24 Minerals and Paleontological 

Reichhardt, Karen Resources Team Lead 28 Project Management, Special Designations, 

Vegetation, 

Repass, David Fire Biologist 4 Wildland Fire, Special Status Species 

Riley, Kate Planning & Environmental 

Coordinator 

2 Project Management, Special Designations, 

Travel Management, Recreation, Visual 

Resource Management 

Rittenhouse, Bruce Assistant Field Manager 18 Management Oversight 

Rowell, Gary Resource Protection Specialist 8 Minerals 

Shoaff, James T. Field Manager 10 Management Oversight 

Tisino, Lester Fire Management Officer 35 Wildland Fire 

Wong, Fred Wildlife Biologist 14 Fish and Wildlife, Special Status Species 

Young, Jeff Wildlife Biologist 14 Fish and Wildlife, Special Status Species 

Zale, Tom Assistant Field Manager 26 Management Oversight 

Ahuja, Suraj Air Quality Specialist 21 Air Resources 

RECON Environmental, Inc. 

Bartlett, Susan Archaeologist Comment Analysis 

Benn, Candie Client Care Program Manager 21 Client Liaison 

Blocker, Eija Production Specialist 19 Editing, Formatting, and Production of 

Deliverables 

Page 5-168 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Yuma Field Office Page 5-169 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Table 5-1 

List of Preparers (cont.) 

Name Job Title 

Years of 

Expertise Primary Responsibility 

RECON Environmental (cont.) 

Bohac, Sean GIS Analyst 7 GIS Analysis, Map Production, Comment 

Analysis/Access Database 

Carter, Rebecca Project Manager, Sonoran 

Institute 

12 Socioeconomics 

Fromer, Paul Environmental and 

Conservation Planner 

27 Principal in Charge 

Funicelli, Carianne Vegetation Ecologist 9 Writer/Editor, Vegetation Management, 

Comment Analysis/Access Database 

Gottfredson, David Environmental Analyst 19 Writer/Editor; Soil, Air, and Water 

Resources 

Gross, Loretta Production Manager Production of Deliverables 

Henley, Colby Wildlife Biologist Comment Analysis 

Hull, Warren L. 

“Skip” 

Director of Economic 

Analysis, CIC Research, Inc. 

31 Economic Analysis 

Kubota, Gordon President, CIC Research, Inc. Economic Analysis 

McDermott, Frank GIS Coordinator 10 GIS and Mapping Oversight, Map Editing 

and Production 

Morales, Susy Wildlife Biologist 13 Writer/Editor, Assistant Project Manager, 

Comment Analysis, Editing 

Simmons, Gregg Manager, Simmons 

Environmental and Natural 

Resource Consulting, L.L.C. 

32 Environmental Planner, Workshop 

Facilitator, and Technical Advisor 

Taylor, Drew GIS Analyst 4 GIS and Graphic Support 

Underwood, 

Jackson 

Archaeologist 23 Cultural Resources 

Woods, Lori Jones Environmental Planner 28 Project Manager 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Engel, Russ Habitat Program Manager 26 Habitat Evaluation 

Knowles, Bill Habitat Specialist 30 Habitat Evaluation 

Maxim Technologies 

Gifford, Fred GIS/Geospatial Data 

Specialist 

21 Maps 

Melton, Jim Project Manager 24 Resource Management/Planning Specialist 

Sengebush, Rob Physical Resources 

Coordinator 

20 Minerals, Paleontological 

Stark, Judd Soil Scientist 8 Soil, Livestock Grazing 

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Boltz, Jackie Public Outreach Specialist 13 Public Outreach 

Curtis, Jan Water Resources Specialist 19 Water 

Dadswell, Matt Socioeconomics 13 Socioeconomics 

Eisenfeld, Mike Assistant Project Manager 11 Management/Planning Specialist, 

Recreation, Energy Development 

Pious, Malcom Biological Resources 

Coordinator 

18 Fish and Wildlife, Special Status Species, 

Vegetation 

Roxlau, Katherine Cultural Resource Specialist 18 Cultural Resources, Paleontological 

Resources 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Page intentionally left blank. 

Page 5-170 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Letters with Comments BLM Yuma Field Office- Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP/FEIS):

Comment Index by Letter

YU-0001 Comment# Category

15 Planning Processes

16 Natural Resources Management

17 Planning Processes

YU-0002 Comment# Category

18 Planning Processes

YU-0003 Comment# Category

19 Natural Resources Management

YU-0004 Comment# Category

20 Alternatives

21 Recreation Management

23 Alternatives

24 Recreation Management

25 Recreation Management

26 Alternatives

27 Natural Resources Management

28 Natural Resources Management

29 Special Designations

YU-0005 Comment# Category

30 Natural Resources Management

31 Lands and Realty Management

32 Special Designations

33 Special Designations

34 Natural Resources Management

35 Planning Processes

36 Planning Processes

37 Planning Processes

YU-0006 Comment# Category

38 Access and Travel Management

YU-0007 Comment# Category

39 Lands and Realty Management

YU-0008 Comment# Category

40 Alternatives

41 Access and Travel Management

42 Access and Travel Management

43 Lands and Realty Management

44 Lands and Realty Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 1 of 47
45 Natural Resources Management

46 Special Designations

48 Natural Resources Management

YU-0009 Comment# Category

49 Natural Resources Management

YU-0010 Comment# Category

50 Alternatives

51 Natural Resources Management

52 Access and Travel Management

53 Access and Travel Management

54 Access and Travel Management

55 Access and Travel Management

56 Access and Travel Management

57 Lands and Realty Management

58 Lands and Realty Management

59 Lands and Realty Management

60 Lands and Realty Management

61 Natural Resources Management

62 Special Designations

63 Alternatives

64 Natural Resources Management

YU-0011 Comment# Category

65 Special Designations

YU-0012 Comment# Category

1400 Plan Specific Codes

YU-0013 Comment# Category

66 Access and Travel Management

67 Access and Travel Management

68 Access and Travel Management

69 Access and Travel Management

70 Access and Travel Management

71 Lands and Realty Management

72 Lands and Realty Management

73 Lands and Realty Management

74 Lands and Realty Management

75 Natural Resources Management

76 Special Designations

YU-0014 Comment# Category

77 Alternatives

78 Natural Resources Management

79 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 2 of 47
80 Access and Travel Management

81 Access and Travel Management

82 Access and Travel Management

83 Access and Travel Management

84 Lands and Realty Management

85 Lands and Realty Management

86 Lands and Realty Management

87 Lands and Realty Management

88 Natural Resources Management

89 Special Designations

90 Alternatives

91 Natural Resources Management

YU-0015 Comment# Category

92 Access and Travel Management

93 Natural Resources Management

94 Special Designations

YU-0016 Comment# Category

95 Alternatives

96 Access and Travel Management

97 Recreation Management

98 Access and Travel Management

99 Access and Travel Management

100 Access and Travel Management

101 Access and Travel Management

102 Lands and Realty Management

103 Lands and Realty Management

104 Lands and Realty Management

105 Lands and Realty Management

106 Natural Resources Management

107 Alternatives

108 Natural Resources Management

YU-0017 Comment# Category

110 Alternatives

111 Access and Travel Management

112 Recreation Management

113 Access and Travel Management

114 Access and Travel Management

115 Access and Travel Management

116 Access and Travel Management

117 Lands and Realty Management

118 Lands and Realty Management

119 Lands and Realty Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 3 of 47
120 Lands and Realty Management

121 Lands and Realty Management

122 Natural Resources Management

123 Alternatives

124 Natural Resources Management

YU-0018 Comment# Category

125 Planning Processes

YU-0020 Comment# Category

126 Natural Resources Management

127 Natural Resources Management

128 Alternatives

129 Natural Resources Management

130 Access and Travel Management

131 Access and Travel Management

132 Access and Travel Management

133 Access and Travel Management

134 Access and Travel Management

135 Lands and Realty Management

136 Lands and Realty Management

137 Lands and Realty Management

138 Lands and Realty Management

139 Natural Resources Management

140 Special Designations

141 Alternatives

142 Natural Resources Management

YU-0021 Comment# Category

143 Alternatives

144 Lands and Realty Management

145 Special Designations

146 Access and Travel Management

147 Natural Resources Management

YU-0022 Comment# Category

148 Alternatives

149 Access and Travel Management

150 Recreation Management

151 Access and Travel Management

152 Access and Travel Management

153 Access and Travel Management

154 Access and Travel Management

155 Lands and Realty Management

156 Lands and Realty Management

157 Lands and Realty Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 4 of 47
158 Lands and Realty Management

159 Lands and Realty Management

160 Natural Resources Management

161 Alternatives

162 Natural Resources Management

163 Natural Resources Management

YU-0023 Comment# Category

164 Natural Resources Management

YU-0024 Comment# Category

165 Alternatives

166 Access and Travel Management

167 Recreation Management

168 Access and Travel Management

169 Access and Travel Management

170 Access and Travel Management

171 Access and Travel Management

172 Lands and Realty Management

173 Lands and Realty Management

174 Lands and Realty Management

175 Lands and Realty Management

176 Lands and Realty Management

177 Natural Resources Management

178 Alternatives

179 Natural Resources Management

YU-0025 Comment# Category

180 Natural Resources Management

181 Alternatives

182 Recreation Management

183 Access and Travel Management

184 Access and Travel Management

185 Access and Travel Management

186 Access and Travel Management

187 Access and Travel Management

188 Lands and Realty Management

189 Lands and Realty Management

190 Lands and Realty Management

191 Lands and Realty Management

192 Lands and Realty Management

193 Natural Resources Management

194 Alternatives

195 Natural Resources Management

YU-0026 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 5 of 47
196 Planning Processes

YU-0027 Comment# Category

197 Recreation Management

YU-0028 Comment# Category

198 Access and Travel Management

199 Recreation Management

YU-0029 Comment# Category

200 Access and Travel Management

201 Planning Processes

YU-0030 Comment# Category

202 Access and Travel Management

YU-0031 Comment# Category

203 Recreation Management

204 Recreation Management

YU-0032 Comment# Category

205 Recreation Management

206 Recreation Management

207 Access and Travel Management

YU-0033 Comment# Category

208 Access and Travel Management

YU-0034 Comment# Category

209 Access and Travel Management

YU-0035 Comment# Category

210 Access and Travel Management

211 Access and Travel Management

YU-0036 Comment# Category

212 Access and Travel Management

213 Recreation Management

214 Access and Travel Management

215 Recreation Management

YU-0037 Comment# Category

216 Access and Travel Management

217 Access and Travel Management

218 Planning Processes

YU-0038 Comment# Category

219 Access and Travel Management

YU-0039 Comment# Category

220 Access and Travel Management

221 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 6 of 47
222 Access and Travel Management

223 Recreation Management

YU-0040 Comment# Category

224 Natural Resources Management

225 Access and Travel Management

226 Access and Travel Management

227 Access and Travel Management

YU-0041 Comment# Category

228 Recreation Management

YU-0042 Comment# Category

229 Recreation Management

230 Access and Travel Management

YU-0043 Comment# Category

231 Recreation Management

YU-0044 Comment# Category

232 Planning Processes

YU-0045 Comment# Category

233 Access and Travel Management

234 Natural Resources Management

235 Planning Processes

YU-0046 Comment# Category

236 Natural Resources Management

237 Planning Processes

YU-0047 Comment# Category

238 Natural Resources Management

YU-0048 Comment# Category

239 Special Designations

240 Special Designations

YU-0049 Comment# Category

241 Planning Processes

242 Planning Processes

243 Natural Resources Management

244 Special Designations

245 Planning Processes

246 Access and Travel Management

247 Planning Processes

YU-0050 Comment# Category

248 Recreation Management

249 Planning Processes

250 Planning Processes

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 7 of 47
YU-0051 Comment# Category

251 Access and Travel Management

252 Access and Travel Management

253 Planning Processes

254 Special Designations

YU-0052 Comment# Category

255 Alternatives

256 Recreation Management

257 Alternatives

258 Planning Processes

259 Planning Processes

260 Recreation Management

YU-0053 Comment# Category

261 Planning Processes

YU-0054 Comment# Category

262 Access and Travel Management

263 Recreation Management

264 Access and Travel Management

265 Access and Travel Management

266 Lands and Realty Management

267 Alternatives

YU-0055 Comment# Category

268 Planning Processes

269 Alternatives

270 Natural Resources Management

271 Access and Travel Management

272 Access and Travel Management

273 Access and Travel Management

274 Access and Travel Management

275 Access and Travel Management

276 Lands and Realty Management

277 Lands and Realty Management

278 Lands and Realty Management

279 Lands and Realty Management

280 Natural Resources Management

281 Alternatives

282 Alternatives

283 Natural Resources Management

YU-0056 Comment# Category

284 Access and Travel Management

285 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 8 of 47
YU-0057 Comment# Category

286 Alternatives

287 Access and Travel Management

288 Alternatives

289 Access and Travel Management

290 Access and Travel Management

291 Access and Travel Management

292 Access and Travel Management

293 Special Designations

294 Special Designations

YU-0058 Comment# Category

295 Access and Travel Management

296 Access and Travel Management

297 Natural Resources Management

YU-0059 Comment# Category

298 Access and Travel Management

299 Alternatives

300 Access and Travel Management

301 Access and Travel Management

302 Access and Travel Management

303 Access and Travel Management

304 Lands and Realty Management

305 Lands and Realty Management

306 Natural Resources Management

307 Alternatives

308 Natural Resources Management

309 Natural Resources Management

310 Alternatives

311 Special Designations

312 Natural Resources Management

313 Access and Travel Management

314 Access and Travel Management

YU-0060 Comment# Category

315 Natural Resources Management

YU-0061 Comment# Category

316 Access and Travel Management

317 Access and Travel Management

318 Access and Travel Management

319 Alternatives

320 Alternatives

YU-0062 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 9 of 47
321 Access and Travel Management

YU-0063 Comment# Category

322 Alternatives

1401 Plan Specific Codes

YU-0064 Comment# Category

323 Access and Travel Management

324 Access and Travel Management

325 Alternatives

326 Alternatives

YU-0065 Comment# Category

327 Special Designations

328 Planning Processes

329 Access and Travel Management

330 Lands and Realty Management

YU-0066 Comment# Category

331 Recreation Management

YU-0067 Comment# Category

332 Access and Travel Management

YU-0068 Comment# Category

333 Access and Travel Management

YU-0069 Comment# Category

334 Access and Travel Management

335 Access and Travel Management

336 Special Designations

337 Natural Resources Management

YU-0070 Comment# Category

338 Alternatives

339 Access and Travel Management

340 Access and Travel Management

341 Access and Travel Management

342 Access and Travel Management

343 Natural Resources Management

344 Natural Resources Management

YU-0071 Comment# Category

345 Recreation Management

YU-0072 Comment# Category

346 Recreation Management

YU-0073 Comment# Category

347 Alternatives

YU-0074 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 10 of 47
348 Alternatives

YU-0075 Comment# Category

349 Alternatives

YU-0076 Comment# Category

350 Access and Travel Management

351 Recreation Management

352 Access and Travel Management

353 Recreation Management

YU-0077 Comment# Category

354 Access and Travel Management

YU-0078 Comment# Category

355 Access and Travel Management

YU-0079 Comment# Category

356 Access and Travel Management

YU-0080 Comment# Category

357 Access and Travel Management

YU-0081 Comment# Category

358 Access and Travel Management

YU-0082 Comment# Category

360 Alternatives

YU-0083 Comment# Category

361 Access and Travel Management

362 Access and Travel Management

YU-0084 Comment# Category

363 Access and Travel Management

364 Alternatives

365 Alternatives

YU-0085 Comment# Category

366 Access and Travel Management

YU-0086 Comment# Category

367 Access and Travel Management

YU-0087 Comment# Category

368 Access and Travel Management

YU-0088 Comment# Category

369 Access and Travel Management

YU-0089 Comment# Category

370 Access and Travel Management

YU-0090 Comment# Category

371 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 11 of 47
YU-0091 Comment# Category

372 Natural Resources Management

373 Access and Travel Management

YU-0092 Comment# Category

374 Recreation Management

375 Access and Travel Management

376 Planning Processes

377 Natural Resources Management

378 Access and Travel Management

YU-0093 Comment# Category

379 Alternatives

380 Access and Travel Management

381 Access and Travel Management

YU-0094 Comment# Category

382 Alternatives

383 Access and Travel Management

YU-0095 Comment# Category

384 Access and Travel Management

385 Alternatives

YU-0096 Comment# Category

386 Access and Travel Management

387 Access and Travel Management

YU-0097 Comment# Category

388 Access and Travel Management

YU-0098 Comment# Category

389 Access and Travel Management

390 Alternatives

YU-0099 Comment# Category

391 Alternatives

392 Alternatives

YU-0101 Comment# Category

393 Alternatives

YU-0102 Comment# Category

394 Access and Travel Management

YU-0103 Comment# Category

395 Access and Travel Management

YU-0104 Comment# Category

396 Alternatives

YU-0105 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 12 of 47
397 Alternatives

YU-0107 Comment# Category

398 Alternatives

399 Natural Resources Management

400 Access and Travel Management

401 Access and Travel Management

402 Access and Travel Management

403 Access and Travel Management

404 Access and Travel Management

405 Lands and Realty Management

406 Lands and Realty Management

407 Lands and Realty Management

408 Lands and Realty Management

409 Natural Resources Management

410 Special Designations

411 Alternatives

412 Access and Travel Management

413 Alternatives

414 Special Designations

415 Natural Resources Management

416 Planning Processes

YU-0108 Comment# Category

422 Natural Resources Management

423 Special Designations

424 Special Designations

425 Access and Travel Management

426 Access and Travel Management

427 Alternatives

428 Access and Travel Management

429 Lands and Realty Management

430 Planning Processes

431 Natural Resources Management

432 Planning Processes

433 Planning Processes

YU-0109 Comment# Category

417 Planning Processes

418 Planning Processes

419 Access and Travel Management

420 Recreation Management

421 Planning Processes

YU-0110 Comment# Category

434 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 13 of 47
YU-0111 Comment# Category

435 Access and Travel Management

YU-0112 Comment# Category

436 Access and Travel Management

YU-0113 Comment# Category

437 Access and Travel Management

438 Access and Travel Management

439 Recreation Management

440 Access and Travel Management

441 Recreation Management

442 Natural Resources Management

443 Natural Resources Management

444 Access and Travel Management

445 Access and Travel Management

YU-0114 Comment# Category

446 Access and Travel Management

YU-0115 Comment# Category

447 Access and Travel Management

YU-0116 Comment# Category

448 Alternatives

449 Natural Resources Management

450 Access and Travel Management

YU-0117 Comment# Category

451 Alternatives

YU-0118 Comment# Category

452 Alternatives

453 Natural Resources Management

YU-0119 Comment# Category

454 Alternatives

YU-0120 Comment# Category

455 Access and Travel Management

YU-0121 Comment# Category

456 Access and Travel Management

457 Access and Travel Management

458 Access and Travel Management

YU-0122 Comment# Category

459 Natural Resources Management

460 Natural Resources Management

461 Natural Resources Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 14 of 47
YU-0123 Comment# Category

462 Access and Travel Management

463 Alternatives

464 Access and Travel Management

465 Alternatives

466 Special Designations

467 Special Designations

YU-0124 Comment# Category

468 Special Designations

YU-0125 Comment# Category

469 Alternatives

470 Access and Travel Management

471 Natural Resources Management

472 Lands and Realty Management

473 Recreation Management

474 Natural Resources Management

YU-0126 Comment# Category

475 Alternatives

476 Natural Resources Management

477 Access and Travel Management

478 Access and Travel Management

479 Access and Travel Management

480 Access and Travel Management

481 Access and Travel Management

482 Access and Travel Management

483 Lands and Realty Management

484 Lands and Realty Management

485 Lands and Realty Management

486 Lands and Realty Management

487 Natural Resources Management

488 Special Designations

489 Alternatives

490 Access and Travel Management

491 Alternatives

492 Special Designations

493 Special Designations

494 Natural Resources Management

YU-0127 Comment# Category

495 Natural Resources Management

YU-0128 Comment# Category

496 Natural Resources Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 15 of 47
YU-0129 Comment# Category

497 Natural Resources Management

YU-0130 Comment# Category

498 Natural Resources Management

499 Natural Resources Management

500 Natural Resources Management

YU-0131 Comment# Category

501 Natural Resources Management

502 Natural Resources Management

503 Natural Resources Management

YU-0132 Comment# Category

504 Natural Resources Management

505 Natural Resources Management

506 Natural Resources Management

YU-0133 Comment# Category

507 Natural Resources Management

508 Natural Resources Management

YU-0134 Comment# Category

509 Natural Resources Management

510 Natural Resources Management

YU-0135 Comment# Category

511 Alternatives

YU-0136 Comment# Category

512 Natural Resources Management

513 Natural Resources Management

514 Natural Resources Management

YU-0138 Comment# Category

515 Planning Processes

516 Planning Processes

517 Special Designations

518 Special Designations

519 Special Designations

YU-0139 Comment# Category

520 Natural Resources Management

521 Natural Resources Management

522 Natural Resources Management

523 Natural Resources Management

524 Natural Resources Management

525 Natural Resources Management

526 Natural Resources Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 16 of 47
527 Natural Resources Management

YU-0140 Comment# Category

528 Natural Resources Management

YU-0141 Comment# Category

529 Natural Resources Management

YU-0142 Comment# Category

530 Natural Resources Management

531 Natural Resources Management

532 Natural Resources Management

533 Natural Resources Management

534 Natural Resources Management

YU-0143 Comment# Category

535 Natural Resources Management

YU-0144 Comment# Category

536 Natural Resources Management

YU-0145 Comment# Category

537 Natural Resources Management

538 Natural Resources Management

539 Natural Resources Management

540 Natural Resources Management

541 Natural Resources Management

YU-0146 Comment# Category

542 Natural Resources Management

YU-0147 Comment# Category

543 Natural Resources Management

544 Natural Resources Management

545 Natural Resources Management

546 Natural Resources Management

547 Natural Resources Management

548 Natural Resources Management

549 Natural Resources Management

YU-0148 Comment# Category

550 Natural Resources Management

551 Natural Resources Management

552 Natural Resources Management

YU-0149 Comment# Category

553 Natural Resources Management

554 Natural Resources Management

555 Natural Resources Management

YU-0150 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 17 of 47
556 Natural Resources Management

YU-0151 Comment# Category

557 Natural Resources Management

558 Natural Resources Management

YU-0152 Comment# Category

559 Natural Resources Management

560 Natural Resources Management

YU-0153 Comment# Category

561 Natural Resources Management

YU-0154 Comment# Category

562 Natural Resources Management

563 Natural Resources Management

YU-0155 Comment# Category

564 Natural Resources Management

YU-0156 Comment# Category

565 Natural Resources Management

566 Natural Resources Management

YU-0157 Comment# Category

567 Natural Resources Management

YU-0158 Comment# Category

568 Natural Resources Management

YU-0159 Comment# Category

569 Natural Resources Management

570 Natural Resources Management

YU-0160 Comment# Category

571 Natural Resources Management

572 Natural Resources Management

YU-0161 Comment# Category

573 Natural Resources Management

574 Natural Resources Management

YU-0162 Comment# Category

575 Access and Travel Management

YU-0163 Comment# Category

576 Access and Travel Management

YU-0164 Comment# Category

577 Access and Travel Management

YU-0165 Comment# Category

578 Natural Resources Management

YU-0166 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 18 of 47
579 Natural Resources Management

580 Natural Resources Management

581 Natural Resources Management

YU-0167 Comment# Category

582 Natural Resources Management

583 Natural Resources Management

YU-0168 Comment# Category

584 Natural Resources Management

585 Natural Resources Management

586 Natural Resources Management

YU-0169 Comment# Category

587 Natural Resources Management

YU-0170 Comment# Category

588 Natural Resources Management

YU-0171 Comment# Category

589 Natural Resources Management

590 Natural Resources Management

YU-0172 Comment# Category

591 Natural Resources Management

YU-0173 Comment# Category

592 Natural Resources Management

593 Natural Resources Management

594 Natural Resources Management

YU-0174 Comment# Category

595 Access and Travel Management

YU-0175 Comment# Category

596 Access and Travel Management

YU-0176 Comment# Category

597 Access and Travel Management

YU-0177 Comment# Category

598 Access and Travel Management

YU-0178 Comment# Category

599 Natural Resources Management

YU-0179 Comment# Category

600 Natural Resources Management

601 Natural Resources Management

YU-0180 Comment# Category

602 Access and Travel Management

YU-0181 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 19 of 47
603 Access and Travel Management

YU-0182 Comment# Category

604 Access and Travel Management

605 Access and Travel Management

606 Recreation Management

607 Alternatives

608 Recreation Management

YU-0183 Comment# Category

609 Recreation Management

610 Natural Resources Management

YU-0184 Comment# Category

611 Access and Travel Management

612 Recreation Management

613 Access and Travel Management

YU-0185 Comment# Category

614 Alternatives

615 Access and Travel Management

616 Recreation Management

YU-0186 Comment# Category

617 Access and Travel Management

YU-0187 Comment# Category

618 Access and Travel Management

619 Access and Travel Management

620 Alternatives

YU-0188 Comment# Category

621 Alternatives

622 Recreation Management

623 Recreation Management

624 Access and Travel Management

625 Access and Travel Management

626 Access and Travel Management

YU-0189 Comment# Category

627 Alternatives

628 Recreation Management

629 Recreation Management

630 Access and Travel Management

631 Access and Travel Management

632 Access and Travel Management

YU-0190 Comment# Category

633 Alternatives

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 20 of 47
634 Alternatives

635 Recreation Management

636 Access and Travel Management

637 Access and Travel Management

YU-0191 Comment# Category

638 Alternatives

YU-0192 Comment# Category

639 Recreation Management

640 Access and Travel Management

YU-0193 Comment# Category

641 Recreation Management

642 Access and Travel Management

643 Planning Processes

644 Alternatives

YU-0194 Comment# Category

645 Recreation Management

646 Recreation Management

647 Natural Resources Management

648 Natural Resources Management

649 Natural Resources Management

YU-0195 Comment# Category

650 Natural Resources Management

651 Natural Resources Management

YU-0196 Comment# Category

652 Alternatives

YU-0197 Comment# Category

653 Natural Resources Management

654 Natural Resources Management

655 Natural Resources Management

656 Natural Resources Management

657 Natural Resources Management

YU-0198 Comment# Category

658 Natural Resources Management

659 Natural Resources Management

660 Natural Resources Management

YU-0199 Comment# Category

661 Natural Resources Management

662 Natural Resources Management

YU-0200 Comment# Category

664 Alternatives

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 21 of 47
665 Natural Resources Management

YU-0201 Comment# Category

666 Natural Resources Management

667 Natural Resources Management

YU-0202 Comment# Category

668 Natural Resources Management

YU-0203 Comment# Category

669 Natural Resources Management

YU-0204 Comment# Category

670 Natural Resources Management

YU-0205 Comment# Category

671 Natural Resources Management

672 Natural Resources Management

YU-0206 Comment# Category

673 Natural Resources Management

YU-0207 Comment# Category

674 Natural Resources Management

YU-0208 Comment# Category

675 Natural Resources Management

676 Natural Resources Management

YU-0209 Comment# Category

677 Natural Resources Management

678 Natural Resources Management

YU-0210 Comment# Category

679 Natural Resources Management

680 Natural Resources Management

YU-0211 Comment# Category

681 Natural Resources Management

682 Natural Resources Management

YU-0212 Comment# Category

683 Natural Resources Management

684 Natural Resources Management

685 Natural Resources Management

686 Natural Resources Management

YU-0213 Comment# Category

687 Natural Resources Management

688 Natural Resources Management

YU-0214 Comment# Category

689 Natural Resources Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 22 of 47
YU-0215 Comment# Category

690 Natural Resources Management

691 Natural Resources Management

YU-0216 Comment# Category

692 Alternatives

YU-0217 Comment# Category

693 Natural Resources Management

YU-0218 Comment# Category

695 Access and Travel Management

YU-0219 Comment# Category

696 Access and Travel Management

YU-0220 Comment# Category

697 Access and Travel Management

YU-0221 Comment# Category

698 Access and Travel Management

YU-0222 Comment# Category

699 Access and Travel Management

YU-0223 Comment# Category

700 Access and Travel Management

YU-0224 Comment# Category

701 Access and Travel Management

YU-0225 Comment# Category

702 Access and Travel Management

YU-0226 Comment# Category

703 Access and Travel Management

YU-0227 Comment# Category

704 Access and Travel Management

YU-0228 Comment# Category

705 Access and Travel Management

YU-0229 Comment# Category

706 Natural Resources Management

707 Natural Resources Management

YU-0230 Comment# Category

708 Alternatives

709 Natural Resources Management

710 Recreation Management

711 Access and Travel Management

712 Alternatives

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 23 of 47
YU-0231 Comment# Category

713 Natural Resources Management

714 Natural Resources Management

715 Natural Resources Management

716 Natural Resources Management

717 Natural Resources Management

718 Natural Resources Management

719 Natural Resources Management

720 Natural Resources Management

721 Natural Resources Management

YU-0233 Comment# Category

722 Planning Processes

723 Alternatives

724 Lands and Realty Management

725 Special Designations

726 Natural Resources Management

727 Natural Resources Management

728 Natural Resources Management

729 Natural Resources Management

730 Natural Resources Management

731 Alternatives

732 Alternatives

733 Alternatives

734 Natural Resources Management

735 Alternatives

736 Alternatives

737 Alternatives

738 Alternatives

739 Alternatives

740 Alternatives

1412 Natural Resources Management

YU-0234 Comment# Category

741 Natural Resources Management

YU-0235 Comment# Category

742 Access and Travel Management

743 Recreation Management

744 Access and Travel Management

YU-0236 Comment# Category

745 Natural Resources Management

746 Natural Resources Management

YU-0237 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 24 of 47
747 Alternatives

YU-0238 Comment# Category

748 Alternatives

YU-0239 Comment# Category

749 Access and Travel Management

YU-0240 Comment# Category

750 Alternatives

YU-0241 Comment# Category

751 Access and Travel Management

YU-0242 Comment# Category

752 Access and Travel Management

YU-0243 Comment# Category

753 Access and Travel Management

YU-0244 Comment# Category

754 Natural Resources Management

755 Natural Resources Management

756 Natural Resources Management

YU-0245 Comment# Category

757 Natural Resources Management

758 Natural Resources Management

759 Natural Resources Management

760 Natural Resources Management

761 Natural Resources Management

762 Planning Processes

763 Planning Processes

YU-0246 Comment# Category

764 Planning Processes

765 Access and Travel Management

766 Alternatives

767 Planning Processes

768 Natural Resources Management

YU-0247 Comment# Category

769 Natural Resources Management

YU-0248 Comment# Category

770 Natural Resources Management

YU-0249 Comment# Category

771 Natural Resources Management

YU-0250 Comment# Category

772 Natural Resources Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 25 of 47
773 Natural Resources Management

YU-0251 Comment# Category

774 Natural Resources Management

775 Natural Resources Management

YU-0252 Comment# Category

776 Natural Resources Management

777 Natural Resources Management

YU-0253 Comment# Category

778 Natural Resources Management

779 Natural Resources Management

780 Natural Resources Management

YU-0254 Comment# Category

781 Natural Resources Management

782 Natural Resources Management

YU-0255 Comment# Category

783 Natural Resources Management

784 Natural Resources Management

YU-0256 Comment# Category

785 Natural Resources Management

786 Natural Resources Management

YU-0257 Comment# Category

787 Natural Resources Management

YU-0258 Comment# Category

788 Natural Resources Management

YU-0259 Comment# Category

789 Natural Resources Management

YU-0260 Comment# Category

790 Natural Resources Management

791 Natural Resources Management

YU-0261 Comment# Category

792 Natural Resources Management

793 Natural Resources Management

YU-0262 Comment# Category

794 Natural Resources Management

795 Natural Resources Management

YU-0263 Comment# Category

796 Natural Resources Management

YU-0264 Comment# Category

797 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 26 of 47
798 Alternatives

799 Special Designations

YU-0265 Comment# Category

800 Natural Resources Management

YU-0266 Comment# Category

801 Natural Resources Management

YU-0268 Comment# Category

802 Natural Resources Management

803 Natural Resources Management

YU-0269 Comment# Category

804 Alternatives

805 Natural Resources Management

806 Natural Resources Management

807 Natural Resources Management

808 Natural Resources Management

809 Natural Resources Management

810 Natural Resources Management

811 Natural Resources Management

812 Natural Resources Management

YU-0270 Comment# Category

813 Natural Resources Management

814 Natural Resources Management

YU-0271 Comment# Category

815 Natural Resources Management

816 Natural Resources Management

YU-0272 Comment# Category

817 Natural Resources Management

818 Natural Resources Management

YU-0273 Comment# Category

819 Natural Resources Management

820 Natural Resources Management

821 Natural Resources Management

YU-0274 Comment# Category

694 Natural Resources Management

YU-0275 Comment# Category

822 Natural Resources Management

823 Natural Resources Management

YU-0276 Comment# Category

824 Natural Resources Management

825 Natural Resources Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 27 of 47
826 Natural Resources Management

827 Natural Resources Management

YU-0277 Comment# Category

828 Natural Resources Management

829 Natural Resources Management

YU-0278 Comment# Category

830 Natural Resources Management

YU-0279 Comment# Category

831 Natural Resources Management

832 Natural Resources Management

YU-0280 Comment# Category

833 Alternatives

834 Access and Travel Management

835 Access and Travel Management

YU-0281 Comment# Category

836 Natural Resources Management

YU-0282 Comment# Category

837 Natural Resources Management

838 Natural Resources Management

YU-0283 Comment# Category

839 Natural Resources Management

840 Natural Resources Management

YU-0284 Comment# Category

841 Natural Resources Management

842 Natural Resources Management

843 Natural Resources Management

YU-0285 Comment# Category

844 Planning Processes

845 Planning Processes

846 Planning Processes

847 Natural Resources Management

848 Natural Resources Management

849 Special Designations

850 Special Designations

851 Special Designations

852 Alternatives

853 Special Designations

854 Special Designations

855 Access and Travel Management

856 Planning Processes

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 28 of 47
857 Access and Travel Management

858 Alternatives

859 Access and Travel Management

860 Access and Travel Management

861 Access and Travel Management

862 Alternatives

863 Planning Processes

YU-0286 Comment# Category

864 Alternatives

YU-0287 Comment# Category

865 Alternatives

YU-0288 Comment# Category

866 Alternatives

867 Access and Travel Management

YU-0289 Comment# Category

868 Alternatives

YU-0290 Comment# Category

869 Alternatives

870 Access and Travel Management

871 Recreation Management

YU-0291 Comment# Category

872 Alternatives

873 Access and Travel Management

YU-0292 Comment# Category

874 Alternatives

875 Access and Travel Management

YU-0293 Comment# Category

876 Alternatives

877 Access and Travel Management

878 Recreation Management

880 Access and Travel Management

882 Access and Travel Management

884 Access and Travel Management

886 Recreation Management

888 Access and Travel Management

YU-0294 Comment# Category

879 Recreation Management

881 Access and Travel Management

883 Access and Travel Management

885 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 29 of 47
887 Recreation Management

889 Access and Travel Management

890 Alternatives

891 Access and Travel Management

YU-0295 Comment# Category

892 Alternatives

YU-0296 Comment# Category

893 Alternatives

YU-0297 Comment# Category

894 Natural Resources Management

895 Special Designations

896 Access and Travel Management

897 Access and Travel Management

898 Access and Travel Management

899 Lands and Realty Management

900 Planning Processes

901 Planning Processes

902 Access and Travel Management

903 Access and Travel Management

904 Special Designations

905 Recreation Management

906 Special Designations

907 Planning Processes

908 Planning Processes

YU-0298 Comment# Category

909 Access and Travel Management

YU-0299 Comment# Category

910 Access and Travel Management

YU-0300 Comment# Category

911 Access and Travel Management

YU-0301 Comment# Category

912 Natural Resources Management

913 Natural Resources Management

914 Natural Resources Management

YU-0302 Comment# Category

915 Natural Resources Management

YU-0303 Comment# Category

916 Natural Resources Management

YU-0304 Comment# Category

917 Natural Resources Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 30 of 47
YU-0305 Comment# Category

918 Natural Resources Management

YU-0306 Comment# Category

919 Alternatives

920 Access and Travel Management

921 Recreation Management

922 Access and Travel Management

923 Access and Travel Management

924 Access and Travel Management

925 Access and Travel Management

926 Lands and Realty Management

927 Lands and Realty Management

928 Lands and Realty Management

929 Lands and Realty Management

930 Lands and Realty Management

931 Natural Resources Management

932 Alternatives

933 Natural Resources Management

YU-0307 Comment# Category

934 Natural Resources Management

YU-0308 Comment# Category

935 Natural Resources Management

YU-0309 Comment# Category

936 Natural Resources Management

YU-0310 Comment# Category

937 Natural Resources Management

938 Natural Resources Management

939 Natural Resources Management

940 Natural Resources Management

941 Natural Resources Management

942 Natural Resources Management

943 Natural Resources Management

YU-0311 Comment# Category

944 Natural Resources Management

945 Natural Resources Management

YU-0312 Comment# Category

946 Access and Travel Management

947 Planning Processes

948 Access and Travel Management

949 Recreation Management

950 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 31 of 47
951 Access and Travel Management

952 Access and Travel Management

953 Planning Processes

YU-0313 Comment# Category

954 Natural Resources Management

YU-0314 Comment# Category

955 Access and Travel Management

956 Access and Travel Management

YU-0315 Comment# Category

957 Access and Travel Management

958 Alternatives

YU-0316 Comment# Category

959 Access and Travel Management

960 Alternatives

YU-0317 Comment# Category

961 Alternatives

962 Natural Resources Management

YU-0318 Comment# Category

963 Alternatives

964 Natural Resources Management

YU-0319 Comment# Category

965 Alternatives

966 Natural Resources Management

967 Access and Travel Management

968 Recreation Management

YU-0320 Comment# Category

969 Alternatives

970 Alternatives

971 Natural Resources Management

YU-0321 Comment# Category

972 Access and Travel Management

973 Recreation Management

YU-0322 Comment# Category

974 Alternatives

975 Recreation Management

976 Access and Travel Management

977 Recreation Management

978 Recreation Management

979 Access and Travel Management

YU-0323 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 32 of 47
980 Access and Travel Management

YU-0325 Comment# Category

981 Access and Travel Management

YU-0326 Comment# Category

982 Access and Travel Management

YU-0328 Comment# Category

983 Alternatives

984 Access and Travel Management

YU-0329 Comment# Category

1201 Alternatives

1202 Access and Travel Management

YU-0330 Comment# Category

1203 Alternatives

1204 Access and Travel Management

YU-0331 Comment# Category

1205 Alternatives

1206 Access and Travel Management

YU-0332 Comment# Category

1207 Alternatives

1208 Access and Travel Management

YU-0333 Comment# Category

1209 Access and Travel Management

1210 Alternatives

YU-0334 Comment# Category

1211 Alternatives

1212 Access and Travel Management

YU-0335 Comment# Category

1213 Alternatives

1214 Access and Travel Management

YU-0336 Comment# Category

1215 Access and Travel Management

1216 Alternatives

YU-0337 Comment# Category

1217 Alternatives

1218 Access and Travel Management

YU-0338 Comment# Category

1219 Access and Travel Management

1220 Alternatives

YU-0339 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 33 of 47
1221 Alternatives

1222 Access and Travel Management

YU-0340 Comment# Category

1223 Access and Travel Management

1224 Alternatives

YU-0341 Comment# Category

1225 Alternatives

1226 Natural Resources Management

YU-0342 Comment# Category

1227 Alternatives

1228 Access and Travel Management

YU-0343 Comment# Category

1229 Access and Travel Management

1230 Alternatives

YU-0344 Comment# Category

1231 Alternatives

1232 Access and Travel Management

YU-0345 Comment# Category

1233 Alternatives

1234 Access and Travel Management

YU-0346 Comment# Category

1235 Access and Travel Management

1236 Alternatives

1237 Access and Travel Management

YU-0347 Comment# Category

985 Planning Processes

986 Alternatives

987 Natural Resources Management

988 Natural Resources Management

989 Natural Resources Management

990 Natural Resources Management

991 Alternatives

992 Alternatives

993 Planning Processes

994 Natural Resources Management

995 Alternatives

996 Alternatives

997 Natural Resources Management

998 Natural Resources Management

999 Natural Resources Management

1000 Natural Resources Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 34 of 47
1001 Alternatives

1002 Alternatives

1003 Alternatives

YU-0348 Comment# Category

1004 Alternatives

1005 Natural Resources Management

1006 Access and Travel Management

1007 Special Designations

1008 Alternatives

YU-0349 Comment# Category

1009 Recreation Management

1010 Natural Resources Management

1011 Natural Resources Management

1012 Alternatives

1013 Alternatives

YU-0350 Comment# Category

1238 Natural Resources Management

1239 Natural Resources Management

1240 Natural Resources Management

YU-0351 Comment# Category

1241 Natural Resources Management

1242 Natural Resources Management

YU-0352 Comment# Category

1243 Natural Resources Management

YU-0353 Comment# Category

1244 Natural Resources Management

YU-0354 Comment# Category

1245 Natural Resources Management

1246 Natural Resources Management

YU-0355 Comment# Category

1247 Natural Resources Management

1248 Natural Resources Management

YU-0356 Comment# Category

1249 Natural Resources Management

1250 Natural Resources Management

1251 Natural Resources Management

1252 Natural Resources Management

YU-0357 Comment# Category

1253 Natural Resources Management

YU-0358 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 35 of 47
1254 Natural Resources Management

1255 Natural Resources Management

YU-0359 Comment# Category

1014 Planning Processes

1015 Natural Resources Management

1016 Natural Resources Management

1017 Natural Resources Management

1018 Natural Resources Management

1019 Natural Resources Management

1020 Natural Resources Management

1021 Natural Resources Management

1022 Natural Resources Management

1023 Natural Resources Management

1024 Natural Resources Management

1025 Natural Resources Management

1026 Natural Resources Management

1027 Natural Resources Management

1028 Natural Resources Management

1029 Natural Resources Management

1030 Natural Resources Management

1031 Natural Resources Management

1402 Plan Specific Codes

1403 Plan Specific Codes

1404 Plan Specific Codes

1405 Plan Specific Codes

1406 Plan Specific Codes

1407 Plan Specific Codes

1408 Plan Specific Codes

1409 Plan Specific Codes

YU-0360 Comment# Category

1032 Planning Processes

1033 Natural Resources Management

1034 Natural Resources Management

1035 Special Designations

1036 Access and Travel Management

1037 Alternatives

1038 Special Designations

1039 Recreation Management

1040 Natural Resources Management

1041 Planning Processes

1042 Planning Processes

1043 Lands and Realty Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 36 of 47
1044 Planning Processes

YU-0361 Comment# Category

1256 Planning Processes

1257 Planning Processes

1258 Plan Specific Codes

1259 Plan Specific Codes

1260 Plan Specific Codes

1261 Plan Specific Codes

1262 Plan Specific Codes

1263 Plan Specific Codes

1264 Plan Specific Codes

1265 Plan Specific Codes

1266 Plan Specific Codes

1267 Plan Specific Codes

1268 Plan Specific Codes

1269 Plan Specific Codes

YU-0362 Comment# Category

1045 Natural Resources Management

1046 Natural Resources Management

1047 Natural Resources Management

1048 Natural Resources Management

1049 Social and Economics

1050 Recreation Management

1051 Social and Economics

1052 Natural Resources Management

YU-0363 Comment# Category

1270 Natural Resources Management

YU-0364 Comment# Category

1271 Natural Resources Management

1272 Natural Resources Management

YU-0365 Comment# Category

1273 Natural Resources Management

1274 Natural Resources Management

1275 Natural Resources Management

YU-0367 Comment# Category

1276 Natural Resources Management

YU-0369 Comment# Category

1277 Natural Resources Management

1278 Natural Resources Management

1279 Natural Resources Management

YU-0370 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 37 of 47
1280 Natural Resources Management

1281 Natural Resources Management

YU-0371 Comment# Category

1282 Access and Travel Management

1283 Special Designations

1284 Alternatives

YU-0372 Comment# Category

1285 Natural Resources Management

1286 Natural Resources Management

1287 Natural Resources Management

YU-0373 Comment# Category

1288 Natural Resources Management

1289 Planning Processes

1290 Natural Resources Management

1291 Planning Processes

YU-0374 Comment# Category

1292 Natural Resources Management

YU-0375 Comment# Category

1053 Planning Processes

YU-0376 Comment# Category

1054 Planning Processes

YU-0377 Comment# Category

1293 Access and Travel Management

1294 Natural Resources Management

1295 Alternatives

YU-0378 Comment# Category

1296 Alternatives

1297 Special Designations

1298 Natural Resources Management

1299 Recreation Management

1300 Recreation Management

1301 Access and Travel Management

1302 Access and Travel Management

1303 Natural Resources Management

YU-0379 Comment# Category

1304 Access and Travel Management

1305 Natural Resources Management

1306 Natural Resources Management

1307 Access and Travel Management

1308 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 38 of 47
1309 Special Designations

1310 Alternatives

YU-0380 Comment# Category

1311 Natural Resources Management

1312 Natural Resources Management

YU-0381 Comment# Category

1313 Natural Resources Management

1314 Natural Resources Management

YU-0382 Comment# Category

1315 Natural Resources Management

1316 Natural Resources Management

1317 Planning Processes

YU-0383 Comment# Category

1318 Natural Resources Management

YU-0384 Comment# Category

1319 Natural Resources Management

1320 Natural Resources Management

1321 Natural Resources Management

YU-0385 Comment# Category

1055 Alternatives

1056 Natural Resources Management

1057 Natural Resources Management

1058 Natural Resources Management

1059 Natural Resources Management

1060 Natural Resources Management

1061 Natural Resources Management

1062 Natural Resources Management

YU-0386 Comment# Category

1386 Planning Processes

YU-0387 Comment# Category

1387 Natural Resources Management

YU-0388 Comment# Category

1388 Natural Resources Management

YU-0389 Comment# Category

1389 Natural Resources Management

YU-0390 Comment# Category

1390 Natural Resources Management

1391 Natural Resources Management

YU-0391 Comment# Category

1392 Natural Resources Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 39 of 47
YU-0392 Comment# Category

1393 Natural Resources Management

YU-0393 Comment# Category

1394 Natural Resources Management

YU-0394 Comment# Category

1395 Natural Resources Management

YU-0396 Comment# Category

1063 Special Designations

1064 Planning Processes

1065 Special Designations

1066 Planning Processes

1067 Special Designations

1068 Planning Processes

1069 Natural Resources Management

1070 Special Designations

1071 Special Designations

1072 Natural Resources Management

1073 Planning Processes

1074 Natural Resources Management

1075 Planning Processes

1076 Planning Processes

1077 Special Designations

YU-0397 Comment# Category

1396 Natural Resources Management

YU-0398 Comment# Category

1078 Special Designations

YU-0399 Comment# Category

1397 Natural Resources Management

YU-0400 Comment# Category

1079 Natural Resources Management

1080 Natural Resources Management

1081 Natural Resources Management

1082 Natural Resources Management

1083 Natural Resources Management

1084 Natural Resources Management

1085 Natural Resources Management

1086 Natural Resources Management

1087 Planning Processes

1088 Natural Resources Management

1089 Natural Resources Management

1090 Natural Resources Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 40 of 47
1091 Natural Resources Management

1092 Natural Resources Management

1093 Natural Resources Management

1094 Natural Resources Management

YU-0401 Comment# Category

1095 Special Designations

1096 Natural Resources Management

1097 Natural Resources Management

1098 Natural Resources Management

1099 Natural Resources Management

1100 Natural Resources Management

1101 Natural Resources Management

1102 Alternatives

1103 Natural Resources Management

1104 Alternatives

1105 Alternatives

1106 Alternatives

1107 Access and Travel Management

1108 Access and Travel Management

1109 Access and Travel Management

1110 Access and Travel Management

1111 Access and Travel Management

1112 Alternatives

1113 Access and Travel Management

1114 Special Designations

1115 Access and Travel Management

1116 Access and Travel Management

1117 Recreation Management

1118 Access and Travel Management

1119 Natural Resources Management

1120 Lands and Realty Management

1121 Lands and Realty Management

1122 Special Designations

1123 Lands and Realty Management

1124 Lands and Realty Management

1125 Lands and Realty Management

1126 Lands and Realty Management

1127 Lands and Realty Management

1128 Special Designations

1129 Special Designations

1130 Alternatives

1131 Special Designations

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 41 of 47
1132 Special Designations

1133 Special Designations

1134 Special Designations

1135 Alternatives

1136 Special Designations

1137 Alternatives

1138 Alternatives

1139 Alternatives

1140 Special Designations

1141 Special Designations

1142 Natural Resources Management

1143 Natural Resources Management

1144 Natural Resources Management

1145 Natural Resources Management

1146 Natural Resources Management

1147 Natural Resources Management

1148 Social and Economics

1149 Planning Processes

1150 Access and Travel Management

1151 Access and Travel Management

1152 Access and Travel Management

1153 Access and Travel Management

1154 Access and Travel Management

1155 Access and Travel Management

1156 Access and Travel Management

1157 Access and Travel Management

1158 Plan Specific Codes

YU-0402 Comment# Category

1159 Access and Travel Management

1160 Access and Travel Management

1161 Planning Processes

1162 Natural Resources Management

1163 Access and Travel Management

1164 Natural Resources Management

1165 Alternatives

1166 Access and Travel Management

1167 Access and Travel Management

1168 Access and Travel Management

1169 Special Designations

1170 Planning Processes

1171 Lands and Realty Management

1172 Natural Resources Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 42 of 47
1173 Natural Resources Management

YU-0403 Comment# Category

1174 Planning Processes

1175 Natural Resources Management

1176 Planning Processes

1177 Alternatives

1178 Planning Processes

1179 Alternatives

1410 Natural Resources Management

1411 Alternatives

1465 Planning Processes

YU-0404 Comment# Category

1180 Natural Resources Management

1181 Natural Resources Management

1182 Natural Resources Management

1183 Natural Resources Management

1184 Natural Resources Management

1185 Natural Resources Management

1186 Natural Resources Management

1187 Natural Resources Management

1188 Alternatives

1189 Special Designations

1190 Special Designations

1191 Natural Resources Management

1192 Recreation Management

1193 Lands and Realty Management

1194 Access and Travel Management

1195 Recreation Management

1196 Recreation Management

1197 Natural Resources Management

1198 Natural Resources Management

1199 Planning Processes

1200 Alternatives

YU-0405 Comment# Category

1322 Recreation Management

1323 Planning Processes

1324 Access and Travel Management

1325 Special Designations

1326 Special Designations

1327 Special Designations

1328 Special Designations

1329 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 43 of 47
1330 Access and Travel Management

1331 Planning Processes

1332 Planning Processes

1333 Access and Travel Management

1334 Recreation Management

1335 Recreation Management

1336 Recreation Management

1337 Planning Processes

1338 Natural Resources Management

1339 Special Designations

1340 Special Designations

1341 Special Designations

1342 Special Designations

1343 Alternatives

1344 Alternatives

1345 Alternatives

1346 Special Designations

1347 Natural Resources Management

1348 Natural Resources Management

1349 Alternatives

1350 Natural Resources Management

1351 Natural Resources Management

1352 Alternatives

1353 Natural Resources Management

1354 Planning Processes

1355 Alternatives

1356 Alternatives

1357 Natural Resources Management

1358 Alternatives

1359 Natural Resources Management

1360 Natural Resources Management

1361 Natural Resources Management

1362 Alternatives

1363 Natural Resources Management

1364 Recreation Management

1365 Recreation Management

1366 Recreation Management

1367 Recreation Management

1368 Planning Processes

1369 Recreation Management

1370 Recreation Management

1371 Recreation Management

1372 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 44 of 47
1373 Recreation Management

1374 Recreation Management

1375 Natural Resources Management

1376 Alternatives

1377 Alternatives

1378 Natural Resources Management

1379 Alternatives

1380 Natural Resources Management

1381 Access and Travel Management

1382 Natural Resources Management

1383 Natural Resources Management

1384 Natural Resources Management

1385 Planning Processes

YU-0406 Comment# Category

1413 Planning Processes

1414 Natural Resources Management

1415 Special Designations

1416 Natural Resources Management

1417 Natural Resources Management

1418 Alternatives

1419 Natural Resources Management

1420 Access and Travel Management

1421 Access and Travel Management

1422 Lands and Realty Management

1423 Lands and Realty Management

1424 Natural Resources Management

1425 Special Designations

1426 Planning Processes

1427 Planning Processes

1428 Planning Processes

1429 Planning Processes

1430 Natural Resources Management

1431 Natural Resources Management

YU-0407 Comment# Category

1432 Natural Resources Management

YU-0408 Comment# Category

1433 Natural Resources Management

YU-0409 Comment# Category

1434 Natural Resources Management

1435 Natural Resources Management

YU-0410 Comment# Category

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 45 of 47
1436 Alternatives

1437 Access and Travel Management

1438 Access and Travel Management

YU-0411 Comment# Category

1439 Access and Travel Management

1440 Recreation Management

1441 Natural Resources Management

YU-0412 Comment# Category

1442 Natural Resources Management

YU-0413 Comment# Category

1443 Natural Resources Management

1444 Natural Resources Management

1445 Natural Resources Management

YU-0414 Comment# Category

1446 Access and Travel Management

YU-0415 Comment# Category

1447 Access and Travel Management

YU-0416 Comment# Category

1448 Access and Travel Management

YU-0417 Comment# Category

1449 Access and Travel Management

YU-0418 Comment# Category

1450 Access and Travel Management

YU-0419 Comment# Category

1451 Access and Travel Management

YU-0420 Comment# Category

1452 Access and Travel Management

YU-0421 Comment# Category

1453 Access and Travel Management

YU-0422 Comment# Category

1454 Access and Travel Management

YU-0423 Comment# Category

1455 Access and Travel Management

YU-0424 Comment# Category

1456 Access and Travel Management

YU-0425 Comment# Category

1457 Access and Travel Management

YU-0426 Comment# Category

1458 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 46 of 47
YU-0427 Comment# Category

1459 Planning Processes

1460 Alternatives

1461 Planning Processes

1462 Natural Resources Management

1463 Access and Travel Management

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 47 of 47
Comments with Letters BLM Yuma Field Office- Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP/FEIS):

Index of Comment Letters By Author

LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

YU-0239

YU-0128

 YU-0030

YU-0393

YU-0366

DAWN YU-0161

K. YU-0262

TOMMY YU-0033

ABERNATHY CARLA YU-0261

ABERNATHY PAUL T. YU-0184

ACQUISTO ROSSI YU-0152

ADDISON CAROLIE YU-0214

ALBUS JACK YU-0432

ALBUS JEANNE YU-0431

ALLEN MARY YU-0316

ALPLANALP JIM YU-0082

ALPLANALP JUDY YU-0104

AMMONS JAMES YU-0348

AMMONS JIM YU-0048 YU-0348

ANAYA GILBERT INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND YU-0233

WATER COMMISSION

ANDERSON GRETA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (et YU-0400

al.)

YU-0401

ANDERSON GRETA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL YU-0401

ANDRIA CHRIS YU-0358

ARNST DIANE L. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF YU-0002

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

ASH CORINNE YU-0169

AUSTIN JAMES YU-0289

AVERILL DAVID YU-0079

AVERY DAVID YU-0068

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 1 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

AVERY JEAN YU-0068

AYERS KAREN YU-0352

AYERS LOUIS YU-0102

AZELSKI CAROLINE YU-0281

BAEKEY ANITA YU-0247

BAHR SANDY SIERRA CLUB-GRAND CANYON CHAPTER YU-0401 YU-0400

BALDER DAVID YU-0062

BARNES TAMMIE PIONEER TACK YU-0130

BARNETT D. ? YU-0423

BARNETT GERALD P. YU-0423

BATES ROBIN YU-0250

BAZUIN JUDITH YU-0275

BELL TIMOTHY YU-0372

BENDER FRANK YU-0183

BENGTSON NANCY M. YU-0257

BENGTSON PETER YU-0059

BENJAMIN GAIL YU-0137

BENNETT DAVID YU-0080

BENNETT DIANA YU-0080

BICKEL BETTINA YU-0024

BJERKESET NANCY PICCI YU-0160

BJUR MARYANN YU-0331

BJUR ROBERT YU-0334

BJUR RON YU-0330

BLOCK BARBARA YU-0298

BLOCK BARBARA YU-0226 YU-0298

BLOCK DICK YU-0226

BOATMAN YU-0428

BOLEY RON YU-0067

BOLTON MARY YU-0096

BOLTON (?) PHIL YU-0083

BOURNE ANNE YU-0101

BRADLEY BRYAN YU-0098

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 2 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

BRADLEY PAULINE YU-0099

BRANDEGE ANN YU-0181

BRANDEGE BRICE YU-0181

BRANTLEY CONSTANCE YU-0290

BRANTLEY JIM YU-0288

BRIGHT ROBERT J. YU-0097

BRIGHT ROBERT J. QUARTZSITE GEM AND MINERAL CLUB YU-00 YU-0058 97

BUFFER ROBERTA YU-0343

BUFFER, SR JOHN YU-0346

BURGE PAT YU-0255

BURGE PATRICIA YU-0351

BURKE BOBBIE YU-0410

BURKE N YU-0410

BURRIGHT DUANE YU-0272

BUTLER AVA YU-0022

BUTLER LYNN YU-0177

CALE JERRY YU-0164

CALECA ROSEANNE YU-0353

CAMPBELL BEN C. YU-0296

CAMPBELL PAT YU-0295

CANACA LAURA ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT YU-0375

CARLSON LARRY YU-0134

CARLSON MRS. LARRY YU-0134

CARLTON BECKY A. YU-0207

CARROLL CRISTA YU-0307

CAUGHEY DONNA YU-0119

CAUGHEY ED YU-0120

CEEN JOSIE YU-0278

CHAMBERLAIN KAREN YU-0244

CHOW-TYNE JUNE YU-0211

CLARK LARRY YU-0314

CLEARY MARY YU-0087

CLEVELAND HARRY L. YU-0084

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 3 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

COBIN SUSAN YU-0051

COFFMAN KATHY YU-0305

COHEN MICHAEL PACIFIC INSTITUTE YU-0398

COLE ROBERT YU-0221

COLISTER DAVID YU-0070

COLVIN JOHN YU-0320

CONROY PEGGY YU-0157

COOPER KAREN YU-0198

COSSITT NANCY YU-0217

COUGY YU-0388

COWDRY CARL W. YU-0074

COWDRY PHYLLIS J. YU-0073

CULL DONNA YU-0333

CULL RONALD YU-0332

CULLINEY PATRICK YU-0276

CULVER NADA THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY YU-0401

DAVIS AUGUSTA YU-0371

DAWSON JOE YU-0191

DAWSON SHARON K. YU-0196

DEGANAHL JOE YU-0006

DEVINE JAMES F. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY YU-0127

DICKSON LAURIE YU-0301

DICKSON MARI YU-0151

DILL KATHLEEN YU-0142

DOLAN BRIAN YU-0012

DOLAN M. YU-0225

DOLAN? CAROL YU-0222

DOUGLAS DIANNE YU-0273

DOUGLAS DIANNE YU-0256 YU-0273

DOWNER CRAIG YU-0231

DUBENHAM DENNIS YU-0115

DUBENHAM EMILY YU-0114

DUFFY CHRISTINE YU-0057

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 4 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

DURAN Y CHAVES PATRYKA YU-0392

ECCLES RITA YU-0260

ECKHARDT CHERYL NATIONAL PARK SERVICE YU-0216

EMMERICH KEVIN YU-0010

ENGLISH RANDY YUMA PROVING GROUND YU-0427

ESPER KATHY YU-0277

FAGGARD CHERYL YU-0422

FAGGARD GENE YU-0424

FARMER DWAYNE YU-0040

FERRANTI DON YU-0323

FERRANTI DONALD YU-0326

FERRANTI MARILYN YU-0324

FERRANTI TAMMY YU-0325

FICK C. YU-0259

FIGUEROA ALFREDO YU-0043

FINE ASHLEY YU-0003

FISK THOMAS YU-0185

FLECK ROBERT YU-0382

FLINT SUSAN K. YU-0293

FLINT TIM YU-0294

FLINT TIMOTHY YU-0036 YU-0294

FOSTER EDDIE YUMA VALLEY ROD AND GUN CLUB YU-0069

FOX GAIL YU-0413

FRANCIES ALENE YU-0190

FRANCKOWIAK PAUL YU-0125

FRANKLIN STEPH YU-0179

FRANKS STEVE YU-0126

FRASER KEITH YU-0337

FRASER LEE YU-0338

FRAUENFELDER DIRK YU-0034

FRAZIER MARGARET YU-0133

FRENCH JANICE YU-0350

FRENCH JOAN YU-0350

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 5 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

FRENCH JULIANNE YU-0245

FRENDEL MARCIA YU-0147

FUGATE JON YU-0297

FUGATE JON YU-0108 YU-0297

FUJII LAURA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY YU-0402

FURREY DAVID R. YU-0053

FUSSELL MIRIAM YU-0248

GAKELER DEBRA YU-0129

GARRETT ROY YU-0007

GAYNE BARBARA YU-0408

GAYNE CARRIE YU-0270

GEARHEART JERRY YU-0085

GILES RICHARD C. YU-0103

GIRARD NANCY YU-0076

GJERSET BARBARA YU-0391

GLASSCO GREG YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT INDIAN TRIBE YU-0433

GOODWIN EMILY E. YU-0302

GRABER RUTH YU-0215

GRAHAM LORI YU-0170

GRIFFITH KELLY YU-0210

GROSMAN TED YU-0228

GROSMAN TIPPI YU-0227

GROVES CARLOTTA E. YU-0205

GUERRA JIM SACRED SITES PROTECTION CIRCLE YU-0046

HANCOCK JIM YU-0038

HANSON QUENTON YU-0047

HARNEY MAUREEN YU-0148

HARPER GARY WOOD YU-0156

HARRIS BILL YU-0149

HARRIS JENNIE YU-0197

HARRIS LINDA R. YU-0091

HARRIS RAYE YU-0149

HARRIS WILLIAM A. YU-0092

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 6 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

HARRISON ROBIN YU-0071

HASTINGS ART YU-0039

HAYES KAMA YU-0150

HEATWOLE NICHOLAS YUMA VALLEY ROD AND GUN CLUB YU-0360

HEATWOLE NICHOLAS YUMA VALLEY ROD AND GUN CLUB YU-0110

HEDGCOCK CHARLES YU-0064

HENNESSEY CHRIS YU-0308

HENNING RICHARD BLUE RIBBON COALITION, AMERICAN YU-0315

MOTORCYCLE ASSOCIATION

HENRY SUSANNA G. KOFA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE YU-0429

HENSLEY LYLE YU-0121

HENSLEY TIM YU-0187

HENSLEY TINA YU-0240

HEUSLEIN AMY BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS YU-0246

HINES SHIRLEY M. Road Runner Gem and Mineral Club YU-0093

HINES WILLIAM J. YU-0094

HOCK MIKE YU-0165

HOEFT CYNTHIA BUREAU OF RECLAMATION YU-0403

HORNING DENISE YU-0234

HORWITZ BRENDA YU-0370

HOSKINS LINDA J. YU-0171

HOWARD ANN SHPO YU-0435

HUBBS DAWN YU-0005

HUSTACE KATHLEEN YU-0173

IRONS DIANNA YU-0028

JENNINGS JANE YU-0041

JENNINGS JANE YU-0031 YU-0041

JENSEN MICHAEL YU-0241

JESSLER DARYNNE YU-0354

JOZWIAK FRANK R. MORRISSET, SCHLOSSER, JOZWIAK & YU-0406

MCGAW (QUECHAN TRIBE)

K BOB YU-0223

K JENNY YU-0223

KALINA MATT YU-0014 YU-0123

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 7 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

KATAOKA DIANE EAGLE YU-0367

KEARNS RON YU-0379 YU-0386

KEARNS RON YU-0386

KEENE LISA YU-0390

KENDALL JENNY YU-0274

KENNEDY JUDY YU-0306

KENNIER DR. P. YU-0175

KENNIER MRS. P. YU-0175

KESSLER JOHN YU-0072

KESSLER KIM YU-0364

KIM CAROL YU-0415

KIM PETER C. YU-0414

KINNISON JOANN YU-0100

KINNISON JOANN GPAA YU-0186

KINNISON JOANN ARIZONA GEM AND MINERAL CLUB YU-0100 YU- YU-0095 0186

KITCHEN ADRIENNE YU-0143

KITCHEN LINDA YU-0144

KLOEPPEL JOE YU-0267

KNIGHT JAMES YU-0361

KOKJOHN TYLER YU-0138

KOLOMYJEC WANDA YU-0122

KOOISTRA CHARLIE YU-0037

KRISTMANN MICHELLE SACRED SITES PROTECTION CIRCLE YU-0044

KUCERA G. DONALD THE ANZA TRAIL COALITION OF ARIZONA YU-0052

LAFORD ARMOND YU-0345

LAMKIN ROBIN YU-0105

LAMPMAN MARGIE YU-0251

LANE PATRICIA J. YU-0282

LASH CAL YU-0011 YU-0015

LASH CAL YU-0011

LATHAM AUDREY YU-0317

LATHAM RICHARD YU-0318

LEAHY SARA YU-0140

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 8 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

LEWIS JEREMY YU-0018

LEWIS NANCY R. YU-0146

LITTLE JANET YU-0409

LOCOCO ANDREA ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUE YU-0385

LOFTON JOHN S. YU-0109

LONG BOB YU-0180

LONG ELYSE YU-0180

LOVE MARIGOLD YU-0265

LOVRIEN CLARK E. YU-0430

LOVRIEN REBA F. YU-0430

LOWER DEANNA L. YU-0188

LOWER ROBERT A. YU-0189

LUCAS ALLISON YU-0208

LUFFY WILLIAM ARIZONA DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP YU-0404

SOCIETY

LUKASIEWICZ MICHELLE YU-0253

LYNCH JANET YU-0310

LYONS MARLYN YU-0116

LYONS PATSY YU-0117

MACADAM ANN YU-0356

MACDONALD CINDY YU-0359

MACKEN GERALD YU-0336

MACKEN KATHLEEN YU-0335

MADDOX KIM YU-0054

MANGERS MIKE YU-0425

MANGERS RANEE YU-0426

MANTZ (?) LEE YU-0078

MARQUEZ MONICA YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION YU-0362

MARTIN JEANNIE YU-0328

MARTIN JOHN YU-0329

MARTIN MARY YU-0383

MARTINEZ ANDREA YU-0285

MARTINEZ ANDREA YU-0049 YU-0285

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 9 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

MARTINO NANCI YU-0313

MCCLURE JEAN YU-0066

MCCORMICK H. JILL COCOPAH INDIAN TRIBE YU-0230

MCCOY ROBERT L. YU-0056

MCCURRY APRIL YU-0154

MCGILL RICHARD YU-0182

MCKEE ROGER A. YU-0236

MCLAIN KAREN YU-0213

MCNAMARA ANNABETH YU-0060

MEARS SHEILA YU-0394

MEISTER CARY YUMA AUDUBON SOCIETY YU-0401 YU-0400

MICHALAK MARIA YU-0369

MICHALS CORY YU-0271

MICKLICK YU-0088

MILLER ROBERT YU-0174

MILLER ROBERT YU-0075

MINOR LORANNA YU-0029

MORAN JERRY YU-0077

MORGART TERRY YU-0001

MORIN CARLA YU-0249

MORIN PATRICK YU-0249

MOTHERAL DOROTHY YU-0023

MULLANE SHARON YU-0283

MYERS MARY YU-0017

NASIF DR. MARCEL YU-0025

NASIF MRS. MARCE YU-0025

NATION ALICIA YU-0132

NEALY KAYE MORRISSET, SCHLOSSER, JOZWIAK & YU-0376

MCGAW (QUECHAN TRIBE)

NELSON PAT YU-0235

NICHOLS H.R. YU-0089

NILES GARY TAMARACK LAGOON CORPORATION YU-0063 YU-0004

NONE YU-0019

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 10 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

NORMENT BONNIE SUE YU-0155

O'CONNOR SHAWNA YU-0201

ORR EVELYN L. YU-0113

ORR JOHN W. YU-0194

ORR SCOTT YU-0167

PADDOCK MARGARET YU-0263

PANCARO BETTY YU-0303

PARANT VIRGINIE YU-0380

PATTERSON DANIEL R. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR YU-0055

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

PITT JENNIFER ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE YU-0124

POLICK JEFF YU-0373

POLICK MELISSA YU-0373

PRICE JEFF YU-0065

PRINE HEATHER YU-0145

RANSEHOUSEN BARABARA YU-0163

RANSEHOUSEN BARBARA FAMILY MOTOR COACH ASSOCIATION YU-0050

FOUR-WHEELERS

YU-0163

RANSEHOUSEN JIM YU-0163

RASMUSSEN RANDY NATURAL TRAILS AND WATERS YU-0401

COALITION

RATCLIFF REBECCA YU-0136

RATHBUN CLAUDIA YU-0237

RATHBUN ROBERT D. YU-0238

RECCA FRAN AMERICAN TRAILHORSE ASSOCIATION - YU-0139

NEW JERSEY

REYNOLDS DARWIN YU-0344

REYNOLDS JEANICE YU-0342

RICKS SANDRA YU-0027

ROBERTS JAN YU-0021

ROBERTS JENNY YU-0020 YU-0264

ROETTO PAUL YU-0377

ROONEY CATHY YU-0258

RUSH ERNEST E. YU-0300

RUSH L. SANDRA YU-0299

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 11 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

RUSSELL CAROL YU-0219

RUSSETT D. YU-0224

RYBERG ERIK WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT YU-0400

SAKTA ALECS YU-0013 YU-0252

SALAZAR MELISSA JOY YU-0141

SAN DIEGO JEANNE MARI YU-0131

SANDERS AMANDA YU-0158

SANTOSTEFANO LAURA YU-0178 YU-0229

SAUNDERS-WHITE CAROL YU-0384

SAWAY STEVE HUACHUCA HIKING CLUB YU-0378

SAWYER VAL YU-0266

SCHNEIDER GEORGE YU-0322

SCHUMANN ELIZABETH YU-0172

SCHWENNESEN ERIC YU-0304

SCRIBNER JANICE YU-0081

SCRIBNER JOE YU-0032 YU-0081

SCRIBNER JOE YU-0081

SEFSCIK SUE YU-0365

SESAR BETTY YU-0291

SESAR STAN YU-0292

SHAVITZ MARK YU-0111

SHIPLEY ROY YU-0026

SHOVEA RITA YU-0199

SHOVEA SCOTT YU-0199

SHROUFE DUANE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT YU-0405

SIEMION GIBNEY YU-0061

SIESS JANOS YU-0203

SIMON-HELDT SHERRY YU-0206

SINTOSTEPHANO LAURA YU-0229

SIPES CAROL YU-0220

SIPES STEVE YU-0220

SLAGLE DEIDRE YU-0417

SLAGLE PETER YU-0418

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 12 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

SMITH KIMBERLY YU-0254

SMITH MARTHA YU-0268

SMITH PHILLIP R. COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBE YU-0045

SOMERVILLE THANE D. MORRISSET, SCHLOSSER, JOZWIAK & YU-0406

MCGAW (QUECHAN TRIBE)

SORENSON HELEN I. YU-0193

SORENSON RAY W. YU-0192

SOUZA WANDA YU-0397

SPENCER MARIAN J. YU-0286

SPENCER WALTER T. YU-0287

SPRINGER LINDA YU-0407

STEELY JANICE YU-0166

STEIN WENDY YU-0363

STEVENS BOB YU-0416

STEVENS CHERYL YU-0416

STEWART MAUREEN YU-0106

STIGLICH WILLIAM YU-0086

STYLES MARGARET NATIONAL PARK SERVICE YU-0135

SUTTON JIM YU-0319

SUTTON KAY YU-0319

SWANER JOSEPH YU-0341

SWEITZER CONSTANCE YU-0159

TAFT BRUCE YU-0035

THOMAS BILL YU-0118

THOMSON ERIN YU-0372

TOBIAS LINNEA YU-0399

TRAVERSO MRS. MARK YU-0168

TURNER AL YU-0042

TUSUP WENDY YU-0309

UJDA HALINA YU-0389

UJDA IRENE YU-0355

UNGER ARTHUR YU-0009

VAALER JIM YU-0008

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 13 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

VAN ZANDT H.R. YU-0112

VELLA VIN YU-0162

VIHLINE LYNNE YU-0176

VOGGESSER, Ph.D. GARRIT NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION YU-0396

WALKER CAROL YU-0311

WARNER BARBARA AMERICAN HORSE DEFENSE FUND YU-0195

WARR BARBARA YU-0218

WARR MIKE YU-0218

WATSON MARK CITY OF YUMA YU-0349

WATT TERRY YU-0284

WEBERS KATHRYN YU-0357

WEEKS DOLORES YU-0411

WEESE DON YU-0243

WEESE SUSAN YU-0242

WEINER TERRY DESERT PROTECTIVE COUNCIL YU-0401 YU-0400

WERNER WILLIAM ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER YU-0347

RESOURCES

WERNETTE TIM YU-0016

WHITCOMB LYN YU-0153

WILKINS WALTER YU-0321

WILLIAMS DIANE YU-0381

WILLIAMS EARL YU-0312

WILLIAMS JASON ARIZONA WILDERNESS COALITION YU-0401 YU-0279

WILLIAMS JASON ARIZONA WILDERNESS COALITION YU-0401

WILLIAMS JOSEPH YU-0381

WILLMORE LINDA YU-0412

WILSON AL YU-0339

WILSON BARBARA YU-0419

WILSON CAROL YU-0209

WILSON JERRY YU-0419

WILSON MARILYN YU-0200

WILSON SUSAN YU-0340

WITZEMAN ROBERT A. MARICOPA AUDUBON SOCIETY YU-0107

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 14 of 15
LETTER # LAST NAME FIRST, MI ORGANIZATION NAME

WOOLFREY JANE YU-0421

WRIGHT JENNIFER YU-0204

WYLES JEFF S. YU-0269

YEE RAYMOND YU-0420

YOUNG BILLIE AMERICA'S WILD HORSE ADVOCATES YU-0387

YOUNG NICOLA YU-0202

ZANDONATTI WILLIAM YU-0090

ZAPP KELLY YU-0374

ZENTALL MELODIE YU-0212

Friday, February 01, 2008 Page 15 of 15
Glossary of Terms 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

A 

Administrative Route: Routes that lead to developments that have an administrative purpose, 

where the BLM or some permitted user must have access for regular maintenance or operation. 

Adverse Visual Impact: Any modification in land forms, water bodies, or vegetation, or any 

introduction of structures, which negatively interrupts the visual character of the landscape and 

disrupts the harmony of the basic elements (i.e., form, line, color, and texture). 

(A)esthetics: Relates to the pleasurable characteristics of a physical environment as perceived 

through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. 

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. 

Appropriate Management Level (AML2): That “optimum number” of wild horses, which 

results in a thriving ecological balance and avoids a deterioration of the range. 

Animal Unit (AU): One mature (1,000-pound) cow or the equivalent based upon an average 

daily forage consumption of 26 pounds of dry matter per day. 

Animal Unit Month (AUM): The amount of forage needed to sustain one cow, five sheep, or 

five goats for a month. 

Archaeological Feature: A non-portable object, not recoverable from its matrix (usually in an 

archeological site) without destroying its integrity. Examples are rock paintings, hearths, post 

holes, floors, and walls.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): A designated area on public lands where 

special management attention is required: (1) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to fish 

and wildlife; (2) to protect important historic, cultural, or scenic values, or other natural systems 

or processes; or (3) to protect life and safety from natural hazards. 

AZSITE Database: A computer database containing archaeological site and project 

information managed by the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and maintained by the 

Arizona State Museum and Arizona State University.

Yuma Field Office Page G-1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008
Glossary of Terms 

B 

Back Country Byway: A component of the national scenic byway system which focuses 

primarily on corridors along back-country roads which have high scenic, historic, archeological, 

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. (BLM Handbook H-8357-1, B 2) 

Basic Elements: The four design elements (form, line, color, and texture), which determine how 

the character of a landscape is perceived. 

Bajada: A broad continuous slope extending along and from the base of a mountain range and 

formed by coalescing alluvial fans. 

Biodiversity (plant and animal): Shorthand for biological diversity; the variety and variability 

of life, at the genetic, species, and ecosystem level. 

Biological Assessment: Information prepared by or under 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. 

Breeding Zones: An area within which a single population of plants can be planted without fear 

of misadaptation. 

Bryophytes: Small, herbaceous plants that grow closely packed together in mats or cushions on 

rocks, soil, or as epiphytes on the trunks and leaves of trees. 

Buffer Zone: An area designed to separate conflicting forces or uses.

C 

Candidate Species: Species not protected under the ESA but being considered by the USFWS 

for inclusion on the list of Federally threatened and endangered species. 

Casual Use (Mining): Mining that only negligibly disturbs federal lands and resources and does 

not include the use of mechanized earth moving equipment, explosives, or motorized equipment 

(greater than 25 horsepower). Casual use generally includes panning, non-motorized sluicing, 

and collecting mineral specimens using hand tools. 

Characteristic: A distinguishing trait, feature, or quality. 

Characteristic Landscape: The established landscape within an area being viewed. This does 

not necessarily mean a naturalistic character. It could refer to an agricultural setting, an urban 

Page G-2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Glossary of Terms 

landscape, a primarily natural environment, or a combination of these types. 

Computer Graphics: Visual displays of information produced by an electronic computer. This 

includes both hard-copy and screen displays. 

Contrast: Opposition or unlikeness of different forms, lines, colors, or textures in a landscape. 

Contrast Rating: A method of analyzing the potential visual impacts of proposed management 

activities. 

Cretaceous: In geologic history the third and final period of the Mesozoic era, from 144 million 

to 65 million years ago, during which extensive marine chalk beds formed. 

Critical Habitat (Designated): Specific parts of an area that are occupied by a federally listed 

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. 

Cryptogamic Crust (also Cryptogamic Soil): A hard soil crust dominated by a plant 

community of algae, lichens, or mosses. 

Cultural Modification: Any man-caused change in the land form, water form, vegetation, or 

the addition of a structure which creates a visual contrast in the basic elements (form, line, color, 

texture) of the naturalistic character of a landscape. 

Cultural Resource: A location of human activity, occupation, or use identifiable through field 

inventory, historical documentation, or oral evidence. Cultural resources include archaeological 

and historical sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, works of art, architecture, and natural 

features that were important in past human events. They may consist of physical remains or areas 

where significant human events occurred, even though evidence of the events no longer remains. 

And they may include definite locations of traditional, cultural, or religious importance to 

specified social or cultural groups. 

Cultural Resource Data: Cultural resource information embodied in material remains such as 

artifacts, features, organic materials, and other remnants of past activities. An important aspect of 

data is context, a concept that refers to the relationships among these types of materials and the 

situations in which they are found. 

Cultural Resource Data Recovery: The professional application of scientific techniques of 

controlled observation, collection, excavation, and/or removal of physical remains, including 

analysis, interpretation, explanation, and preservation of recovered remains and associated 

records in an appropriate curatorial facility used as a means of protection. Data recovery may 

sometimes employ professional collection of such data as oral histories, genealogies, folklore, 

and related information to portray the social significance of the affected resources. Such data 

Yuma Field Office Page G-3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008
Glossary of Terms 

recovery is sometimes used as a measure to mitigate the adverse impacts of a ground-disturbing 

project or activity. 

Cultural Resource Integrity: The condition of a cultural property, its capacity to yield 

scientific data, and its ability to convey its historical significance. Integrity may reflect the 

authenticity of a property's historic identity, evidenced by the survival or physical characteristics 

that existed during its historic or prehistoric period, or its expression of the aesthetic or historic 

sense of a particular period of time. 

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, 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. 

Cultural Resource Project Plan: For cultural resource projects, a detailed design plan that 

defines the procedures, budget, and schedule for such activities as structure stabilization, 

recordation, interpretive development, and construction of facilities such as trails. These plans 

include estimates on workforce, equipment, and supply needs. 

Cultural Resource Values: The irreplaceable qualities that are embodied in cultural resources, 

such as scientific information about prehistory and history, cultural significance to Native 

Americans and other groups, and the potential to enhance public education and enjoyment of the 

Nation's rich cultural heritage. 

Cultural Site: A physical location of past human activities or events, more commonly referred 

to as an archaeological site or a historic property. Such sites vary greatly in size and range from 

Page G-4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Glossary of Terms 

the location of a single cultural resource object to a cluster of cultural resource structures with 

associated objects and features.

D

Desert Pavement: A ground surface consisting of coarse, densely packed cobbles and gravels 

that are covered with layers of ferro-manganese deposits and microscopic organisms. Through 

the years, the stones develop a glossy patina that appears black from a distance. Desert pavement 

is the result of thousands of years of erosional forces. 

Departmental Manual 613: Outlines the specific purposes of the joint management by 

Reclamation and BLM of Reclamation-withdrawn or -acquired lands that constitute a corridor 

along the lower Colorado River as identified in the Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan of 

1964. 

Desert Pavement Features: Prehistoric cultural resource features created into the desert 

pavement, such as intaglios, cleared areas, trails, and rock alignments. 

Distance Zones: A subdivision of the landscape as viewed from an observer position. The 

subdivision (zones) includes foreground-middleground, background, and seldom seen. 

E 

Ecological Function (sustained): The role or specific contribution of constituent living and 

non-living elements of ecosystems to system behavior. Sustained ecological function implies the 

maintained capacity of the land and environmental capacity of the ecosystem. 

Ecological Integrity: The quality of a natural unmanaged or managed ecosystem in which the 

natural ecological processes are sustained with genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity assured 

for the future. 

Ecosystem: Organisms, together with their abiotic environment, forming an interacting system 

and inhabiting an identifiable space. 

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 ESA, as amended in 1982). 

Endemic Species: A plant or animal species or subspecies native to a small region. 

Enhancement: A management action designed to improve visual quality. 

Entry: When the register of a local land office “enters” land applications in the record books 

and on the survey plat of the local office (taken from Opportunity and Challenge, The Story of 

BLM).

Yuma Field Office Page G-5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008
Glossary of Terms 

Ethnoecology: The study of the relationship between a society and its natural environment, 

including the spatio-temporal organization of human activities and how nature and natural 

resources are used (i.e. hunting, fishing, collecting, farming, preparing food); the study of how 

people perceive and manipulate their environments. 

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. 

Exotic Species: A species of plants or animals that is not native to the area where it is found. 

Any species that is not indigenous, native, or naturalized. 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMA): An area that emphasizes the traditional 

dispersed recreation use of public lands. ERMAs have an undeveloped character that allows 

visitors to escape crowds, rely on their own skills and equipment for recreation pursuits, and 

freedom from stricter regulations. All lands that are not within a designated SRMA revert to the 

ERMA category. BLM actions in ERMAs are limited to custodial actions and therefore do not 

require an implementation-level plan. 

F 

Foreground-middleground Distance Zones: The area visible from a travel route, use area, or 

other observation point to a distance of 3 to 5 miles. The outer boundary of this zone is defined 

as the point where the texture and form of individual plants are no longer apparent in the 

landscape. Vegetation is apparent only in patterns or outline. 

Form: The mass or shape of an object or objects which appear unified, such as a vegetative 

opening in a forest, a cliff formation, or a water tank. 

Free Use Permit (FUP): A permit that that is generally issued to a governmental entity (e.g. 

state, county, or city) that allows the removal mineral materials from the public lands free of 

charge. 

G 

Geomorphic Integrity: Maintaining the unimpaired condition of the physical properties of the 

rock, soil, and water in and around land forms. 

Geothermal Resources: Products of geothermal steam or hot water and hot brines, including 

those resulting from water, gas, or other flids artificially introduced into geothermal formations; 

heat or other associated energy found in geothermal formations; and associated byproducts (43 

CFR 3200.1). 

Page G-6 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Glossary of Terms 

H

Habitat Fragmentation: Process by which habitats are increasingly subdivided into smaller 

units resulting in their increased insularity and losses of total habitat area. 

Harmony: A combination of parts into a pleasing or orderly whole: congruity; a state of 

agreement of proportionate arrangement of form, line, color, and texture. 

Herd Area (HA): The geographic area identified as having been used by wild horse or burro 

herds as their habitat in 1971. 

Herd Management Area (HMA): Public land under the jurisdiction of the BLM that has been 

designated for special management emphasizing the maintenance of an established wild horse 

and/or wild burro herd. 

Historical Site: A location that was used or occupied after the arrival of Europeans in North 

America (ca. A.D. 1492). Such sites may consist of physical remains at archaeological sites or 

areas where significant human events occurred, even though evidence of the events no longer 

remains. They may have been used by people of either European or Native American descent.

Hohokam: A group of North American Indians who lived between perhaps 300 BC and AD 

1400 in central and southern Arizona, largely along the Gila and Salt Rivers. 

Hydrologic Connectivity: The condition by which disparate regions on the hillslope are linked 

via subsurface water flow.

I 

Igneous Rock: Rock, such as granite and basalt, that has solidified from a molten or partially 

molten state. 

Indian Tribe: Any American Indian group in the United States that the Secretary of the Interior 

recognizes as possessing tribal status (listed periodically in the Federal Register). 

Imperiled Status: Extremely rare (five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals 

or acres). 

Indigenous: Being of native origin (such as indigenous peoples or indigenous cultural features). 

In-migration: The process by which a given geographic area absorbs new 

individuals/households from locations outside that area (an influx of individuals/households to a 

given area).

Yuma Field Office Page G-7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008
Glossary of Terms 

Intaglio: A design made in the desert pavement by moving away the large rocks and scraping 

back the small cobbles and gravels to expose the lighter soil underneath. Intaglio features were 

also created by tamping, which would result in a depressed image in the desert pavement. Also 

referred to as earth figures or geoglyphs. 

Interdisciplinary Team: A group of individuals with different training, representing the 

physical sciences, social sciences, and environmental design arts, assembled to solve a problem 

or perform a task. The members of the team proceed to a solution with frequent interaction so 

that each discipline may provide insights to any stage of the problem and disciplines may 

combine to provide new solutions. 

Integrated Pest Management: A pest management strategy that focuses on long-term 

prevention or suppression of pest problems through a combination of techniques such as 

encouraging biological control, use of resistant varieties, and adoption of alternate cultural 

practices such as modification of irrigation, or pruning to make the habitat less conducive to pest 

development. Pesticides are used only when careful monitoring indicates they are needed 

according to pre-established guidelines, treatment thresholds, or to prevent pests from 

significantly interfering with the purposes for which plants are being grown. 

Invasive Non-native Plant: A plant species that was introduced to the ecosystem under 

consideration after European contact as a direct or indirect result of human activity and that 

produces large numbers of offspring at considerable distances from parent plants. 

J 

K

Key Observation Point (KOP): one or a series of points on a travel route or at a use area or a 

potential use area, where the view of a management activity would be most revealing. 

L

Landscape Character: The arrangement of a particular landscape as formed by the variety and 

intensity of the landscape features and the four basic elements of form, line, color, and texture. 

These factors give the area a distinctive quality which distinguishes it from its immediate 

surroundings. 

Landscape Connectivity Corridors: The extent to which the landscape facilitates wildlife 

movement. 

Landscape Features: The land and water form, vegetation, and structures which compose the 

characteristic landscape. 

Page G-8 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Glossary of Terms 

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. 

Life Stage Habits: The patterns of behavior during the distinct periods of development of 

organisms (from inception to death). 

Limits of Acceptable Change: A framework for establishing acceptable and appropriate 

resource and social conditions in recreation settings. A system of management planning. 

Line: The path, real or imagined, that the eye follows when perceiving abrupt differences in 

form, color, or texture. Within landscapes, lines may be found as ridges, skylines, structures, 

changes in vegetative types, or individual trees and branches. 

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. 

Location: A tract of land whose bounds have been officially designated (as for settlement or for 

a mining claim). 

M

Management Activity: A surface disturbing activity undertaken on the landscape for the 

purpose of harvesting, traversing, transporting, protecting, changing, replenishing, or otherwise 

using resources. 

Mineral Material Disposal: The sale of sand, gravel, decorative rock, or other materials 

defined in 43 CFR 3600. 

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 

are lode and placer. In addition, mill sites and tunnel sites may be located to provide support 

facilities for lode and placer mining. 

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. 

Yuma Field Office Page G-9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008
Glossary of Terms 

Mitigation: Mitigation includes: (a) Avoiding the impacts altogether by not taking an action or 

parts of an action, (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and 

its implementation, (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the 

affected environment, (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 

maintenance operations during the life of the action, (e) Compensating for the impact by 

replacing or providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR 1508.20). 

Mitigation Measures: Methods or procedures designed to reduce or lessen the adverse impacts 

caused by management activities. 

N

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended: 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. The National Historic Preservation Act: (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. Also see National Register of Historic Places. 

National Historic Trail: One of the three categories of national trails defined in the National 

Trails System Act of 1968 that can only be established by act of Congress and are administered 

by federal agencies, although part or all of their land base may be owned and managed by others. 

National historic trails are generally more than 100 miles long and follow as closely as possible 

and practicable the original trails or routes of travel of national historic significance. Their 

purpose is identifying and protecting the historic route and its remnants and artifacts for public 

use and enjoyment. 

National Monument: an area designated to protect objects of scientific and historic interest by 

public proclamation of the President under the Antiquities Act of 1906, or by Congress for 

historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or scientific 

interest on public lands. Designation also provides for the management of these features and 

values. 

National Recreation Trail: One of the three categories of national trails defined in the National 

Trails System Act of 1968 that can only be established by act of Congress and are administered 

by federal agencies, although part or all of their land base may be owned and managed by others. 

National Recreation Trails are existing regional and local trails recognized by either the 

Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior upon application. 

National Register District: A group of significant archaeological, historical, or architectural 

sites, within a defined geographic area, that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

See National Register of Historic Places. 

Page G-10 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Glossary of Terms 

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 (i.e. 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 Eligible Properties: 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. Eligible properties generally 

are older than 50 years and have retained their integrity. They meet one or more of four criteria: 

(a) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our 

history; (b) associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; (c) embody the distinctive 

characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a 

master; and (d) have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 

history. 

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 an area and that was not 

introduced by humans (indigenous). 

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. 

Naturalistic Character: A landscape setting where the basic elements are displayed in a 

composition that appears unaltered by man. 

No Surface Occupancy: A fluid 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 fluid minerals under leases restricted by this stipulation by using 

directional drilling from sites outside the no surface occupancy area. 

Yuma Field Office Page G-11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008
Glossary of Terms 

Notice: The notification a mining operator must submit to BLM of the intention to begin an 

operation that will disturb 5 acres or less a year within a mining claim or project area. The intent 

of a Notice is to permit operations with limited geographic disturbance to begin after a quick 

review for potential resource conflicts and to eliminate the need for federal action. A Notice 

requires no special forms, but an operator must submit specific information. BLM must complete 

its review of the Notice within 15 calendar days of its receipt unless more information is needed 

to determine if the operation would cause unnecessary or undue degradation. 

Noxious Weed: According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-629), a weed that causes 

disease or has other adverse effects on man or his environment and therefore is detrimental to the 

agricultural and commerce of the United States and to the public health. 

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. 

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. 

Paleontology: A science dealing with the life forms of past geological periods as known from 

fossil remains. 

Paleozoic Era: An era of geologic time (600 million to 280 million years ago) between the Late 

Precambrian and the Mesozoic eras and comprising the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, 

Devonian, Missippian, Pennsylvanian, and Permian periods. 

Patayan: A group of North American Indians who lived between perhaps AD 700 and AD 1550 

in western Arizona, southeastern California, and Baja California largely along the lower 

Colorado River and lower Gila River valleys.

Petroglyph: Pictures, symbols, or other art work pecked, carved, or incised on natural rock 

surfaces. 

Phenology: The study of periodic biological phenomena, such as flowering or seeding, 

especially as related to climate. 

Page G-12 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Glossary of Terms 

Physiographic Province: An extensive portion of the landscape normally encompassing many 

hundreds of square miles, which portrays similar qualities of soil, rock, slope, and vegetation of 

the same geomorphic origin (Fenneman 1946; Sahrhaftig 1975). 

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. 

Pleistocene (Ice Age): An epoch in the Quarternary period of geologic history lasting from 1.8 

million to 10,000 years ago. The Pleistocene was an epoch of multiple glaciation, during which 

continental glaciers covered nearly one fifth of the earth’s land. 

Pollination Ecology: Branch of ecology concerned with the distribution of pollen by wind or 

animals and its efficacy in fertilization and seed set. 

Prehistoric: Refers to the period wherein American Indian cultural activities took place before 

written records and not yet influenced by contact with nonnative culture(s). 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined types of recreation where the use of the area is through non-motorized, 

non-mechanical means, and where no or minimal developed recreation facilities are encountered. 

Primitive Road: A linear route used by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. Primitive 

Roads do not normally meet any BLM road design standards. 

Priority Plant: Plants that are rare, unusual, or key species that are not listed as BLM Sensitive 

or federally listed as threatened or endangered. 

Q 

Quarternary Period: The current period of geologic history and second period of the Cenozoic 

era, which is believed to have covered the last 2 million to 3 million years. 

R

Rare Plant: Plant that is not presently threatened with extinction but exists in such small 

numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): A planning inventory process that provides a 

framework for defining classes of outdoor recreation environments, activities, and experience 

opportunities. In ROS, the setting, activities, and opportunities for experiences are arranged 

along a spectrum of six classes: primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, roaded natural, rural, 

and urban. The setting is measured by the number of people expected, producing different levels 

of solitude and the evidence of human use as shown by management activities and degree of 

development. The resulting ROS analysis defines specific geographic areas on the ground, each 

of which encompasses one of the six classes. 

Yuma Field Office Page G-13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008
Glossary of Terms 

Rehabilitation: A management alternative and/or practice which restores landscapes to a 

desired scenic quality. 

Relict Population: A population limited to a small part of the original species range. 

Restoration (Cultural Resource): The process of accurately reestablishing the form and details 

of a property or portion of a property together with its setting, as it appeared in a particular 

period of time. Restoration may involve removing later work that is not in itself significant and 

replacing missing original work. Also see Stabilization (Cultural Resource). 

Right-of-way Corridor: A permit or easement that authorizes the use of lands for certain 

specified purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone lines or powerlines. 

Riparian: Pertaining to or situated on or along the bank of streams, lakes, and reservoirs. 

Riparian Area: 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, glacial 

potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are ephemeral 

streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil. 

Road: As used herein (a linear route), a transportation facility used primarily by vehicles having 

four or more wheels, documented as such by the owner, and maintained for regular and 

continuous use. 

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. 

Collectively refer to roads, primitive roads, and trails. 

RS 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

Salable 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 special permits to local 

governments. See also Mineral Materials. 

Page G-14 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Glossary of Terms 

Scale: The proportionate size relationship between an object and the surroundings in which the 

object is placed. 

Scenery: The aggregate of features that give character to a landscape. 

Scenic Area: An area whose landscape character exhibits a high degree of variety and harmony 

among the basic elements which results in a pleasant landscape to view. 

Scenic Quality: The relative worth of a landscape from a visual perception point of view. 

Scenic Quality Evaluation Key Factors: The seven factors (land form, vegetation, water, color, 

adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications) used to evaluate the scenic quality of a 

landscape. 

Scenic Quality Ratings: The relative scenic quality (A, B, or C) assigned a landscape by 

applying the scenic quality evaluation key factors; scenic quality A being the highest rating, B a 

moderate rating, and C the lowest rating. 

Scenic Values: (refer to scenic quality and scenic quality ratings). 

Sedimentary Rocks: Rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, and shale, that are formed from 

sediments or transported fragments deposited in water. 

Seed Zones: An area within which seed can be collected from any natural stand and planted in 

any new site without fear of misadaptation. 

Selection: Those Federal lands that an applicant chooses for BLM disposal under existing laws. 

Sensitive Species (plant and animal): All species that are under status review, have small or 

declining populations, live in unique habitats, or need special management. Sensitive species 

include threatened, endangered, and proposed species that are classified by the USFWS. 

Sensitivity Levels: Measures (e.g., high, medium, and low) of public concern for the 

maintenance of scenic quality. 

Simulation: A realistic visual portrayal which demonstrates the perceivable changes in 

landscape features caused by a proposed management activity. This is done through the use of 

photography, artwork, computer graphics, and other such techniques. 

Solitude: Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for solitude when the sights, sounds, and 

evidence of other people are rare or infrequent and where visitors can be isolated, alone, or 

secluded from others. 

Special Cultural Resource Management Area (SCRMA): An area containing cultural 

resources that are of special importance for public use, scientific use, traditional use or other uses 

as defined in BLM Manual 8110.4. 

Yuma Field Office Page G-15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008
Glossary of Terms 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA): Designation intensifies management of areas 

where outdoor recreation is a high priority. It helps direct recreation program priorities toward 

areas with high resource values, elevated public concern, or significant amounts of recreational 

activity. Areas with a SRMA designation can be expected to see investments in recreation 

facilities and visitor services aimed at reducing resource damage and mitigating user conflicts. 

Implementation-level plans are completed for each SRMA to fully describe management actions 

and objectives. 

Special Status Species: Plant and animal species listed as endangered, threatened, candidate, or 

sensitive by Federal or State governments. 

Split-estate: Land whose surface rights and mineral rights are owned by different entities. 

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. 

Subsurface: Of or pertaining to rock or mineral deposits which generally are found below the 

ground surface. 

Suburban Recreation Setting (ROS Class): The suburban recreation setting provides limited 

or little opportunity to see, hear, or smell the natural resources because of the widespread and 

very prevalent level of development, human activity, or natural resource modification. Watching 

and meeting other visitors are expected and desired; opportunity to briefly relieve stress and to 

alter everyday routine is important; families are common; a high sense of safety, security, 

comfort, and convenience is central and dominant. The mix of recreation activities may be 

diverse, ranging from relaxation and contemplation to physical exertion, thrills, excitement, and 

challenge; learning about the natural and cultural history of the area is important to some; area is 

popular with local residents or long-term winter visitors. 

Surface Disturbing Activities: This term generally refers to any BLM-authorized action that 

disturbs vegetation and surface soil, increasing erosion potential above normal site conditions. 

This definition typically excludes allowable casual use of the public lands, as outlined in the 

CFRs. Examples of surface disturbing activities are mining; construction and/or maintenance of 

roads, pipelines, and powerlines; installation of facilities; and implementation of vegetation 

treatments. 

Surface Occupancy: See No Surface Occupancy. 

T 

Take: Under the ESA, take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. 

Page G-16 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Glossary of Terms 

Texture: The visual manifestations of the interplay of light and shadow created by the variations 

in the surface of an object or landscape. 

Thermic: A soil temperature regime that has a mean annual soil temperature of 15 degrees 

Celsius but not less than 22 degrees Celsius, comma and greater than five degrees Celsius 

differences between mean summer and mean winter soil temperatures at 50 cm below the 

surface. 

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 USFWS under the 

ESA. 

Traditional Use: This cultural resource use 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 OHV forms 

of recreation or for historic or heritage values. Trails are not generally managed for use by four 

wheel drive or high clearance vehicles. 

Transportation System: The sum of the BLM's recognized inventory of linear features (roads, 

primitive roads, and trails) formally recognized, designated, and approved as part of the BLM's 

transportation system. 

Travel Management (comprehensive): The proactive interdisciplinary planning, on-the-ground 

management, and administration of travel networks (both motorized and non-motorized) to 

ensure public access, natural resources and regulatory needs are considered. It consists of 

inventory, planning, designation, implementation, education, enforcement, monitoring, easement 

acquisition, mapping and signing, and other measures necessary to provide access to public lands 

for a wide variety of uses (including uses for recreational, traditional, casual, agricultural, 

commercial, educational, and other purposes). 

U 

Uncommon Variety Minerals: Stone, gravel, pumice, and cinder deposits that have distinct and 

special properties making them commercially valuable in a manufacturing, industrial, or 

processing operation. Such minerals are locatable under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. In 

determining a deposit’s commercial value, the following factors may be considered: quality and 

quantity of the deposit, geographic location, accessibility to transportation, and proximity to 

market or point of use. 

Urban Recreation Setting (ROS Class): The urban recreation setting provides very limited 

opportunities to see, hear, and smell the natural resources because of the extensive level of 

development, human activity, and natural resource modification. Watching and meeting other 

visitors are expected and desired; large group activities are popular; opportunity to briefly relieve 

Yuma Field Office Page G-17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008
Glossary of Terms 

stress and to alter everyday routines is important; socializing with family and friends is 

important; large groups and families are common; a high sense of safety, security, comfort, and 

convenience is central and dominant.The mix of recreation activities may be diverse, ranging 

from those of relaxation and contemplation to those of physical exertion, thrills, excitement and 

challenge; area is often attractive to short-term visitors, tours, and school groups; area may serve 

as a staging area for visitors traveling on to areas with non-urban recreation settings.

Use Volume: The total volume of visitor use each segment of a travel route or use area receives. 

V

Vandalism (Cultural Resource): Malicious damage or the unauthorized collecting, excavating, 

or defacing of cultural resources. Section 6 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act states 

that "no person may excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface any archaeological 

resource located on public lands or Indian lands, unless such activity is pursuant to a permit 

issued under section 4 of this act." 

Variables: Factors influencing visual perception including distance, angle of observation, time, 

size or scale, season of the year, light, and atmospheric conditions. 

Variety: The state or quality of being varied and having the absence of monotony or sameness. 

Vegetation Structure: The composition of an area’s vegetation; plant species, growth forms, 

abundance, vegetation types, and spatial arrangement. 

Vegetative Composition: The types of vegetation that are present in an area. 

Viewshed: The landscape that can be directly seen under favorable atmospheric conditions, from 

a viewpoint or along a transportation corridor. 

Protection, rehabilitation, or enhancement is desirable and possible. 

Visual Contrast: See Contrast. 

Visual Quality: See Scenic Quality. 

Visual Resources: The visible physical features on a landscape (e.g., land, water, vegetation, 

animals, structures, and other features). 

Visual Resource Management (VRM): A BLM developed system used to evaluate the visual 

resources of a given area to determine what degree of 

Visual Resource Management Classes: Categories assigned to public lands based on scenic 

quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones. There are four classes. Each class has an objective 

which prescribes the amount of change allowed in the characteristic landscape. 

Page G-18 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Glossary of Terms 

Visual Resource Management (VRM): The inventory and planning actions taken to identify 

visual values and to establish objectives for managing those values; and the management actions 

taken to achieve the visual management objectives. 

Visual Values: See Scenic Quality. 

W 

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. 

Wilderness: A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate 

the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness 

is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which 

is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (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 

unconfined type 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. 

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. Lands are considered to maintain wilderness 

characteristics when opportunities to experience naturalness, solitude, or primitive and 

unconfined types of recreation are reasonably present. 

Withdrawals, first form: Lands withdrawn by Reclamation which are exempt from both 

general land laws and mining laws. First form withdrawals are lands which may be needed in the 

construction and maintenance of irrigation projects. 

Withdrawals, second form: Lands withdrawn by Reclamation which are exempt from general 

land laws, but not exempt from mining laws. Second form withdrawals may allow for specific 

land laws, i.e., homestead entry. Second form withdrawals include lands which are believed to be 

susceptible to irrigation from a reclamation project. 

Wildlife: A broad term that includes birds, reptiles, amphibians, and non-domesticated 

mammals. 

Yuma Field Office Page G-19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008
Glossary of Terms 

X 

Xeroriparian: an area in a drainage that supports plant species more characteristic of uplands 

than wetlands, but that is more densely vegetated than areas removed from the drainage. Any 

flows in these channels are characteristically ephemeral but water may also be subsurface and the 

drainage may not flow. 

Page G-20 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Acronyms 

ACRONYMS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation 

ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources 

AGFC Arizona Game and Fish Commission 

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department 

AML1 abandoned mine lands 

AML2 Appropriate Management Level 

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

AMR Appropriate Management Response 

APCD Air Pollution Control District 

ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection Act 

ATV all-terrain vehicle 

AU Animal Unit 

AUM Animal Unit Month 

AWC Arizona Wilderness Coalition 

AZ Arizona 

BCBY Back Country Byway 

BMGR Barry M. Goldwater Range 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BO Biological Opinion 

CA California 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CALTRANS California Department of Transportation 

CAT Content Analysis Team 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Recovery, Compensation and Liability Act 

CFPO cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMA Coordinated Management Area 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CRIT Colorado River Indian Tribes 

CRICA Colorado River International Conservation Area 

CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DM Departmental Manual 

DRMP Draft Resource Management Plan 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

Yuma Field Office Page A-1 

PRMP/FEIS

April 2008 
Acronyms 

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Areas 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FCR Field Contact Representative 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

FLREA Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 

FMP fire management plan 

FMU Fire Management Unit 

FTHL flat-tailed horned lizard 

GIS Geographic Information System 

HA Herd Area 

HMA Herd Management Area 

HMAP Herd Management Area Plan 

I-8 Interstate Highway 8 

I-10 Interstate 10 

IA Interagency Agreement 

IM Instruction Memorandum 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

JKA James Kent & Associates 

KOP key observation point 

LCR Lower Colorado River 

LCR MSCP Lower Colorado River Multiple Species Conservation Program 

LGN Lower Gila North 

LGS Lower Gila South 

LHFO Lake Havasu Field Office 

LTVA Long-Term Visitor Area 

LUP Land Use Plan 

MCAS–Yuma Marine Corps Air Station–Yuma 

MIST minimum impact suppression tactics 

MLA Mineral Leasing Act 

MLRA Major Land Resource Area 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

Mph miles per hour 

MPO Mining Plan of Operations 

MS (BLM) Manual Section 

MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Plan 

MTP master title plat 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation act 

NEAP Natural Events Action Plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NHT National Historic Trail 

Page A-2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Acronyms 

NLCS National Landscape Conservation System 

NO nitric oxyde 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRT National Recreation Trail 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

O3 ozone 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

Pb lead 

PC Public Concern 

PCE tetrachloroethene 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

PRMP Proposed Resource Management Plan 

PWC personal water craft 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

RAC Resource Advisory Council 

RCRA Resource Conservation Recovery Act 

Reclamation See: USDOI Reclamation 

RFA Reasonable Foreseeable Management Action Scenario 

RFD Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario 

RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan 

RMIS Recreation Management Information System 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

RMZ Recreation Management Zone 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW Right-of-Way 

RP&P Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

RRAC Recreation Resource Advisory Council 

RV recreational vehicle 

SC Sub-Concern 

SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans 

SCRMA Special Cultural Resource Management Area 

SD Special Designation 

SEINET Southwest Environmental Information Network 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIB Southern International Boundary 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Areas 

Yuma Field Office Page A-3 

PRMP/FEIS

April 2008 
Acronyms 

SRP Special Recreation Permit 

SWFL southwestern willow flycatcher 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TES threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

TGA Taylor Grazing Act 

TMA Travel Management Area 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TMN Travel Management Network 

TR Technical Reference 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDOA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDOE United States Department of Energy 

USDOI United States Department of the Interior 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 

USDOI BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

USDOI Reclamation United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USIBWC United States Section International Boundary and Waters Commission 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

UXO Unexploded Ordnance 

VFW Veterans of Foreign Wars 

VHA Vegetation Habitat Management Area 

VOC volatile organic compound 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WHA Wildlife Habitat Management Area 

WH&B Wild Horse & Burros 

WMIDD Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District 

WO Washington Office 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WUG Western Utility Group 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 

YFO Yuma Field Office 

YPG U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground 

Page A-4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

REFERENCES CITED 

Agee, J. K. 

 1993 Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forest. Washington, D.C: Island Press. 

AGR MAP 

 2005 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Geothermal 

Energy Research. http://geothermal.inel.gov/maps/az.pdf. 

Altschul, Jeffrey H. and Joseph a. Ezzo 

 1994 The Expression of Ceremonial Space along the Lower Colorado River. In 

Recent Research along the Lower Colorado River, edited by Joseph A. Azzo. 

Statistical Research Technical Series No. 52, Tucson, pp. 51-68. 

American Rivers 

 2004 American River Report. 

America’s Byways Resource Center 

 2001 Summary of Quantifying the Economic Impacts of Scenic Byway Designation. 

Anderson, B. W., and R. D. Ohmart 

 1984 Lower Colorado River Riparian Methods of Quantifying Vegetation 

Communities to Prepare Type Maps. Final Report. U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Boulder City, NV. 

Arizona Department of Agriculture 

 2006 Protected Arizona Native Plants. Arizona Native Plant Law online database. 

http://www.azda.gov/ESD/nativeplants.htm. 

Arizona Department of Commerce 

 2004 County Profiles for La Paz, Maricopa, and Yuma Counties. 

www.azcommerce.com. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

1998 Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Yuma Basin: A 1995 Baseline Study, 

ADEQ Water Quality Division. 

2001 A Draft Remedial Investigation Report and Land and Water Use Study. 

 2004 Natural Event Action Plan for the Yuma PM10 Nonattainment Area. Air 

Assessment Section Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. February. 

 2005 Arizona’s 2004 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Submitted to EPA August 2004 

(subject to revision). 

Yuma Field Office Page R-1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

Arizona Department of Revenue 

 2004 Annual Report. Gross transaction privilege, use, and severance tax collections, 

 Yuma and La Paz counties, Arizona, Fiscal Year 2000-2001 through Fiscal 

 Year 2004-2005. 

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) 

 2004a Groundwater Basins and Sub-Basins Map. 

 2004b Active surface water filings CD-ROM. Available from http://www.water. 

az.gov. Last updated July 2004. 

 2005 Imaged Records Database-http://imagedrec.water.az.gov/Action=Database 

Login. 

 2006 http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/Content/Find_by_Program/Rural_Programs/ 

OutsideAMAs_PDFs_for_web/Lower_Colorado_River_Planning_Area/Yuma_

Basin.pdf. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 

 1997 Mittry Lake Wildlife Area Management Plan. April 4. 

 2001 Draft Fortuna Pond Management Plan. Internal document by Region IV, 

September 14. 

 2005 Heritage Data Management System. 

 2006 Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: 2005-2015. Phoenix, 

Arizona. 

2007 Wildlife 2012: The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Strategic Plan for the 

Years 2007–2012. Phoenix, Arizona. 

Arizona Governor’s Drought Task Force 

 2004a Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, Background and Impact Assessment and 

Operation Drought Plan Sections. Prepared for Governor Janet Napolitano. 

October 8. Available: http://www.water. az.gov/gdtf/. 

 2004b Arizona Statewide Water Conservation Strategy. Prepared for Governor Janet 

Napolitano. October 8. Available: http://www.water.az.gov/gdtf/. 

Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team 

 1996 Management Plan for the Sonoran desert population of the desert tortoise in 

Arizona. R.C. Murray and V. Dickinson, eds. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix. 

Page R-2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

Arizona Office of Tourism 

 2004a Arizona Tourism Statistical Report 2003. www.azot.com. 

 2004b Arizona’s West Coast—2003. www.azot.com. 

Arizona Public Service 

 2002 Website: www.aps.com/my_community/Solar/Solar_22.html. 

Arizona Rare Plant Committee 

 2003 Arizona Rare Plant Field Guide: A Collaboration of Agencies and 

Organizations. Arizona Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix. 

Arizona State Land Department 

 2005 http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/. Arizona Land Resource Information System 

(ALRIS) Minerals Available System (MAS), 1993. 

Arizona State University 

2002 2001-2002 Winter Resident Survey, Quartzsite. 

2003 2002-2003 Winter Resident Survey, Quartzsite. 

Arizona Workforce 

 2003 Population Estimates for Arizona’s Counties, Incorporated Places, and 

Balance of County Areas July 1, 2003. http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/ 

uploadedPublications/1468_EEC04.pdf. 

 2004 Population Estimates for Arizona Counties, and Incorporated Places Ranked 

by Population Size July 1, 2004. http://www.workforce.az.gov/ 

admin/uploadedPublications/1470_04-00popsize.xls. 

 2005a Arizona Subcounty Population Projections July 1, 1997 to July 1, 2050. 

http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/uploadedPublications/527_subco97.xls. 

 2005b Arizona Statewide—2003 Occupational Employment & Annual Wage 

Estimates by Industry. http://www.workforce.az.gov. 

 

 2005c Covered Employment and Wages (ES-202). http://www.workforce.az.gov 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

 2006 Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: the State of the Art 

in 2006. Edison Electric Institute and the Raptor Research Foundation. 

Washington, D.C. 

Yuma Field Office Page R-3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

AZCENTRAL 

 2005 Arizona’s Home Page. Harvesting Arizona Wind. http://www.azcentral.com/ 

php-bin/clicktrack/print.php?referer=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonare 

public/local/articles/0115b3-enviro-wind15.html. 

Bell, C. J., E. L. Lundelius, A. D. Barnosky, R. W. Graham, E. H. Lindsay, 

D. R. Ruiz Jr., H. A. Semken Jr., S. D. Webb, and R. J. Zakrzewski 

 2004 The Blancan, Irvingtonian, and Rancholabrean Mammal Ages. In Late 

Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America, edited by M. O. 

Woodburne, p. 232-314. 

Belnap, J., J. Kaltenecker, R. Hilty, W. Roger, S. L. John, and D. Eldridge 

 2001 Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference 1730-2. 

Denver Colorado: USDOIBLM. 

Birds Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

 2006 http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/intrnltr/mbta/taxolst.html. Accessed in 

September 2006. 

Brennan, D. J. 

 1989 Hydrocarbon Possibilities in the Yuma Area, Arizona. Arizona Geological 

Survey, Oil and Gas Publications OG-33. 

Boarman, W. I., M. Sazaki, and W. B. Jennings 

 1997 The Effect of Roads, Barrier Fences, and Culverts on Desert Tortoise 

Populations in California, USA. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and 

Management of Tortoises and Turtles – An International Conference. 1997:54-

58. 

Brooks, M.L. and B. Lair 

 2005 Ecologicial Effects of Vehicular Routes in a Desert Ecosystem. United States 

Geological Survey, Recoverability and Vulnerability of Desert Ecosystems 

Program. 

Brown, D. E. 

 1994 Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. 

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Brown, D. E., C. H. Lowe, and C. P. Pase 

 1979 A Digitized Classification System for the Biotic Communities of North 

America, with Community (Series) and Association Examples for the 

Southwest. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences 14 

(Supplement 1):1-16. 

Page R-4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

Brown, J. K. 

 2000 Introduction and Fire Regimes. Chapter 1; Pages 1-7. In Wildland Fire in 

Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora, edited by J. K. Brown and J. K. Smith. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Bryan, K. 

 1925 Date of channel trenching (arroyo cutting) in the arid southwest. Science (new 

series), v. 62. 

Butler, W. C. 

 1995 Southern Arizona-Southwestern New Mexico Province (025), http://certnetra. 

cr.usgs.gov/1995OGData/Region3/PROV25.pdf. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 

 2006a California Natural Diversity Database State and Federally Listed Endangered, 

Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Habitat Conservation Division 

Wildlife & Habitat Data Analysis Branch, May 2006. 

 2006b Habitat Conservation Planning Branch online database. http://www.dfg.ca.gov. 

 

California Department of Water Resources 

 2003 California’s Groundwater–Bulletin 118, Update 2003. 

California Native Plant Society 

 2006 Inventory of Native Plants online database. http://cnps.web.aplus.net. 

California Demographic Research Unit 

 2003a Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State 2001-2004 with 2000 

DRU Benchmark. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/Hist_E-4.xls. 

 2003b Total Population 2050 Predictions. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMO 

GRAP/DRU_Publications/Projections/P-1_Tables.xls. 

 2003c Historical County and State Population Estimates 1991-2000 with 2000 Census 

Counts. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/NewHist_E-4.xls. 

Castetter, Edward F. and Willis H. Bell 

 1951 Yuman Indian Agriculture: Primitive Subsistence on the Lower Colorado and 

Gila Rivers. University of New Mexico Press. 

Charney, A. H., and V. K. Pavlakovich-Kochi 

 2002 The Economic Impacts of Mexican Visitors to Arizona: 2001. University of 

Arizona. 

Yuma Field Office Page R-5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

Cleland, J. H. and R. McCorkle Apple 

 2003 A View across the Cultural Landscape of the Lower Colorado Desert: Cultural 

Resources Investigations for the North Baja Pipeline Project. Document on file 

with the California Historical Resources Information System, Southeast 

Information Center, Ocotillo, California. 

Conway, C. J. and C. P. Nadeau 

 2005 Affects of Fire on Yuma Clapper Rails and California Black Rails, 2004 Annual 

Report. Wildlife Research Report Number 2005-01. Arizona Cooperative Fish 

and Wildlife Research Unit, Tucson, AZ. 

Cowardin, L. W., V. Carter, and F. C. Golet 

 1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 

USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, 

D.C. 

Croxen, F. W. 

 2004 Paleontological Resources of the Proposed Wellton-Mohawk Generating 

Facility. Arizona Western College. 

DeLoach, C. J., R. I. Carruthers, J. E. Lovich, T. L. Dudley, and S. D. Smith 

 2000 Ecological Interactions in the Biological Control of Salt Cedar (Tamarix spp.) 

in the United States: Toward a New Understanding. Pages 819–873 In 

Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, 

edited by N. R. Spencer. Available at: http://www.werc.usgs. gov/cc/weed.htm. 

Desert Tortoise Compensation Team 

 1991 Compensation for the Desert Tortoise. Approved by the Desert Tortoise 

Management Oversight Group. 

Di Peso, C. C. 

 1956 The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori: An Archaeological 

Reconstruction of the Ootam of the Pimeria Alta. The Amerind Foundation 6. 

Dragoon, Arizona. 

Doyel, D. E. 

 1981 Late Hohokam Prehistory in Southern Arizona. Gila Press, Scottsdale, Arizona. 

Economy.Com, Inc. 

 2002 County Profiles for La Paz, Maricopa, and Yuma Counties. Prepared for the 

Arizona Department of Commerce. 

Ellis, L. M., C. S. Crawford, and M. C. Molles, Jr. 

 1998 Comparison of Litter Dynamics in Native and Exotic Vegetation Along the 

Middle Rio Grande of Central New Mexico, U.S.A. Journal of Arid 

Environment 38:283-296. 

Page R-6 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

Energy Atlas 

 2005 Website: http://www.energyatlas.com/. 

Ezell, Paul H. 

 1963 Is there a Hohokam–Pima Continuum? American Antiquity 29(1):61-66. 

Federal Communications Commission 

 1999 Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of 

Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Office of Engineering & Technology 

Bulletin 56, Fourth Edition. 

Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Interagency Coordinating Committee 

 2003 Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Rangewide Management Strategy, 2003 revision. 80 

pp. plus appendices. 

Fontana, B. L. 

 1989 Of Earth and Little Rain. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Forbes, J. D. 

 1965 Warriors of the Colorado: The Yumas of the Quechan Nation and their 

Neighbors. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

Forde, Daryll C. 

 1931 Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. American Archaeology and Ethnology 28 

(4): 83-278. University of California Publications, Berkeley. 

Green, Jennifer 

 2005 Personal Communication. BLM Natural Resources Specialist. With Stephanie 

Phippen, Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Denver, Colorado. 

Gumerman, G. J. and E. W. Haury 

 1979 Prehistory: Hohokam. In Alfonso Ortiz (ed.) Handbook of North American 

Indians, Vol. 9, Southwest. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., pp 75-

90. 

Guzman, A. B. 

 1981 Petroleum Prospects in Mexico’s Altar Desert. Oil and Gas Journal

79(34):110. 

Hall, J.A., P. Comer, A. Gondor, R. Marshall, and S. Weinstein 

 2001 Conservation Elements of and a Biodiversity Management Framework for the 

Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona. The Nature Conservancy of Arizona, 

Tucson. 199+ ix p. + 15 unpaginated figures. 

Yuma Field Office Page R-7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

Hann, W. J. and D. C. Bunnell 

 2001 Fire and Land Management Planning and Implementation Across Multiple 

Scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:389-403. 

Hayden, Julian D. 

 1987 Notes on the Apparent Course of San Dieguito Development. In San Dieguito–

La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego County Archaeological 

Society. San Diego. 

Hedley, J. D. 

 1990 Maps showing Groundwater Conditions in the Harquahala Irrigation Nonexpansion Area and Tiger Wash Basin, Maricopa and La Paz Counties, 

Arizona-1989, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series

Report Number 17. 

Hendricks, David M. 

 1985 Arizona Soils. A Centennial Publication of the College of Agriculture, 

University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. http://southwest.library.Arizona.edu/ 

azso/front.1_div.1.html. 

Hogan, T. 

 2003 Arizona Business, Volume 50, Number 6.

Holland, R. F. 

 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. 

Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. 

October. 

Hot Springs Enthusiast 

 2005 Arizona Hot Springs. National Geophysical Data Center Listings. 

http://www.hotspringsenthusiast.com/Arizona.htm. 

Imperial County 

 1993 Imperial County General Plan. 

InterTribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (ITCA) 

 2003 Colorado River Indian Tribes. Available online at http://www.itcaonline.com/ 

tribes_colriver.html, 2003. 

Johnson, B. J. 

 1990 Maps showing Groundwater Conditions in the Ranegras Plain Basin, La Paz 

and Yuma Counties, Arizona -1988, Arizona Department of Water Resources 

Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 18. 

Page R-8 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

Jorgensen, Paul 

 1974 Vehicle use at a desert bighorn watering area. J. Juan Spillett et al., editors, 

Desert Bighorn Council. 

Justice, Noel D. 

 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana 

University Press, Bloomington. 

Keith, S. B., Gest, D. E., E. DeWitt, N. Toll, and B. A. Everson 

 1983 Metallic Mineral Districts and Production in Arizona, Bulletin 194. 

Knof, F. L., R. R. Johnston, T. Rich, F. B. Samson, and R. C. Szaro 

 1988 Conservation of Riparian Ecosystems in the United States. Wilson Bulletin 100: 

272-284. 

Koch, A.L. and Santucci, V.L. 

2003 Paleontological Resource Inventory and Monitoring: Eastern Rivers and 

Mountains Network. National Park Service Technical Report TIC# D-265. 

Kroeber, A.L. 

 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin

78. Washington, D.C. 

Lance J. F. and P. O. Wood 

 1958 New Miocene fossil locality from southwestern Arizona. Abstracts of 

Cordilleron and Pacific Sections Meeting, March 27–29, 1958 in Eugene, 

Oregon: Geological Society Bulletin, v. 69, no. 12, Part 2. 

 2005 Revised Draft La Paz County Comprehensive Plan. 

Lardiere, B. M., and J. Bate 

 2003 Non-Native Invasive Plant Survey. Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Field 

Office, Yuma, 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. 

Leake, S. A., and Clay, D. M. 

1979 Maps showing ground-water conditions in the Gila River drainage from Texas 

Hill to Dome area and the Western Mexican drainage area, Maricopa, Pima, 

and Yuma Counties, Arizona-1977: USGS Water Resources Investigations 

Open-File Report 79-1540. 

Yuma Field Office Page R-9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

Lindsay, E. H. and N. T. Tessman 

 1974 Cenozoic vertebrate localities and faunas in Arizona. Journal of the Arizona 

Academy of Science, v. 9. 

Lovich, J. E. and D. Bainbridge 

 1999 Anthropogenic Degradation of the Southern California Desert Ecosystem and 

Prospects for Natural Recovery and Restoration. 

MacArthur, R. A., V. Geist, R. H. Johnston 

 1982 Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. 

Journal of Wildlife Management (43). 

Maricopa County 

 2005 Maricopa County – Managing for Results Strategic Plan.

Marshall, R. M., S. Anderson, M. Batcher, P. Comer, S. Cornelius, R. Cox, A. Gondor, 

D. Gori, J. Humke, R. Paredes Aguilar, I. E. Parra, and S. Schwartz 

 2000 An Ecological Analysis of Conservation Priorities in the Sonoran Desert 

Ecoregion. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy Arizona Chapter, Sonoran 

Institute, and Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del 

Estado de Sonora with Support from Department of Defense Legacy Program, 

Agency, and Institutional Partners. 

Mason, G.T., Jr. and Raymond E. Arndt 

 1996 Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS): USGS Survey Digital Data Series 

DDS-20, USGS, Reston, VA. 

Matchett, J.R., L. Gass, M.L. Brooks, A.M. Mathie, R.D. Vitales, M.W. Campagna, D.M. 

Miller, and J.F. Weigand 

 2004 Spatial and temporal patterns of off-highway vehicle use at the Dove Springs 

OHV Open Area, California. USGS Technical Report. 

McAuliffe, J.R. 

 1999 Landscape Complexity and Ecological Diversity. Pages 68–114 in R. H. 

Robichaux (editor), Ecology of Sonoran Desert Plants and Plant Communities. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

Meade, J. I. 

 1983 Late Quarternary small mammals from Sonoran desert packrat middens, 

Arizona and California. Journal of Mammology, v. 64, no. 1. 

Minckley, W. L. and D. E. Brown 

 1982 Wetlands. Biotic Communities of the American Southwest—United States and 

Mexico. Desert Plants 4(1-4). 

Page R-10 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

 1994 Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, 

edited by David E. Brown. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Moodie, R. L. 

 1930 The ancient life of Yuma County, Arizona, Scientific Monthly, November issue, 

v. 30. 

Moratto, Michael J. 

1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego. 

Morgan P., Hardy C.C., Swetnam T.W., Rollins M.G., Long D.G. 

 2001 Mapping Fire Regimes across Time and Space: Understanding Coarse and Finescale Fire Patterns. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10, 329-342. 

National Interagency Fire Center 

 2007 Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations. 

The Nature Conservancy 

 2004 Preliminary Assessment of Biodiversity Values and Management Framework 

Adaptation for the Expanded Kofa Complex and Yuma Resource Management 

Area in Southern Arizona. Originally released August 2003, Revised February 

2004. Prepared by Stephanie Weinstein, Anne Gondor, and John A. Hall. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee 

 2004 North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Strategic Guidance: 

Strengthening the Biological Foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 

Norton, D. 

 2005 Fourteenth Bi-Annual Yuma Winter Visitor Study. 

Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co, Inc. 

 1998 GAP Analysis Data of Agricultural Land Use Areas. 

Ohmart, R. D., and B. W. Anderson 

 1982 North American Desert Riparian Ecosystems. Pages 433-479 In Reference 

Handbook on the Deserts of North America, edited by G. L. Bender, 

Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut. 

Ohmart, R. D., B. W. Anderson, and W. C. Hunter 

 1988 The Ecology of the Lower Colorado River from Davis Dam to the MexicoUnited States International Boundary: A Community Profile. Biological Report 

85[7.19]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Yuma Field Office Page R-11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) 

 2004 Geo-heat Center. Direct Use Projects, Arizona. http://geoheat.oit.edu/ 

state/az/all.htm. 

Overby, Andrew 

 1997 Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Yuma Basin, Yuma County, 

Arizona - 1992, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map 

Series Report Number 30. 

 2005 Personal Communication. Arizona Department of Water Resources. With 

Roger Kennet, Maxim Technologies, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Owen-Joyce, Sandra J. 

 1988 Estimates of Consumptive Use and Ground-Water Return Flow Using Water 

Budgets in Parker Valley, Arizona and California, 1981-84; U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 88-4063. 

Palmer, Allison R. 

 1983 The Decade of North American Geology, 1983 Geologic Time Scale. Geology, 

 September 1983, Vol. 11(9), p. 503-504. 

Passel, J. S. 

 2005 Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population. 

Pew Hispanic Center. Washington, DC. March. 

Paysen, T. E., R. J. Ansley, J. K. Brown, G. J. Gottfried, S. M. Haase, M. G. Harrington, 

M. G. Narog, S. S. Sackett, and R. C. Wilson 

 2000 Fires in Western Shrubland, Woodland, and Grassland Ecosystems. Chapter 6; 

Pages 121-159. In Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora, 

edited by J. K. Brown and J. K. Smith, eds. Gen. Tech. Rep RMRS-GTR-42-

vol.2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 

Phillips, K. A. 

 1987 Arizona Industrial Minerals, State of Arizona Department of Mines and 

Mineral Resources. 

Quartzsite, Town of 

 2005 http://www.ci.quartzsite.az.us/2003%20Annual%20Water%20Quality% 

20report.pdf. 

Rauzi, S. L. 

 2001 Arizona Oil and Gas Potential, Arizona Geological Survey Circular 29, 

February 21. Ordered 10/20/04. 

Page R-12 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

Rex, T. 

 2002 Retirement Migration in Arizona. Prepared for the Arizona Department of 

Commerce. July. 

Richards, S.M., S. J. Reynolds, J. E. Spencer, and P. A. Pearthree 

 2000 Geologic map of Arizona. Arizona Geological Survey Map 35. 

Riverside County 

 2003 Riverside County General Plan. 

Rogers, G. F., and J. Steele 

 1981 Sonoran Desert Fire Ecology. Pages 15-19. In Proceedings of Fire History 

Workshop, M.A. Stokes and J. H. Dietereich, tech. coord. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM81. USDA Forest Service. 

Rogers, Malcolm J. 

 1945 An outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology

1(2):167-198. Albuquerque. 

Rogers, Malcolm J., H. M. Worthington, E. L. Davis, and Clark W. Brott 

 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West, edited by Richard F. Pourade. Union Tribune, 

San Diego. 

Salas, D. E., J. R. Carlson, B. E. Ralston, and K. R. Blaney 

 1996 Riparian Vegetation Mapping of the Lower Colorado River from the Davis 

Dam to the International Border. Denver, CO. 

Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf 

 1995 A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, 

Sacramento. 

Schmidt, Kirsten M.; Menakis, James P.; Hardy, Colin C.; Hann, Wendel J.; Bunnell, 

David L. 

 2002 Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel 

Management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Silberman, J. 

 2002 The Economic Importance of Fishing and Hunting. Economic Data on Fishing 

and Hunting for the State of Arizona and for each Arizona County. Arizona 

State University West, School of Management. http://www.gf.state.az.us/ 

w_c/survey_results.shtml. 

 2003 The Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation. Economic Data 

on Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation for the State of Arizona and for Each 

Yuma Field Office Page R-13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

Arizona County. Arizona State University West, School of Management. 

http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/survey_results.shtml. 

Smith, D. B., R. M. Tosdal, J. A. Pitkin, and M. D. Kleinkopf 

 1989 Mineral Resources of the Muggins Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Yuma 

County, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1702-D 1989. 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 

 2006 Policy and Position Statements. Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines 

Committee. 

Studacher, Thomas 

 1987 Upper Mantle Origin for Harding County Well Gases. Nature 325:605-607. 

Szaro, R. C. 

 1991 Wildlife Communities of Southwestern Riparian Ecosystems. Pages 172-201 In 

Wildlife and Habitats in Managed Landscapes, edited by J. E. Rodiek and E. G. 

Bolen. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Taylor, Walter W. 

 1961 Archaeology and Language in Western North America. American Antiquity

27(1):71-81. 

Tedford, R. H., L. B. Albright, A. D. Barnosky, L. Ferrusquia-Villafranca, and 

R. M. Hunt 

 2004 Mammalian Biochronology of the Arikareean through Hemphillian Interval 

(Late Oligocene through Early Pliocene Epochs), p. 169-231. In Late 

Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Biostratigraphy and 

Geochronology, edited by M. O. Woodburne, (ed.). Columbia University Press, 

New York. 

Tetra Tech 

 2004 Draft Scoping Report (Version 1). Yuma Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Field Office. August. 

 2005a Mineral Resource Potential Report. Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, 

 Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Field Office. December. 

 

 2005b Planning Area Acres by County. 

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell 

 2000 Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. 

Conservation Biology (14): pp 18-30. 

Page R-14 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

Tucci, Patrick 

 1982 Use of a Three-Dimensional Model for the Analysis of the Ground-Water Flow 

System in Parker Valley, Arizona and California; U.S. Geological Survey Open 

File Report 82-1006. 

Turner, R. M., and D. E. Brown 

 1994 Tropical-Subtropical Desertlands. Pages 180-222 in Biotic Communities: 

Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. D. Brown (editor). 

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Turner, R. M., and M. M. Karpiscak 

 1980 Recent Vegetational Changes along the Colorado River between Glen Canyon 

Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1132. 

Underhill, Ruth 

 1940 The Papago Indians of Arizona and Their Relatives the Pima. Sherman 

Pamphlets No. 3, U.S. Office of Indian Affairs, Lawrence, Kansas. 

U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground 

 1995 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. 

 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 

2005 Regional Economic Information System, Detailed county annual tables of 

employment by NAICS industry 2001-2003. 

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/region/reis/. 

2006 Regional Economic Information System, Detailed county annual tables of 

employment by NAICS industry 2003-2005. 

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/region/reis/. 

U.S. Census Bureau 

 1999a Arizona County Population Estimates for July 1, 1999 and Demographic 

Components of Population Change: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999. 

http://www.census.gov/popest/ archives/1990s/co-99-04/99C4_04.txt. 

 1999b California County Population Estimates for July 1, 1999 and Demographic 

Components of Population Change: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999. 

http://www.census.gov/popest/ archives/1990s/co-99-04/99C4_06.txt. 

 2001 Poverty 2000, Poverty Thresholds in 2000, by Size of Family and Number of 

Related Children Under 18 Years (Dollars). September 20, 2000 and revised 

September 25, 2001. 

Yuma Field Office Page R-15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

 2002 State and County Quick Facts 2000, Yuma County, La Paz County, and 

Maricopa County, Arizona; and Imperial County and Riverside County, 

California. Available on line at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states. 

 2003 Internal Migration of the Older Population: 1995 to 2000. Census 2000 Special 

Reports. August. 

 2004 DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: American Indians and 

Alaska Native Summary File. Available online at http://factfinder.census.gov/ 

home.aian/index.html. Last revised September. 

 2005 Arizona QuickFacts. La Paz, Maricopa, and Yuma Counties, Arizona; 

Imperial and Riverside Counties, California. 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/ 04000. html). 

U.S. Department of the Air Force 

2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Barry M. Goldwater Range 

Integrated Natural Resource Plan. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

 2005 2002 Census of Agriculture. http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) 

 1994 State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database for Arizona. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Fort Worth, Texas.

 2005 Arizona Ecological Site Descriptions. Available online at: http://efotg.nrcs. 

usda.gov/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service USDA (SCS) 

 1991 The Soil Survey of the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona—Parts of La 

Paz and Yuma Counties. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation 

Service. 

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) 

 1979 Geothermal Energy, Geothermal Reservoir Site Evaluation in Arizona. 

Progress Report, January 16 to November 1, 1979. W. Richard Hahman, Sr. 

November. 

 

 2001 National Solar Radiation Database. Renewable Resource Data Center 

(RReDC), National Renewable Energy Laboratory website: 

rredc.nrel.gov/solar. 

 2003 Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. U. S. 

Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and U. S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. February. 

Page R-16 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) 

 1964 The Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan. A Report of the Lower Colorado 

River Land Use Advisory Committee. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 20402. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDOI BLM) 

 1980 Cibola – Trigo Herd Management Area Plan. 

 1982 FEIS, Proposed Grazing Management Program for the Lower Gila North EIS 

Area. Yuma, Mohave, Yavapai, and Maricopa Counties. Phoenix District, 

Arizona. 

 1983 Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan. 

 1984 Big Marias Cultural Resource Management Plan.

 1987a Yuma District Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

 1987b Lower Gila South Final Wilderness EIS. 

 1988a Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan. 

 1988b Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan, Monitoring Plan. 

1988c Laguna-Martinez Habitat Management Plan. 

 1990a Use of Biological Control Agents of Pests on Public Lands.

 1990b Lower Gila South RMP—Goldwater Amendment. 

 1990c Management Plan for Gila River Cultural Area. An Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern. Phoenix District Office. 

 1991 Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments, Watersheds and 

Wildlife Habitats on Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the Western 

United States, including Alaska. 

 1992a BLM Raptor Habitat Management on Public Lands, A strategy for the future.

Richard R. Olendorff and Michael N. Kochert, Boise, Idaho. 

 

 1992b Yuma District Resource Management Plan Amendment. 

Yuma Field Office Page R-17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

 1992c Yuma District Interim Guidance for Fire Suppression in Wilderness Areas. 

Environmental Assessment AZ-050-92-08. 

 1993a Yuma District’s Concession Review Program. 

 1993b Wildlife Operations and Maintenance Plan for the Trigo Mountains, Muggins 

Mountains, New Water Mountains, and Eagletail Mountains Wilderness Areas. 

Environmental Assessment AZ-050-92-029 

 1994a Ehrenberg-Cibola Recreation Area Management Plan. BLM Yuma District 

Office, Yuma Resource Area. 

 

 1994b A Final Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislative EIS. 

 1994c Five Year Monitoring Program Planning Update for the Yuma RMP 1986-

1991.

 1994d Yuma District (Bill Williams) RMP Amendment. 

 1994e Yuma District (Havasu) RMP Amendment. 

 1996a Yuma District (Lands) RMP Amendment. 

 1996b Biological Evaluation for the Yuma RMP and Amendments. 

 1997a Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration. 

 1997b BLM Arizona Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Mining Claim Use 

and Occupancy. 

 1997c La Posa Interdisciplinary Management Plan. Yuma Field Office. 

 1997d Mining Claims and Sites on Federal Lands, BLM Solid Minerals Group 

Brochure. 

 1997e Programmatic Agreement among the Bureau of Land Management, the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of 

State Historic Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in Which BLM Will 

Meet Its Responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act. March 

26, 1997. 

Page R-18 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

 1997f Protocol for Managing Cultural Resources on Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Arizona. November 1997. 

 1997g State Protocol Agreement between the California State Director of the Bureau 

of Land Management and the California State Historic Preservation Officer 

Regarding the Manner in Which the Bureau of Land Management Will Meet Its 

Responsibilities Under the National Historic Preservation Act and the National 

Programmatic Agreement Among the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers. March 1997. 

 1998 BLM Special Edition Surface Management Status Desert Access Guide, 

Arizona California Desert District, Trigo Mountains. 

1999 Riparian area management -- process for assessing proper functioning condition 

for lentic riparian-wetland areas. Technical Report 1737-16. Denver. 

 2000 Rare Plants 2000 Strategy. 

 2001 National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on 

Public Lands.

 2002a Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. July. BLM California Desert District. 

 2002b North Baja EIS and Yuma District RMP Amendment 

 2002c National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan. 

 2003a The BLM’s Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services, BLM Workplan 

Fiscal Years 2003-2004. 

 

 2003b Dateland Area Allotments. Environmental Assessment AZ-050-2003-0043. 

Yuma, Arizona. 

 2003c Quartzsite Area Allotments, Environmental Assessment AZ-050-2003-0042. 

Yuma, Arizona. 

 2003d Vicksburg Area Allotments, Environmental Assessment AZ-050-2003-0044. 

Yuma, Arizona. 

 2004a Final Scoping Report. Yuma Field Office. Yuma, Arizona. 

 2004b Five-Year Strategy for the Wildlife, Fisheries, Botany, and Threatened and 

Endangered Species Programs. BLM Arizona State Office, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Yuma Field Office Page R-19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

 2004c Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality 

Management. Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment. 

Arizona State Office. March. 

 2004d Energy and Mineral Resource Potential Report, Phoenix South and Sonoran 

Desert National Monument Resource Management Plans and Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

 2004e Yuma/Lake Havasu Fire Management Plan. Yuma and Lake Havasu Field 

Offices. 

 2005a A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships. 

 2005b Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy 

Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. 

December 19. 

 2005c Mineral Resource Potential Report. Yuma Arizona Field Office. 

 2005d Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the 

Lower Gila South RMP. 

 2005e Yuma Field Office Final Analysis of the Management Situation. 

2005f Cibola–Trigo Herd Management Area Monitoring/Management Summary 

1999-2004. 

 

 2005g Oxbow Recreation and Wildlife Area Management Plan. Yuma Field Office. 

 2005h Updated BLM Sensitive Species List for Arizona. Instruction Memorandum No. 

AZ-2006-002, Change 1. Arizona State Office Memorandum dated November 

4, 2005. 

 2005i Mammals of the Yuma Field Office. Pamphlet. Accessed in September 2006. 

 2005j Birds of the Yuma Field Office. Pamphlet. Accessed in September 2006. 

 

 2006a Memorandum of Understanding Among US Department of Homeland Security 

and US Department of the Interior and US Department of Agriculture 

Regarding Cooperative National Security and Counter Terrorism Efforts on 

Federal Lands Along the United States’ Borders. Signed March 31, 2006 

 2006b BLM Roads and Trails Terminology Report. 

 2007a Yuma Field Office Recreation and Visitor Services Business Plan.

Page R-20 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

 2007b Final Programmatic EIS and Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatments 

Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

 2001 River Miles Chart. Boulder Canyon Operations Office, Lower Colorado 

Region Available: http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/rvrmiles.pdf. August. 

2006 Final EIS and Record of Decision for Transfer of Title to Facilities, Works, and 

Lands of the Gila Project, Wellton-Mohawk Division to Wellton-Mohawk 

Irrigation and Drainage District, Yuma County, Arizona. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 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. Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, 

Volume I. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) 

 1996 Comprehensive Management and Use Plan. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. 

 2003 Paleontological Resource Monitoring Strategies for the NPS. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

 1982 Bald Eagle (Southwestern Population) Recovery Plan. 

 1983 Yuma Clapper Rail Recovery Plan. 

 1993 Desert Pupfish Recovery Plan. Phoenix, Arizona. 

 1994 Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. 

 1995 Endangered and Threatened Species; SWFL; Final Rule. 50 CFR 17, 10694-

10715. 

 1998a Gila Topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis), Revised Recovery 

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

 1998b Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, 

Denver, Colorado. 

 1998c Final Revised Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan. 

 

Yuma Field Office Page R-21 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

 2002a Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to the 

Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MountainPrairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

 2002b Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: Amendment and 

Supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

 2002c Recovery Criteria and Estimates of Time for Recovery Actions for the Sonoran 

Pronghorn. 

 2002d Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Final Recovery Plan. 

 2002e Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Designation of Critical Habitat 

for the Arizona Distinct Population of the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl 

(Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum); Proposed Rule. Federal Register 

67:71032-71064. 

 2005a Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Establishment of nonessential 

experimental population of northern aplomado falcons in New Mexico and 

Arizona and availability of Draft Environmental Assessment: Proposed Rule 

and Notice of Availability. Federal Register 70(26): 6819-6828. February 9, 

2005. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

 1999 Mineral Resource Data System. 

 2001 The Arizona Gap Project Final Report. USGS Sonoran Desert Field Station, 

University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. 

 

 2004 Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project, Final Report. Utah State University. 

Logan, Utah. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 2006 Labor data: Yuma and La Paz Counties Arizona, 2000 to 2005. 

 http://www.bls.gov. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

 2005 Level III Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm#Ecoregions. Updated 

April 5. 

U.S. Water Resources Council 

 1978 The Nation’s Water Resources 1975–2000, Second National Water Assessment: 

Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Page R-22 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
References Cited 

von Werlhof, J. 

 2004 Archaeological Report on the Walters Camp Project Area. 

Warren, Claude N. 

 1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, edited by Michael J. Moratto, 

pp. 330-430. Academic Press, San Diego. 

 1987 San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In San Dieguito–La Jolla: 

Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, San Diego 

Archaeological Society Research Paper 1:73-85. 

Warren, Claude N. and Robert H. Crabtree 

 1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In Warren L. D’Azevedo (ed.), Handbook 

of North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C., pp. 183-193. 

Warren, P. and A. Laurenzi 

 1987 Rare Plant Survey of the Yuma District. The Arizona Nature Conservancy. 

Tucson, Arizona. 

Weinstein, S., A. Gondor, and J. Hall 

 2003 Preliminary Assessment of Biodiversity Values and Management Framework 

Adaptation for the Expanded Kofa Complex and Yuma Resource Management 

Area in Southwestern Arizona. The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 

Welty, J. W., S. J. Reynolds, S. B. Keith, D. E. Gest, and R. A. Trapp 

 1985 Mine Index for Metallic Mineral Districts of Arizona, Arizona Bureau of 

Geology and Mineral Technology Bulletin 196. 

 Western Regional Climate Center 

 2005 Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/. 

Western Utility Group 

1992 Western Regional Corridor Study. 

Whitfield, M.J. and M.K. Sogge. 

1999 Range-wide impact of brown-headed cowbird parasitism on the southwestern 

willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Studies in Avian Biology

18:182-190. 

Winthrop, K. 

 2004 Bare Bones Guide to Fire Effects on Cultural Resources. 

Witcher, James C., Claudia Stone, and W. Richard Hahman, Sr. 

 1982 Geothermal Resources of Arizona. Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral 

Technology; 1 map. 

Yuma Field Office Page R-23 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
References 

Wood, P. A. 

 1956 A Miocene camel from Wellton, Yuma County, Arizona. Unpublished M.S. 

thesis, University of Arizona. 

Woznicki, Robert 

 1968 The History of Yuma and the Territorial Prison. Privately printed, Calexico, 

California. 

Young, K.V. and A.T. Young 

 2005 Indirect Effects of Development of the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard. Final report 

submitted to AGFD, Yuma. 

Younker, G. L., and C. W. Anderson 

 1997 Update: Mapping Methods and Vegetation Changes along the Lower Colorado 

River between Davis Dam and the Border with Mexico. Final report. Prepared 

for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado River Region, Boulder City. 

Yuma, City of 

 2002 City of Yuma 2002 General Plan.

 2005 http://www.ci.yuma.az.us/water_quality.htm. 

 2006 http://www.ci.yuma.az.us 

Yuma, County of 

2006 Yuma County Plan 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 

Page R-24 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Index 

Yuma Field Office Page i-1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 

INDEX 

(The numbers after entries refer to section, table, and map numbers.) 

A 

abandoned mine—see Public Health and Safety 

access—see Travel Management 

administrative routes—see byway 

air quality—see Air Resource Management 

Air Resource Management, 2.17.1 

Ak–Chin Indian Community, 1.6.2, 3.7.2, 3.19.1B 

allotment—see Livestock Grazing Management 

Animal Unit Month (AUM)—see Livestock Grazing Management 

Anza Trail—see Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (NHT) 

archaeology—see cultural resources 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), 2.3.4, 3.16.2 

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), 2.7.2, 2.11.2 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.11, 2.19, 2.21, 3.1.1, 3.4, 

3.5, 3.13, 3.17 

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (Standards 

and Guidelines), 3.1, 3.11.2, 

Arizona State Lands Department, 2.11.2 

ATV—see off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

B 

bald eagle—see Special Status Species Management 
Index 

best management practices (BMPs), 2.21 

Betty’s Kitchen National Recreation Trail—see National Recreation Trail (NRT) 

bighorn sheep—see Fish and Wildlife Management 

bonytail chub—see Special Status Species Management 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 2.3.2, 2.3.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.11, 2.12.2, 2.15, 

2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 3.2.2, 3.3.4, 3.3.7A, 3.4.5, 3.4.6, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14.3, 3.15, 3.17, 

3.18.4 

burrowing owl—see Fish and Wildlife Management 

burro—see Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Byway (Back Country, Scenic)—see Travel Management 

C 

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl—see Special Status Species Management 

California brown pelican—see Special Status Species Management 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, 3.7.2, 3.19.1B 

Cibola–Trigo Herd Management Area—see Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Closed OHV Management Area, 2.12.1B, 3.14.2.B 

Cocopah Indian Tribe, 3.1.1, 3.7.2, 3.19.1B, 3.20.2C 

Colorado River, Table 2-15, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, Tables 3-6 and 3-8, 3.3.4, 3.3.7A, 3.4.5, 3.5.1, 

3.6.1, 3.6.2, Table 3-12 

Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRITs), 1.6.2, 3.5.1, 3.19.1B 

comparison of impacts by alternative, 2.23, Table 2-32 

conservation measures, 2.3.1, 3.16.1, Appendix 2-C 

cooperating agency, 1.6.1, 5.4 

Coordinated Management Areas (CMAs), 2.4, Table 2-3, 3.17 

critical habitat, designated—see Special Status Species Management 

Cultural Resource Management, 2.15 

Page i-2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
Index 

Yuma Field Office Page i-3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 

cumulative impacts, 4.15 

D 

day use area—see Recreation Management 

Department of Homeland Security, 3.18.4 

Department Manual 613 (DM 613), 1.2.1, 2.4, 2.17.2B, 2.18.1A 

desired plant community—see Vegetation Management 

desert tortoise habitat—see Special Status Species Management 

desert pupfish—see Special Status Species Management 

designated roads and trails—see Travel Management 

designated wilderness area—see Wilderness Areas 

disposal—see Lands and Realty Management 

Dripping Springs (ACEC), 2.3.4B, 2.18.1, Table 2-1, 3.2.2C 

E 

economic conditions—see Social and Economic Conditions 

endangered species—see Special Status Species Management 

environmental justice, 3.20, 4.14 

exotic species—see Vegetation Management 

F 

Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.5.3 

fees—see Recreation Fees 

fire management—see Wildland Fire Management 

fire wood—see Vegetation Management 

Fish and Wildlife Management, 2.7, 1.4.2E, 3.4, 3.17.2 

flat-tailed horned lizard—see Special Status Species Management 
Index 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, 3.19.1 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, 1.6.2, 3.19.1 

Fort Sill Apache Tribe, 3.19.1 

Fort Yuma–Quechan Tribe, 1.6.2, 3.19.1 

G 

Geology, 3.8.1 

Gila River, Table 2-1, 2.3.4C, 2.5.2, 2.5.5, Table 2-6, 2.7.2A, 2.11.2C, Table 2-22, 3.2.2, 

Table 3-6 

Gila River Indian Community, 1.6.2, 3.19.1 

Gila topminnow—see Fish and Wildlife Management 

grazing—see Livestock Grazing Management 

H 

Havasupai Tribe, 3.19.1 

hazardous materials—see Public Health and Safety 

Herd Management Area, 2.10, Table 2-9, Maps 2-6a and 2-6b, 3.5.1 

Hia C’ed O’odham, 3.19.1 

Hopi Tribe, 3.19.1 

Hualapai Tribe, 1.6.2, 3.19.1 

I 

Imperial County, 1.0, 1.2, 1.7, 2.11.2, 2.17.1, 3.13.1, 3.13.2, 3.14.3, 3.16.1A(5), 3.19.1A(1), 

Table 3-22, 3.19.2C(4), 3.20.2, 3.20.4 

Implementation—see Implementation and Monitoring 

Implementation and Monitoring, 2.22 

International Boundary, 2.20.3, 3.2.2A 

Page i-4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
Index 

Yuma Field Office Page i-5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 

J 

Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, 2.3.1B 

K 

Kaibab–Paiute Tribe, 3.19.1 

L 

La Paz County, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4.1, 1.7, 2.11.2A and E, Table 2-20, 3.1.1, Table 3-1, 3.2.1C, Tables 

3-3 and 3-4, 3,2B, 3.6.1, 3.12.1A(3), 3.12.1B, 3.12.2F, 3.13.1, 3.13.3A(1), 3.13.3C(1), 

3.14.2B, 3.15.2C(3) 3.16.1A(1 and 4), 3.19.1A, Tables 3-22 through 3-23, 3-29 through 3-33, 

3.19.2B(2), 3.20.1, Tables 3-37 and 3-38 

land health standards, 2.2 

land tenure—see Lands and Realty Management 

land use authorizations—see Lands and Realty Management 

Lands and Realty Management, 2.18 

Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, 3.19.1 

leasable minerals—see Mineral Resource Management 

Limited OHV Management Area, 2.12.1C 

Limitrophe, 2.4.2 

Livestock Grazing Management, 2.9 

locatable minerals—see Mineral Resources Management 

Lower Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Plan, 1.4.2A, 2.5, 2.7, 2.7.2, 2.8, 2.11.2B, 

3.3.4, 3.4.7C 

M 

Maricopa County, 1.0. 1.2, 1.7, 2.11.2D and E, 3.3.4H, 3.7.1D(2), 3.12.1A, 3.19.1A(1), 

Table 3-22 

Marine Corps Air Station–Yuma (MCAS-Yuma), 2.11.2B, 3.2.2B, 3.7.1E 
Index 

Mescalero Apache Tribe, 3.19.1 

military training routes, 3.18.5, Map 3-28 

mineral entry—see Mineral Resources Management 

mineral materials—see Mineral Resources Management 

mineral potential—see Mineral Resources Management 

Mineral Resource Management, 2.19 

mineral rights—see Mineral Resources Management 

mineral withdrawal—see Mineral Resources Management 

Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, 3.19.1B 

Mojave Desert tortoise—see Special Status Species Management 

Monitoring—see Implementation and Monitoring 

Muggins Mountains Wilderness Area, Table 2-1, 2.3.1A, 2.11.3R, Tables 2-20 and 2-29, 

2.12.1B, 2.15.4G, 3.8.1E, 3.12, 3.12.1B, 3.16.1A, Table 3-20 

N 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1.0, 1.3.1, 1.4.1, 1.5.3, 2.1, 3.1, 3.11.2A, 3.13.3, 

3.15.2C 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), 1.4.2H, 2.3.3, 2.11, 2.12.1, 

2.15, 2.20.1, 3.7.3 

National Historic Trail, 2.3.1B, 3.16, 3.16.1B 

National Recreation Trail (NRT), 2.3.2, 3.16.3 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 2.3.4A, 2.3.4F, 2.15.2, 2.15.3, 2.20, 2.21.13, 3.7.3, 

3.7.5, 3.7.7, 3.16.2 

Native American tribes, 1.6.2, 3.19.1B 

native species, 2.5, 2.7, 2.9, 3.3.4 

Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1.6.1 

Navajo Nation, 3.19.1B 

Page i-6 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
Index 

Yuma Field Office Page i-7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 

noxious weed—see Vegetation Management 

O 

off-highway vehicle (OHV), 1.1.2, 1.5.1, 2.3.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.13, 3.14.2, Table 4-17, Table 4-27 

oil and gas—see Mineral Resources Management 

Open OHV Management Area, 2.12.1A 

P 

Paleontological Resource Management, 2.16 

Pascua Yaqui Tribe, 3.19.1B, 

Permits, 1.4.2L&M, 2.3.3, 2.7, 2.7.2A&B, 2.8.3C&E, 2.9, 2.12.2D, Table 2-28, 

2.18,2.18.1B,&C, 2.19.3, 2.20.4, 2.21.14, 2.21.15A, 3.3.6, 3.10, 3.11.1, 3.11.2A&C, 3.11.3, 

3.13.1A, 3.13.3D, 3.15.1, 3.15.2B, 4.1.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.4, 4.6.1C(2), 4.13.1A, 4.13.2B, 4.13.5, 

Table 4-28 

planning criteria, 1.4 

plant community—see Vegetation Management 

predator control—see Fish and Wildlife Management 

prescribed fire (burning)—see Wildland Fire Management 

priority species—see Vegetation Management 

primitive recreation—see Recreation Management 

Pueblo of Zuni, 3.19.1B 

Public Heath and Safety Management, 2.20 

Q 

Quartzsite, Town of,1.2, 1.2.2, 1.5, 1.5.1F, 1.6, 2.11.2E, 2.11.3 I, K, & L, Table 2-31, 3.2.2, 

Table 3-16, 3.12.1B, 3.12.2F, 3.13.1A(3b), 3.13.3A(3), 3.14.2B, 3.14.3A92), 3.16.1A(3), 

3.18.2, 3.18.3B, Table 3-22, 3.19.1B(1 & 2b), 4.2.3, 4.7.2F(1), 4.13.3A&B, 4.15.12C&D 
Index 

R 

range improvements—see Livestock Grazing Management 

razorback sucker—see Special Status Species Management 

Record of Decision (ROD), 1.1.1, 1.2.1, 1.3.1H, 1.3.2, 1.4.2, 1.5.2, 2.1, 2.3.3, 2.12.2, 2.21.2A, 

2.21.8, 2.22.2, 2.22.4, 

Recreation and Public Purpose (R&PP) Act, 2.18, 2.18.1B, 2.18.2A&B, 3.15.1, 3.15.2B(4), 

3.15.3A, 4.7.1A(6), 4.13.5A, 4.13.5 

recreation fees—see Recreation Management 

Recreation Management, 2.11 

Recreation Management Area, 2.11.1 

Recreation Management Zone (RMZ), 2.11.2 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), 2.11, 3.13.4, Map 3-25 

recreation setting—see Recreation Management 

Right-of-way (ROW) Corridors, 2.7.2, 2.8.1C, 2.13, Table 2-30, 2.18.1C 

Riverside County, 1.7, 2.11.2A, 3.16.1A(5), 3.16.2A, 3.19.1A(1). 3.19.2C(4) 

road—see Travel Management 

route—see Travel Management 

route Designation—see Travel Management 

route evaluation—see Travel Management 

route inventory—see Travel Management 

S 

salable minerals—see Mineral Resources Management 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 1.6.2, 3.19.1B 

San Carlos Apache Tribe, 3.19.1 

San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, 3.19.1 

Page i-8 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
Index 

Yuma Field Office Page i-9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 

scoping, 1.5 

sensitive species—see Fish and Wildlife Management 

social and economic conditions, 3.19, 4.19 

Soil Resource Management, 2.17.3 

Sonoran Desert tortoise—see Special Status Species Management 

Sonoran pronghorn—see Special Status Species Management 

southwestern willow flycatcher—see Special Status Species Management 

Special Designations Management, 2.3 

Special Culture Resource Management Area (SCRMA), 2.15.4 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), 2.11.1 

Special Recreation Permit (SRP), 2.11 

Special Status Species Management, 2.8 

standards and guidelines for rangeland health—see Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration 

surface occupancy, 2.3.4, 2.4.2, 2.7.2, 2.18.1, 2.19.1, 4.11.4A(2) 

T 

threatened species—see Special Status Species Management 

Tohono O’odham Tribal Nation, 1.6.2, 3.19.1B 

Tonto Apache Tribe, 3.19.1B 

trail—see Travel Management 

Travel Management, 2.12 

Travel Management Area (TMA), 2.12.3 

Travel Management Network (TMN), 2.12 
Index 

U 

U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), 1.2, 1.6.1, 1.7, 2.11.2 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), 2.3.3 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1.4.1, 1.6.1, 2.3.1, 2.3.4G, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.6, 2.7, 

2.8, 2.11.2, 218.1, 2.21 

U.S. Highway 95—see byway 

V 

Vegetation Habitat Management Area (VHA), 2.5.2 

Vegetation Management, 2.5 

vegetation treatments, 2.21.2 

Viejas Band of Mission Indians, 3.19.1B 

Visual Resource Management (VRM), 2.13 

W 

watchable wildlife, 2.7, 2.11.3O, Table 3-18, 3.13.1B(5), 3.16.3, 3.19.2C(3) 

water quality—see Water Resources Management 

Water Resources Management, 2.17.2 

Wellton Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, 3.17.1, 5.3.5 

White Mountain Apache Tribe, 3.19.1B 

Wild Horse and Burro Management, 2.10 

Wilderness Areas, 2.3.1A, 

Wilderness Characteristics Management, 2.14, 3.10, 4.10, 4.15.11, Tables 2-27, 2-28, 3-15, and 

4-14, Mpas 2-11a, 2-11b, 2-11c, and 3-18 

Wildland Fire Management, 2.6 

Wildlife Habitat Management Area (WHA), 2.7.2, Table 2-6, Maps 2- 

withdrawal— see Mineral Resources Management 

Page i-10 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
Index 

Yuma Field Office Page i-11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

 

X 

Y 

Yavapai–Apache Nation, 1.6.2, 3.19.1B 

Yavapai–Prescott Indian Tribe, 1.6.2, 3.19.1B 

yellow-billed cuckoo—see Special Status Species Management 

Yuma, City of, 1.2, 1.6.1, 1.7, 2.11.2B & E, 3.2.1, 3.19.1B, 4.13.3 

Yuma clapper rail—see Special Status Species Management 

Yuma County, 1.4.1, 1.7, 3.4.7A, 3.19.1A, 3.19.2, Tables 3-22 and 2-23, 4.13.2, 4.13.3B 

Yuma County Department of Public Works, 1.6.1C 

Z 

Zuni, Pueblo of, 3.19.1B 
Index 

Page intentionally left blank. 

Page i-12 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

RESULTS OF SCOPING 

INTRODUCTION 

Public comments received during the scoping period address a variety of resources and resource 

uses, as well as management considerations. Each comment letter was reviewed and individual 

comments within each letter were analyzed and separated into issue categories. Public comments 

and management concerns were separated into approximately 22 different issues, some of which 

were further separated into sub-issues in those instances when the volume and type of public 

comment within one general issue warranted separate discussion. For example, OHV use is a 

sub-issue under Transportation Planning and Access. 

A number of public comments regarding how in general the area should be managed without 

reference to a particular resource or other issue were received. For example, numerous comments 

expressed a preference that the area be managed as it is currently with no changes. These 

comments were not placed within any issue category, unless the comment addressed a particular 

resource. A “No Action Alternative” will be addressed as part of the EIS. 

Each of the 22 issues identified below in Table 1 will be carried forward and considered further 

in the development of alternatives. The 22 issues identified during scoping are discussed in this 

section, which is organized as follows: 

 Issue Summary – A general summary of this issue as reflected in public comment. 

 BLM Management Concerns – These concerns may not have been identified by the public 

during scoping, but will be considered as issues to be addressed through the RMP/EIS. 

Decisions which have been evaluated and determined valid will be carried forward. 

 Agency and Tribal Concerns – Comments provided by tribes and other agencies specific to 

the particular issue. 

 Planning Criteria – Planning criteria relevant to this issue to be used in the development of 

the RMP/EIS. 

 Issues Addressed Administratively – This sub-section only appears when public comments 

were received concerning this issue category. These issues will not be addressed in the 

RMP/EIS process as the issue is either addressed through current management and/or is 

currently being addressed by the YFO independent of this planning effort. 

 Issues Not Within BLM Jurisdiction – This sub-section only appears when public comments 

were received concerning this issue category. These issues will not be addressed in the 

RMP/EIS process as the issue is either beyond the scope of the current plans or outside the 

authority of BLM. 

Table 1, starting on the next page, provides an index of public comments by issue category that 

will be addressed through the RMP/EIS process. Table 1 is intended to provide an easy reference 

to the comments that will be addressed through the RMP/EIS process, by issue category. 

Individual comments are not repeated in the issue discussions to follow, which contain instead a 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.1

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

TABLE 1 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS BY ISSUE CATEGORY 

NOTE: Where comments apply to more than one issue category, the comment is repeated in the appropriate categories. 

Issue 

No. Issue 

Sub-Issue 

(if applicable) Public Issue/Comment 

1 Riparian Areas, 

Floodplains, and Wetlands 

 Management should provide more emphasis on protection of riparian and wetland habitat. 

 Limit motorized uses to areas that avoid riparian areas. 

 The lower Colorado River corridor provides valuable wetland and riparian habitat. 

2 Soil, Water, and 

Air Quality 

 OHV use causes erosion. 

 Protect water resources from overuse. 

 Include standards by which uses will be modified to prevent damage to soils, range, wildlif

during drought. 

 Examine water availability/use in all watersheds to determine how much water is going to v

how much is left intact. Determine this prior to decisions for specific actions to ensure enouavailable for wildlife. 

 Address how water resources will be protected and enhanced. Specify best management pra

 Consider closing roads to mitigate effects of disruption to natural sheet flow of water, whic

vegetation and results in impacts to forage for Sonoran pronghorn. 

3 Vegetation 

Management 

 OHV use causes the spread of exotic plants and disrupts forage and native vegetation. 

 Do not allow application of herbicides or other toxicants, which would cause ecological har

root causes of land disturbances and noxious weeds (i.e., grazing). 

 Consider closing roads to mitigate effects of disruption to natural sheet flow of water, whic

vegetation and results in impacts to forage for Sonoran pronghorn. 

 Manage for more revegetation and controlled burns to control non-native species. 

 Use more controlled burns with revegetation of cottonwood and willow. 

 Area is important for native seed/plant resources and seed banking. 

 Determine desired future conditions for vegetation. 

 All land uses should limit growth of invasive plants. 

 Address how grazing impacts problem of invasive, nonnative vegetation. 

 Address problems droughts bring to vegetation management and establish protocols for live

during drought, including best management practices. 

 Consider rehabilitation after prescribed or wild fire, including special seed mix needs and n

management. 

 Consumptive uses should be phased out. 

 Timber harvest/lumbering, developing natural resources is an important use of the land.  Maintaining species sustainability is BLM’s responsibility regardless of district planning bo

Page 1-A.2 
TABLE 1 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS BY ISSUE CATEGORY 

NOTE: Where comments apply to more than one issue category, the comment is repeated in the appropriate categories. 

Issue 

No. Issue 

Sub-Issue 

(if applicable)

Public Issue/Comment 

4 Fish and Wildlife  OHV use harasses wildlife and causes habitat fragmentation. 

 Birds and animals thrive near agriculture, which provides food and water in a harsh desert e

 Add planning criteria that recognizes importance of predators in native ecosystems.  Adopt strict policies against predator control and do not allow other agencies to lethally con

 Do not allow application of rodenticides or insecticides, as rodents play important roles and 

depend on invertebrates for prey. 

 Preserve wildlife by building and maintaining water areas instead of closing access. 

 Continue efforts to enhance wildlife habitat. 

 Do not fence water holes, should be available to all animals including burros. 

 There should be no new guzzlers. 

 Address fragmentation of habitats from proposed development. 

 Address impacts to ground nesting birds from grazing. 

 Address impacts to birds and other wildlife from proposed wind towers. 

 Provide for wildlife corridors between YFO and Phoenix Field Office lands including Sadd

Woolsey Peak Wilderness, and Eagletails. 

 Scott’s Lead Well off BLM 249 is often empty, and there are no other catchments for wildl

 Manage for maximum conservation and protection, and long-range goals to protect for futu

 Maintaining species sustainability is BLM’s responsibility regardless of district planning bo

5 Threatened, 

Endangered, and Special Status Species 

 The Sonoran pronghorn is being impacted by the proliferation of motorized routes. 

 There needs to be better protection for the flat-tailed horned lizard. 

 Consider Sonoran pronghorn for ACEC designation as it is threatened by livestock grazing

OHV use. 

 Designate Sonoran desert tortoise for ACEC as it is harmed by livestock grazing, OHV, oth

destruction. 

 Analyze effects of roads on Sonoran pronghorn habitat. 

 Area maintains populations of desert bighorn sheep and other diminishing species, and the 

WA is critical to the survivability of bighorns in other areas. 

 Address how future land uses will be managed so they don’t contribute to the need for Fede

Yuma Field Office PRMP/FEIS April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

TABLE 1 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS BY ISSUE CATEGORY 

NOTE: Where comments apply to more than one issue category, the comment is repeated in the appropriate categories. 

Issue 

No. Issue 

Sub-Issue 

(if applicable)

Public Issue/Comment 

6 Cultural and 

Paleontological Resources and Native American Issues 

 Concern with the protection of the Blythe Giant Intaglios and other geoglyphs along the Co

 Sears Point needs to be protected, potentially by fencing. 

 OHV use causes destruction to cultural sites. 

 Values historic evidence of man’s ancient and modern use in the area including intaglios, h

Patton’s army sites, old mines, historic trails. 

 Management should record and protect cultural sites by signing, employee visits, volunteer

monitoring, potentially fencing. 

 Management should protect cultural sites but still allow public access to them.  BLM should provide to the public a map of cultural resources in approved areas and keep i

 Area has a special history for Native Americans. 

 A stewardship program to help preserve cultural sites, potentially including fencing and lim

7 Fire Management  Roads created by OHV use increase risk of wildfire. 

 Manage for more revegetation and controlled burns to control non-native species. 

 Use more controlled burns with revegetation of cottonwood and willow. 

 Determine when and why prescribed burns will occur including a consideration for habitat, 

prescribed or wild fire, special seed mix needs, and noxious weed management. 

 If fire is used, limit livestock use for two years. 

8 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste  Concerned about illegal dumping. 9 Recreation General  BLM should continue to allocate areas for camping (with and without RVs). 

 Keep LTVAs open. 

 Visitors enjoy viewing wildlife and hunting birds drawn by agriculture production. 

 Horseback riding and ATV use should not be in the same category because ATVs cause mo

 Horse activities should not be limited to roads and washes. Should be allowed to ride on ex

 Squaw Lake boat parking area needs to be enlarged to provide an overflow area for parking 

larger boats and travelers. 

 BLM-approved vendors who provide water, dumping, and RV repairs, etc. should have ano

advertising besides posting on a small, crowded message board. 

 Provide recreational and cultural opportunities at least cost. 

 Manage for multiple use. 

 Keep an area of the dunes for hiking only. 

 Clean up Hippy Hole and then turn it into a recreational campground. 

Page 1-A.4 
TABLE 1 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS BY ISSUE CATEGORY 

NOTE: Where comments apply to more than one issue category, the comment is repeated in the appropriate categories. 

Issue 

No. Issue 

Sub-Issue 

(if applicable)

Public Issue/Comment 

9 

cont. 

Recreation (cont.) Education  Visitors should be educated about Native American culture, which would help prevent dam

 Public should be aware of public ownership of archaeological resources and what they are. 

 Provide educational opportunities so visitors can learn how to preserve and enjoy the land. 

 Staff with knowledgeable rangers who can teach people about the natural environment.  Land should be available for university to research native plants and cultural plants for trea

10 Visual Resources  Desire to maintain open spaces. 11 Land Tenure and 

Use Authorizations 

General  Do not want to lose usage for more development in such places as Wellton Hills #1 and #2 

 There should be no more disposals or exchanges. 

 Exchanges to benefit management should be explored. High wildlife values should be cons

exchanges. 

 Identify how the public will be involved in land transfers.  Disposals should be limited because they result in less protection to flora/fauna. They shou

considered for opportunities to consolidate Federal lands or other land ownership patterns tmanagement for flora/fauna. 

 Do not dispose or exchange lands that have Sonoran pronghorn or desert tortoise habitat. 

 Values land because they own a home and live on it. 

 Supports land exchange for Harvey’s Fishing Hole. 

 Loss of agricultural leases can have a negative impact on local agricultural economy. 

 Agriculture on public land produces revenue for American people and reduces expenditure 

 Agriculture is the best, most productive, and most judicious use of the land. 

 Agriculture is consistent with stated mission of BLM to sustain health, diversity, and produ

lands. 

 Agriculture meets FLPMA requirements that public lands be managed in a manner that rec

need for food and fiber from public lands. 

 Agriculture acts as a deterrent to illegal entry. If taken out of production it would revert to u

cedars, complicating Border Patrol efforts to secure the area. 

 Limit future growth by maintaining natural surroundings and limiting development. 

 If public is denied use of land, then they aren’t “public lands,” they are really government-o

contrary to constitutional edict. 

 Land provides industrial expansion opportunities for landlocked towns. 

11 

cont. 

Land Tenure and Use Authorizations cont. 

General cont. 

 Would like BLM land within Quartzsite town limits opened to development by the town. 

 Provide long-term leases to entities along the river like the Native Americans have been do

 Some access is blocked by private holdings. 

Yuma Field Office PRMP/FEIS April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

TABLE 1 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS BY ISSUE CATEGORY 

NOTE: Where comments apply to more than one issue category, the comment is repeated in the appropriate categories. 

Issue 

No. Issue 

Sub-Issue 

(if applicable)

Public Issue/Comment 

ROW Corridors 

 Identify future utility corridors. There should be no amendments for future corridors. 

 Existing corridors should be used instead of new ones. 

12 Mineral Resources  Mining is an important use for economic benefit. 

 Should be active oversight/control of mining. 

 Include alternatives with no new oil/gas leasing or only leasing than ensures resource health

 Include development of energy minerals and related issues, including the identification of f

mineral leasing areas and areas not suited. 

 Timber harvest/lumbering, developing natural resources is an important use of the land.  Consumptive uses should be phased out. 

 Need restoration of mining and toxins (pond areas). 

 Increase public allotment of gravel from 250 to 500 pounds. 

13 Travel 

Management 

General  How will BLM address route designations for areas with wilderness characteristics, ACEC

with special resources? 

 Opposed to further closure of public land through road closure or wilderness designation. 

 Due to access closures, it has become difficult for individuals to enjoy public lands. 

 Access should not be changed or further limited and roads, trails, and washes should remain 

 Reopen historic routes and roads, which have been closed, to old mines or ranches. 

 There should be no new roads. 

 Need route designation to manage routes created by illegal immigrants and lack of designat

 There is no point in preserving area if people can’t access it to enjoy it. 

 Open access to all areas designated as wilderness or monument. 

 Reopen inland route between Sears and Independence Points. 

 Reopen river route between Sears Point-Independence Point-Howard Well-Aztec I-8 interc

 In Red Cloud Mine area, reopen road between Black Rock-Red Cloud Wash and Arasta W

 In California, reopen roads between Ogilby Road and State Hwy. 78 to the river. The recre

these roads was not assessed prior to their closure. 

 Plan routes for different modes of recreation (i.e., so trail bikes don’t conflict with cars).  YFO should adopt a “closed unless posted open” OHV policy effective immediately and re

RMP revision. 

Page 1-A.6 
TABLE 1 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS BY ISSUE CATEGORY 

NOTE: Where comments apply to more than one issue category, the comment is repeated in the appropriate categories. 

Issue 

No. Issue 

Sub-Issue 

(if applicable)

Public Issue/Comment 

13 Travel 

Management 

OHV  Use of OHV is the best and sometimes only way to enjoy remote areas, especially for older 

 Limit four-wheel-drive vehicles and ATVs to only certain roads and washes and the sand d

damage the roads. 

 Complete OHV route designation process and have a mix of areas closed to OHV use and l

roads and trails. 

 Identify OHV management policies and required signing and enforcement. 

 Due to sensitive ecosystems and soils, should be no open OHV areas within planning unit. 

 Limit OHV use as it impacts quiet, causes spread of exotic plants, erosion, wildlife harassm

destruction of cultural sites, disruption of foraging and native vegetation, increase in risk of Sonoran pronghorn and desert tortoise habitat. 

 Concerned with OHV tracks along existing roads because their wheel width doesn’t confor

standard vehicles. 

 All areas with wilderness characteristics should be managed under “closed” OHV designati It isn’t the OHVs that destroy the desert, it’s only a small percentage of the users. 

14 Airspace  Need to develop at least one landing strip along the lower Colorado River for pilots to land 

recreation uses. BLM could also attract developers for small airport. 

 YPG needs to be protected from air encroachment. Pilots fly illegally in YPG airspace and 

property because there is no designated airstrip. 

15 Grazing Use  Grazing is an important use for economic benefit. 

 Because grazing has been administered by Phoenix Field Office, coordination with that offi

allotment changes is warranted. 

 Grazing impacts Sonoran pronghorn and Sonoran desert tortoise habitat. 

 Include full range of alternatives including no grazing, grazing at current use, and grazing r

wildlife, watershed, vegetative, and soil health. 

 Eliminate domestic grazing. 

 Address impacts to ground nesting birds from grazing. 

 Address grazing allotment plans and residual forage standards, stocking rates, grazing inten

timing, class of livestock, strategies to reduce grazing, if necessary. 

 Establish protocols for livestock reduction during drought, including best management prac

15 

cont. 

Grazing Use cont.  Reference all pertinent guidelines in grazing plans. 

 Address how grazing impacts problem of invasive, non-native vegetation. 

 Because grazing has been administered by Phoenix Field Office, coordination with that offi

allotment changes is warranted. 

Yuma Field Office PRMP/FEIS April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

TABLE 1 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS BY ISSUE CATEGORY 

NOTE: Where comments apply to more than one issue category, the comment is repeated in the appropriate categories. 

Issue 

No. Issue 

Sub-Issue 

(if applicable)

Public Issue/Comment 

16 Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

 In identifying wilderness characteristics, consider how protecting or managing for these ch

help previously impacted areas be restored to natural condition. 

 Identify lands with wilderness character and protect them with special administrative desig

management and through a framework of multiple use conservation areas to preserve them

 Preserving wilderness characteristics is best economic choice as it is less costly than develo

maintenance, restoration, law enforcement of OHV, or restoration. 

 Arizona Wilderness Coalition will be submitting proposals for lands containing wilderness 

inclusion in EIS. 

 Use definition of wilderness as outlined in Wilderness Act of 1964 for inventorying areas f

characteristics. 

 All areas with wilderness characteristics should be managed under “closed” OHV designati Consider following areas for wilderness characteristics: BLM lands adjacent to Kofa NWR 

Columbus Peak, Cortez Peak, all areas adjacent to existing YFO wilderness areas. 

 Do not degrade wilderness characteristics in course of implementing any management actio

without first analyzing possibility that they exist. 

 Managing for wilderness characteristics creates new wilderness without congressional appr

violation of congressional intent. 

 Management of wilderness study areas should ensure protection of their wilderness values 

activities such as oil/gas development, logging, OHV, mining, etc. 

 How will BLM work with the conservation community on implementing a monitoring and 

Page 1-A.8 
TABLE 1 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS BY ISSUE CATEGORY 

NOTE: Where comments apply to more than one issue category, the comment is repeated in the appropriate categories. 

Issue 

No. Issue 

Sub-Issue 

(if applicable)

Public Issue/Comment 

17 Special 

Designations 

 How will BLM address route designations for areas with wilderness characteristics, ACEC

with special resources? 

 Find all potential wilderness areas and designate accordingly.  Protect lands with wilderness character with special administrative designation and manage

framework of multiple use conservation areas to preserve them. 

 Include assessment of additional ACECs in planning criteria to provide protection for sensi

including assessment of all State/Federally listed species for ACEC designation. 

 Consider Sonoran pronghorn for ACEC designation as it is threatened by livestock grazing

OHV use. 

 Designate Sonoran desert tortoise for ACEC as it is harmed by livestock grazing, OHV, oth

destruction. 

 Designation as wilderness would encourage a broader public attitude towards stewardship, 

interaction with land. 

 Designating wilderness areas will only benefit the few who are fit enough to hike into remo Norton’s April 2003 settlement was unlawful and FLPMA gives BLM the authority to crea

areas. 

 Protection of wilderness quality lands can help fill mandates of FLPMA and provides a bet

multiple uses as only 2.6 percent of BLM land is currently protected as wilderness. 

 Consider supplemental values such as Sonoran pronghorn habitat, cultural sites, threatened 

species, unique plant assemblages, prehistoric/historic travel corridors, water resources, pot

sites, education, and scenic beauty. 

 Designate the river corridor as a natural resource area, wildlife habitat, ACEC, etc. rather th

use/recreation area. 

 Do not need further wilderness designation as there are numerous other wilderness areas av

visit. 

 Open access to all areas designated as wilderness or monument. 

 Should be no wilderness management prescriptions outside of designated wilderness. 

 Protect current ACECs from land uses that conflict with their values (oil/gas, grazing, OHV

18 Environmental 

Justice 

 No comments were received for this issue. 

Yuma Field Office PRMP/FEIS April 2008 
ix 1-A 

here comments apply to more than one issue category, the comment is repeated in the appropriate categories. 

.10 

TABLE 1 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS BY ISSUE CATEGORY 

Issue 

No. Issue 

Sub-Issue 

(if applicable) Public Issue/Comment 

19 Socioeconomics  Without protecting local wilderness, local residents in the region could lose the income pro

to the area. 

 Loss of agricultural leases can have a negative impact on local agricultural economy. 

 Agriculture on public land produces revenue for American people and reduces expenditure 

 Analysis should include consideration of economic benefits to local and regional economy 

related recreation and ecosystems services. 

 Analysis should consider economic drain of livestock grazing on Federal agency and taxpa

including cost of damage caused by non-native organisms introduced by grazing or oil/gas 

 Preserving wilderness characteristics is best economic choice as it is less costly than develo

maintenance, restoration, law enforcement of OHV or restoration. 

 User fees only hurt the poor, people shouldn’t have to pay to use their own land. 

 Develop plan in coordination with AGFD to acknowledge economic value of wildlife speci

economies. 

20 Law Enforcement 

(including Public Safety) 

 Need more prosecution and fining of violators, such as for illegal dumping.  There should be more employees or rangers to stop illegal dumping, vandalism, and illegal 

rangers especially needed during the crowded months of January and February. 

 Use other people to police dump stations and trash so the rangers can do their jobs. 

 Provide list of rules on camping and ATV riding regionally in gas stations, restaurants, gro

keep people on trails and make rules more accessible. 

 Use “do not litter” campaigns to help prevent illegal dumping. 

 Will BLM work with other law enforcement agencies to address border issues? 

21 Border Issues and 

Undocumented Immigrants 

 Migration across the border has created challenges to the protection of natural resources. 

 Will other agencies be mandated to consult with BLM and USFWS on environmental impa

their actions on the border? 

 Immigrants are causing undesignated travel routes. 

 Agriculture acts as a deterrent to illegal entry. If taken out of production, it would revert to 

cedars and complicate Border Patrol efforts to secure the area. 

AppendNOTE: WPage 1-A

22 Wild Horses and 

Burros 

 Management should include an emphasis on wild horse/burro control. 

 Water holes should be available to burros. 

 Remove all wild horses and burros. 
Appendix 1-A 

summary of overall comments. The “total received” column in Table 1 indicates how many 

times within public comment a particular issue was raised. This number does not correlate 

directly with either the total number of scoping responses or the total number of unique 

comments within those responses, as each comment often contained several different issues. For 

example, one comment stated “limit OHV use as it impacts the quiet of the desert and causes 

introduction and spread of exotic plants, erosion, wildlife harassment, and destruction of cultural 

sites.” This single comment contained five different issues including transportation planning and 

access (OHV sub-issue), vegetation management, soils, fish and wildlife, and cultural resources. 

A full listing of all comments and responses received during the scoping period can be found in 

the comment summary table in Appendix B of the scoping report. 

ISSUE 1: RIPARIAN AREAS, FLOODPLAINS, AND 

WETLANDS 

1.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Few public comments were received on this issue. Those that were received pertained to the 

protection of riparian and wetlands in general and from motorized uses. Importance was also 

placed on the wetland and riparian habitat along the lower Colorado River corridor. 

1.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Control invasive species in riparian zones and wetlands; 

 Manage water quality and contaminants; 

 Manage for wildlife habitat for neotropical migratory birds; and 

 Implement recovery plans in rivers and riparian areas while managing fuels, fires, and 

exotics. 

1.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Tribe indicated an interest in continuation of cottonwood and willow pole planting habitat 

improvement projects. 

1.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Riparian areas, floodplains, and wetlands will be managed to protect, maintain, or improve 

existing functions to benefit water storage, groundwater recharge, water quality, and fish and 

wildlife values in appropriate locations within fiscal constraints. All management practices will 

be designed in accordance with the CWA, EO 11988 (Floodplain Management), EO 11990 

(Protection of Wetlands), Colorado River Floodway Protection Act, and Arizona's Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. Proposed decisions will be 

measured against the Arizona Standard for Rangeland Health for riparian areas, floodplains, 

wetlands and priority wildlife management areas that provide for biodiversity and protection and 

restoration of native species. Additional criteria are the LCR MSCP, priority wildlife habitat 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

management areas, existing activity plans, and the current Lower Colorado River Fire 

Management Plan. 

1.5 ISSUES ADDRESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY 

 Tribes want to continue being involved in cottonwood and willow pole planting habitat 

improvement projects. 

ISSUE 2: SOIL, WATER, AND AIR QUALITY 

2.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Public issues focused on the protection and availability of water resources. Overuse of water was 

mentioned, as was allocation of water to various uses and adequacy of water supply for wildlife. 

Concern over the impact of drought to soil and water resources was mentioned, as was the 

contribution of roads and OHV use to erosion problems. 

2.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Consider the effect of public uses on air quality, particularly the use of dirt roads with regard 

to PM10 non-attainment areas. 

2.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

No agency or tribal concerns were mentioned for this issue category. 

2.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

2.4.1 SOIL 

Soils will be managed to protect long-term productivity. BMPs will be incorporated into other 

programs to minimize soil erosion and compaction resulting from management actions. 

2.4.2 WATER QUALITY 

Section 319 of the CWA obligates Federal agencies to be consistent with State Nonpoint Source 

Management Program Plans and relevant water quality standards. Section 313 requires 

compliance with State Water Quality Standards. BLM will coordinate with the ADEQ regarding 

their TMDL program and other relevant water quality programs. BLM will incorporate 

applicable BMPs or other conservation measures for specific programs and activities into the 

RMP. Water quality will be maintained or improved in accordance with State and Federal 

standards. 

Page 1-A.12 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

2.4.3 AIR QUALITY 

Maintain and enhance air quality and visibility in a manner consistent with the CAA. Under the 

Clean Air Act, BLM administered lands were given a Class II air quality classification unless 

reclassified by the State. Wilderness Areas must be classified as Class I or Class II. This 

classification allows moderate deterioration associated with moderate, well-controlled industrial 

and population growth. Proposed decisions within the influence zone of the planning project that 

may affect non-attainment areas, including the Maricopa and Yuma counties PM10 nonattainment areas, will be assessed for conformance with air quality standards. 

ISSUE 3: VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 

3.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Many of the concerns expressed by public comment focused on the spread of exotic and nonnative plants from a variety of land uses including OHV use, roads, and grazing. Comments also 

stated that the area is valuable for seed banking and resources. Other concerns focused on the 

application of herbicides, and various impacts from grazing, drought, and fire management. 

3.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Establish guidelines for project level work to be completed in accordance with the Arizona 

Native Plant Law. 

 Determine if vegetative products within the two to five inches of precipitation zone are 

suitable for public use or sale (e.g., firewood, cactus skeletons, native wood/plants). 

 Determine if there should be campfire restrictions for the protection of native vegetation.

 Determine decision criteria for revegetation and availability of irrigation water for 

revegetation.

 Continue to identify, map, and treat invasive species, including noxious weeds, as a 

management priority within the planning area.

3.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Continue giant salvinia removal along the Colorado River. 

3.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Vegetation will be managed to achieve desired plant communities (considering the ecological 

site potential) that provide for biodiversity; protection and restoration of native species; and 

non-consumptive uses including plant protection (fuel collection), visual quality, and watershed 

protection. FLPMA requires that public lands be managed under the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield. The desired plant communities will provide critical wildlife habitat, as well 

as forage for livestock and wildlife. Plant maintenance, watershed protection and stability, and 

wildlife habitat needs will be provided for. Forage will be allocated to support wildlife at 

population levels determined through consultation with the AGFD. Forage on suitable rangeland 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

will be allocated for domestic livestock grazing based on Arizona’s Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration and may include provisions for hazardous 

fuels reduction and habitat restoration. 

There are several treatment methods and Standard Operating Procedures that 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 and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration, 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. 

3.5 ISSUES ADDRESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY 

 Add planning criterion that requires all alternatives be biologically and ecologically 

sustainable and meets the needs of native plants/wildlife. 

ISSUE 4: FISH AND WILDLIFE 

4.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Fish and wildlife issues included impacts and habitat fragmentation from OHV use and 

development. Impacts to wildlife, specifically ground nesting birds and forage, from grazing was 

also mentioned. Several comments were received regarding water catchments, including the 

desire that these be managed by BLM, concern that there are not enough catchments, and 

concern that some catchments are sometimes empty and others are fenced, making them 

unavailable for use by all wildlife. A few comments emphasized the benefit of agriculture to 

wildlife for food resources, and one comment expressed concern over policies to control 

predators and rodents. There were also requests to provide wildlife corridors between this 

planning area and adjacent areas. 

4.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Identify what indicators or limits of acceptable change will be used to determine when 

wildlife populations are being impacted to an unacceptable degree. 

 Integrate habitat management with other resource programs to minimize impacts on wildlife 

species and their habitats while still providing for other uses on the public lands. 

 Evaluate the use of wildlife water catchments.

 Determine what types of management actions are appropriate in priority and general wildlife 

habitats.

 Identify appropriate mitigation measures for impacts to priority wildlife habitats.

 Incorporate State and BLM strategic plans for fish and wildlife into the RMP.

 Assess potential need and proper location for artificial fish habitat.

Page 1-A.14 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

 Protect backwater habitat.

 Promote native fish habitat populations.

 Assess the need to limit or close public access to promote spawning or critical fish habitat.

 Address BMPs for aquatic non-native invasive species removal within fish habitat.

4.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Continue managing for wildlife values. 

 There should be more proactive wildlife management. 

 AGFD would like to develop, review, and coordinate on RMP with BLM. 

 Activities of the AGFD to maintain and enhance wildlife resources and related recreation 

should be considered necessary, authorized, and administrative activities in any land use 

allocation. 

 AGFD supports a balanced approach in management to provide both conservation and 

recreational use opportunities. 

4.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Fish and wildlife habitat will be managed to maintain and/or improve the existing habitats 

including priority wildlife habitat. Management actions should minimize the extent of 

disturbance to fish and wildlife habitat. Vegetation management practices would be considered 

to achieve desired future conditions. In addition, management actions will incorporate existing 

BLM national strategic plans, such as Fish and Wildlife 2000 and others. 

4.5 ISSUES ADDRESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY 

 Add planning criterion that requires all alternatives be biologically and ecologically 

sustainable and meets the needs of native plants/wildlife.

 Management should include close coordination with USFWS, CDFG, and AGFD. 

 Ensure the RMP includes recognition of the LCR MSCP and BLM is a member of that 

planning process. 

 BLM should manage the land and AGFD should manage the wildlife, including hunting. 

 Cooperative habitat improvements projects should continue between BLM and AGFD. 

4.6 ISSUES NOT WITHIN BLM JURISDICTION 

 BLM should take over management of the water catchments. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

ISSUE 5: THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL 

STATUS SPECIES 

5.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Comments received for this issue focused on the Sonoran pronghorn, Sonoran desert tortoise, 

desert bighorn sheep, and FTHL. Impacts from OHV use, roads, and grazing was mentioned. It 

was requested that the Sonoran pronghorn and desert tortoise habitat be designated as an ACEC. 

General comments stated that the area should be managed to prevent future Federal listings of 

species and include rigorous monitoring of sensitive species. 

5.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Identify the types of projects that are appropriate within special status species habitat. 

 Identify the types of mitigation that should be considered for special status species 

protection.

 Determine if designation of potential, suitable, and occupied Southwestern willow flycatcher 

habitat is necessary to protect species.

 Implement and incorporate recovery plans and conservation agreements and their goals, 

objectives, and actions, as applicable, into the RMP. 

 Implement recovery and conservation plans for special status species through management 

practices.

 Actions, allocations, special designations, and prescriptions will be utilized as needed to 

protect designated threatened and endangered species critical habitat.

 Consider impacts to razorback sucker critical habitat.

 Explore reintroduction of Gila topminnow, desert pupfish, razorback sucker, and bonytail 

chub.

5.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Continue threatened and endangered species management. 

5.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines followed for special status species management will 

include, but are not limited to, Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Administration, BLM Manual 6840, Desert Bighorn Sheep Range Wide Plan and 

Sonoran Desert Tortoise Range Wide Plan, ESA, EO 13112, FLPMA, NEPA, Public Rangelands 

Improvements Act, Sikes Act, and the TGA. 

Management actions authorized, funded or implemented by BLM will be done so as not to 

jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Candidate species, 

species proposed for Federal listing, and BLM and State sensitive species will be given the same 

consideration as listed species. The intent is to recover listed species and maintain healthy 

Page 1-A.16 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

populations of all other species and therefore avoid the need for further listing of any species as 

threatened or endangered. 

In addition, BLM adheres to BLM’s Manual 6840, which outlines the conservation management 

procedures of threatened and endangered species and the habitat on which they depend; ensures 

that all actions that BLM authorizes, funds, or implements comply with the ESA; requires 

cooperation with the USFWS in the planning and recovery of threatened and endangered species; 

states the BLM policy for managing special status candidate species. BLM also will follow terms 

and conditions implemented by Biological Opinions and Conservation Agreements when making 

special status species management decisions. 

5.5 ISSUES ADDRESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY 

 Add planning criterion that requires all alternatives to meet ESA and other protection statutes 

and include rigorous monitoring of sensitive species. 

 Will other agencies be mandated to consult with BLM and USFWS on environmental 

impacts as a result of their actions on the border? 

ISSUE 6: CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES, AND NATIVE AMERICAN 

CONCERNS 

6.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

The cultural value, importance, and interest of the area were frequently mentioned in public 

comments. Cultural features specifically mentioned include the intaglios, geoglyphs, old 

homestead sites, old mines, Patton’s army sites, Sears Point, and historic trails. These features 

were discussed in the context of general importance as well as being interesting recreation 

destinations. Many comments mentioned protection of cultural features, but some comments 

suggested measures such as fencing cultural sites while others expressed a desire for protection 

without closing public access. OHV use was specifically mentioned as impacting cultural sites. 

Volunteers and site stewards were also suggested as protection measures. 

6.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Establish measures needed to protect cultural resources from vandalism, OHV damage, other 

uses, and natural deterioration.

 Identify trade/exchange lands that BLM will attempt to acquire in order to protect significant 

cultural resources.

 Identify and evaluate areas containing or likely to contain vertebrate or noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. 

 Determine sensitivity of paleontological resources prior to authorizing surface disturbing 

activities. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

 Develop management recommendations to promote the scientific, educational, and 

recreational uses of fossils.

 Identify and mitigate threats to paleontological resources, as appropriate.

 Establish link between former RMP and current RMP for proper name to reference Sears 

Point/Gila River Cultural ACEC.

 Determine how to effectively manage increasing cultural heritage tourism while protecting 

cultural resources.

 Consider decisions that will protect areas with traditional cultural significance to Native 

American Tribes.

6.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Establish a host site at Sears Point (Gila River Cultural ACEC) for cultural resource 

protection. 

 Continue protection of historic and cultural sites. 

6.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Cultural and paleontological resources will be managed to maintain or enhance significant 

scientific, educational, and recreational values. Cultural sites that meet NRHP criteria will be 

protected and nominated for inclusion on the Register. 

ISSUE 7: FIRE MANAGEMENT 

7.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

There were few public comments received regarding this issue. Comments focused primarily on 

how and where prescriptive burns would be used, and how the area would be revegetated 

including special seed mixes and noxious weed control. Concern was expressed that roads 

increase the risk of wildfire and that livestock should not be allowed in a burn area for two years 

following a fire. 

7.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

Management concerns will be identified during the Management Situation Analysis phase. 

7.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Several agencies indicated an interest in future projects related to hazardous fuel reduction 

and wildfire suppression. 

 Support continuation of programs for hazardous fuel reduction, wildfire suppression and 

prevention, and removal of salt cedar. 

Page 1-A.18 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

7.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Fire management prescriptions will be consistent with the Federal Wildland Fire Policy, National 

Fire Plan, and the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality 

Management. Fire suppression will be accomplished with the least amount of surface disturbance 

and to protect significant cultural or paleontological values. Public lands and resources affected 

by fire will be rehabilitated in accordance with the multiple use objectives identified for the 

affected area, subject to BLM policies and available funding. 

ISSUE 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND SOLID 

WASTE 

8.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Public comments received on this issue related to trash and RV septic waste. One issue involved 

RVs unloading their septic tanks on the land. Other comments were received regarding the need 

to clean up and better maintain the confluence and problems with illegal dumping. All of these 

issues can be addressed through current management. 

8.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Consider risk to visitors and general public from unlocated unexploded ordnances on public 

lands administered by YFO. 

 Work with adjacent military installations to consider what management actions are needed to 

protect public safety. 

 Identify and consider safety issues at historic mine sites, which are often popular visitor 

destinations. 

 Consider appropriate management of sites and areas that pose a threat to public health and 

safety, whether man-made or natural. 

 Address abandoned mine lands and emptying of septic tanks on BLM land. 

8.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Control illegal dumping and hazardous materials. 

8.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Management actions will consider BMPs, which protect the public to the greatest extent through 

existing policies. Laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines followed for hazardous materials 

will include, but not be limited to FLPMA, NEPA, and the Resources Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1986 (RCRA). 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

The plan will develop a framework to address hazardous sites and activities, incorporating 

requirements to meet the CAA, CWA, and other environmental laws and regulations, as well as 

consider other potential hazards. 

The YFO will seek out developing a MOU with MCAS–Yuma and YPG to address safe disposal 

of any UXO discovered on public lands. 

8.5 ISSUES ADDRESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY 

 RVs dump their tanks on the land creating a biohazard and fly infestation. 

 There is a problem with illegal dumping at 29E where the old dairy was. 

 The confluence needs to be cleaned up and maintained in a safe fashion. 

ISSUE 9: RECREATION 

9.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Due to the nature of the questions provided by BLM on the comment card and comment form, 

many people relayed what they felt the most important recreation activities were on BLM land. 

These recreation uses include hunting, OHV and other motorized use, camping, rock 

hunting/collecting, fishing, photography, hiking, wildlife viewing, scientific research (geologic 

research, in particular, was mentioned), shooting, and many other uses. Comments were received 

indicating the need to maintain a multiple use management approach. 

Other recreation comments were received regarding the need to maintain camping areas, 

including the LTVAs. Several comments were received on horse riding trails and the belief that 

horse riders should not be limited in the trails they can ride, a preference both for and against 

shooting in the area, and requests for trails designated for certain uses. Squaw Lake boat ramp 

and Hippy Hole were specifically mentioned for improvements or additional amenities. 

Comments also stated that there should be no fees for the use of public land. 

Education was also mentioned in comments. People felt that access to the area and its wildlife 

and habitat provided important educational opportunities for themselves and future generations. 

Comments also emphasized the importance of educating visitors about the area to encourage 

stewardship and appreciation of the land. Several comments were received about the scientific 

research and learning opportunities offered by the area, particularly for seed resources and 

geology. 

9.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Identify and allocate sites to scientific, recreational, educational, and traditional uses. 

 Identify sites for development of interpretive uses. 

 Evaluate the recreational potential at Gilmore’s and Walters camps. 

 Review new special recreation permits and concession leases and vendor permits for 

feasibility and consistency with existing land use plans.

Page 1-A.20 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

 BLM management plan will consider establishing designated routes for a wide variety of 

recreational use (e.g., hiking, biking, equestrian, and OHV).

 Determine if there should be campfire restrictions.

 Identify methods for joint management and funding for recreational resources and 

maintenance of existing programs.

 Shortfalls in funding may jeopardize ability to develop and manage new and existing 

recreation resources. 

 Examine management opportunities utilizing BLM recreational strategy.

 Examine ways to minimize potential conflicts between motorized and non-motorized 

recreational users.

 Consider management of commercial recreational uses, special recreation permits, and other 

organized events.

9.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Concerns were expressed regarding changes in recreational sites location and status with 

regard to State Highway access and improvement and proximity to national wildlife refuges. 

9.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines followed for recreation management will include, but 

not be limited to, FLPMA, ADA, Land and Water Conservation Fund, 43 CFR 8300, BLM 

Recreation Management regulations, 43 CFR 2930, BLM Special Recreation Permits 

regulations, BLM Manual 8300 – Recreation Management, and the Arizona Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. 

The RMP/EIS will set forth a framework for managing recreational and commercial activities in 

order to maintain existing natural landscapes and to provide for the enjoyment and safety of the 

visiting public. The lifestyles of area residents, including activities of grazing, hunting, and 

motorized use and recreation, will be considered in the plan. 

Existing designated recreation sites would be carried forward and evaluated for additional 

facilities. Other public lands would also be evaluated for their suitability for recreational 

development. 

9.5 ISSUES ADDRESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY 

 Permits for horse rides should be issued at least two weeks before a ride instead of at the last 

minute. 

 There should be no fees for use of public land. 

9.6 ISSUES NOT WITHIN BLM JURISDICTION 

 Minimize use by gun enthusiasts. 

 Hunters disrupt quiet of area. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.21 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

 Lands should remain open to all legal shooting in Arizona including use of legally owned 

Class III weapons. 

ISSUE 10: VISUAL RESOURCES 

10.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Comments regarding visual resources specifically were very limited. However, numerous 

comments expressed an appreciation and value for the open spaces and scenery of the area, and 

the desire that the open spaces and beauty of the area be maintained for the enjoyment of both 

current and future generations. 

10.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 VRM classification needs to be re-evaluated for the entire field office with emphasis on 

special designation areas. 

10.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Consider closing areas to camping near NWR to reduce visual impact. 

10.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

VRM classification will be conducted to address the public’s concerns about open space and 

natural vistas. Some areas may be subject to special measures to protect resources or reduce 

conflicts among uses. 

ISSUE 11: LAND TENURE AND USE AUTHORIZATIONS 

11.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Numerous comments were received regarding land tenure and use authorizations and generally 

covered one of three categories: (1) general policy regarding disposal or exchange, (2) support 

for disposal, exchange, or lease of specific areas, and (3) agricultural use. Many comments 

expressed concern over further disposals or exchanges, requesting no further or only limited 

disposals or exchanges. Some comments stated that wildlife and habitat be considered during 

potential land exchanges. Specific areas mentioned for disposal/exchange or lease include 

Harvey’s Fishing Hole, Martinez Lake, area along the Colorado River, and BLM land within 

Quartzsite town limits. Several comments were received supporting agricultural use in the area 

for a variety of reasons and expressing concern over potential termination of agricultural leases. 

One response discussed utility corridors and expressed a need for future utility corridors to be 

identified in the plan, but that there should be no amendments for future corridors. The comment 

also stated that existing corridors should be used instead of new ones. 

Page 1-A.22 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

11.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Determine if existing and proposed corridors are consistent with the WUG Corridor Study. 

 Determine if the YFO corridors align/coordinate with adjacent BLM field office corridors, 

and if corridors do not align, develop mitigation recommendations.

 Identify BLM’s role in educating the public about major ROW Corridors.

 Determine presence or absence of Desert Land Entries in YFO, including Indian allotments.

 Assess lands for disposal, acquisition, and/or exchange to benefit or promote threatened and 

endangered species and/or cultural resources.

 Evaluate appropriate locations for R&PP leases based on community and local needs.

 Identify need for establishing additional communications sites.

 Review all land classification/withdrawals within YFO.

 Identify any and all trespass on public lands for management action. Determine how trespass 

will be addressed.

 Coordinate with minerals assessment to ensure any and all split estate issues are resolved.

11.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Review all agricultural lease stipulations in order to consider selection of crop types for law 

enforcement and public safety. 

 Review requests for potential expansion of existing military installations. Evaluate inholdings within YPG and BMGR. 

 Evaluate all land tenure adjustments, including those adjacent to wildlife refuges and military 

installations. 

 Consider land use authorizations to support future military training exercises. 

 Evaluate compatibility and location of proposed wind farms with military air traffic. 

 Consider needs for military communications sites. 

 Concerns were expressed regarding Gila River Confluence ownership and coordination with 

multiple agencies.

11.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

11.4.1 REALTY/LAND TENURE 

Conditions will be identified that warrant the removal or withdrawal of certain public lands from 

multiple use, such as for public safety or protection of special uses and resources. Withdrawals 

designate public lands for a particular project, purpose or use. Normally, the land is closed to 

entry under all or some of the public land laws including the mining law. Criteria for identifying 

lands available or not available for land entry, including under the Desert Land Entry Act, will be 

developed. There will be no net loss of lands or interests in lands along the Colorado River. YFO 

will follow recommendations of Communication Site Management Plans, National Wind EIS, 

and BLM Instructional Memoranda. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.23 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

A. Land Use Authorizations 

Public lands will generally be available for concessions, leases, and ROWs including but not 

limited to transportation and ROW Corridors, subject to NEPA evaluation, except where 

specifically prohibited by law or regulation or in areas specifically identified for avoidance or 

exclusion to protect significant resource values. Land use authorizations are to avoid areas of 

special management areas and designations such as priority wildlife habitat, special status 

species management areas, ACECs, Wilderness, and cultural areas. 

B. Renewable Energy Sites 

New renewable energy sites, including wind, biomass, and solar energy, will be considered 

based on established criteria, procedures, and policy, in association with industry demand and 

resource protection objectives. New locations for renewable energy sites will also consider 

environmental quality, economic efficiency, security, safety, and good engineering and 

technological practices. Decisions will consider preferred locations and exclusion areas to protect 

significant resource values. 

11.5 ISSUES ADDRESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY 

 Pratt agricultural lease is valuable part of hybrid seed program and is one of few locations in 

Southwest that can produce Tropical Cauliflower. 

11.6 ISSUES NOT WITHIN BLM JURISDICTION 

 More land should be opened along Martinez Lake for boat ramps, long-term home leases, 

camping, and concessionaires. 

ISSUE 12: MINERAL RESOURCES 

12.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Comments received on this issue either supported or opposed mining and resource development. 

Issues included statements that mining and development of natural resources are economically 

important. Others comments stated that there should be more oversight of mining, some 

alternatives should include no new oil/gas leases, there needs to be restoration of mining and 

related toxins, and all consumptive uses should be phased out. 

12.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Determine mineral potential and evaluate areas to consider for mineral withdrawal.

 Determine if currently withdrawn areas should be opened to mineral entry.

 Identify areas of low, medium, and high potential for oil and gas development.

 Determine areas that should be closed to oil and gas leasing due to resource compatibility 

and sensitivity.

 Develop reasonable foreseeable development scenario for oil, gas, mineral material sales, and 

mining law as needed to support community infrastructure and growth.

Page 1-A.24 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

 Follow directives within the Energy, Policy and Conservation Act (2000).

 Evaluate socioeconomic impacts of sand and gravel material sales and statewide need for 

sand and gravel material sales within YFO. Promote competitive sand and gravel award 

process. 

 BLM will utilize other management methods to avoid surface management. 

 Coordinate with minerals assessment to ensure any and all split estate issues are resolved. 

Ensure that sub-surface jurisdictional issues surrounding split estate parcels are addressed. 

 Formulate management strategy for trespass violations. 

 Mining claim use and occupancy authorizations should be considered as directed by 43 CFR 

3715. 

 Determine policy for management of split estate lands, particularly where BLM manages the 

surface but the sub-surface is in non-Federal ownership. 

 Consider general requirements for protecting resource values of the public lands, including 

stipulations and construction and/or operating standards to apply to surface disturbing 

activities. 

12.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Evaluate mineral material sales, which support State Highway improvement projects. 

Mineral resources provide important benefits to society and the economy. Ensure adequate 

mineral assessment and economic evaluation. 

12.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Minerals management will be consistent with the General Mining Law of 1872 (as amended), 

FLPMA, Mining and Minerals Policy Act, National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and 

Development Act, and current BLM mineral resources policy. Lands open to salable, leasable, 

and locatable minerals will be identified in the plan. Areas within the planning area may also be 

subject to constraints to surface use. 

ISSUE 13: TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

13.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Many public comments were received regarding travel management. A frequently stated issue 

was access with many users preferring no further restrictions through road closures or 

Wilderness designation. Another issue was the request for currently closed roads to be reopened. 

Other issues include a desire for route designation to manage routes created by lack of 

designation and illegal immigrants, the belief that public land should be publicly accessible, and 

the hope that current access will remain for future generations to enjoy the land. Other comments 

requested that there be no new roads established. 

Issues with OHV use include damage to natural resources, wildlife, cultural resources, and 

existing roads; lack of designation; lack of signing and enforcement; and the need to limit OHV 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.25 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

to certain or designated areas. OHV supporters feel that OHV is the only way to enjoy remote 

areas, especially for older or disabled users. 

13.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 A route signing policy needs to be established.

 Determine management actions needed for new routes, including but not limited to use 

specifications, signing, vegetation management, and routine maintenance.

 Determine if YFO designated routes align and coordinate with adjacent BLM field offices 

and other adjacent jurisdictions. 

 Identify BLM’s role in educating the public about and managing designated route systems. 

 Determine what level of maintenance should be provided on roads to maintain access and to 

protect both public safety and natural and cultural resources.

 Address access, easements, or ROWs across private lands in order to secure access to public 

lands.

 Consider providing additional motorized access for those who are unable to walk long 

distances.

 Consider how types of vehicle uses, including competitive events, races, and challenge 

courses should be managed.

13.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Coordinate proposed location of recreational hiking trails on or around Telegraph Pass. 

 Consider proper placement of OHV designated routes near national wildlife refuges. 

 Resolve illegal use and entry of OHV from BLM routes to national wildlife refuge. 

 AGFD recognizes need to assess travel routes in key areas due to impacts to wildlife by OHV 

use and habitat fragmentation by roadways. 

 AGFD wants to be involved during route planning/designating process to identify important 

areas for fish and wildlife resources and ensure appropriate access for wildlife-related 

recreation. 

 Incorporate transportation needs into planning process. 

 Would like to see land remain open to public use without extensive restrictions. 

13.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

BLM will manage motorized and other access on the public lands in accordance with existing 

law, EOs, regulation, and policy. Road and trail access guidance will be incorporated into every 

RMP to ensure public and resource needs are met. The YFO will designate OHV use areas as 

open, closed, or limited use. A network of roads and trails will be designated for all limited 

areas. BLM will utilize the route evaluation tree as adopted by the Arizona State Office. This 

process will require an interdisciplinary approach as it affects several key resources. BLM will 

strive to coordinate route designations with surrounding jurisdictions and neighboring field 

offices. 

Page 1-A.26 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

13.5 ISSUES NOT WITHIN BLM JURISDICTION 

 In KOFA, reopen Slumgullion Pass and road from Queen Canyon to Willbanks Road. 

 Remove or unlock gate between Imperial and Cibola NWR. 

ISSUE 14: AIRSPACE 

14.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Airspace issues included the need for a landing strip along the lower Colorado River for private 

pilot access to recreational uses, the concern for illegal plane landing on the YPG, and the need 

to close the dirt road northeast of Martinez Lake because it is being used as a landing strip and is 

unsafe for such use. 

14.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Consider appropriate management of resources and uses relative to overflights, as 

commercial and private overflights are a growing use of public lands. 

14.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Want continuous access to military training routes (airspace). 

14.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

The 1990 Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, which established the existing Wilderness Areas in the 

YFO, provided that these Wilderness designations were not to interfere with the continuing use 

of existing military training areas, modification of those military training areas, or the 

development of new low-level routes needed to support military training missions. 

14.5 ISSUES NOT WITHIN BLM JURISDICTION 

 Dirt road northeast of Martinez Lake is used as landing strip and should be closed due to 

safety concerns (not maintained, too close to Cibola Range, no security, obstructions in 

violation of Federal Aviation Administration rules). 

 YPG needs to be protected from air encroachment. Pilots fly illegally in YPG airspace and 

land on their property because there is no designated airstrip. 

ISSUE 15: GRAZING USE 

15.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Grazing issues raised included the statements that grazing provides an important economic 

benefit, and the need to coordinate grazing allotments with BLM Phoenix Field Office. Other 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.27 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

comments were received on the impacts of grazing to Sonoran pronghorn, desert tortoise, 

watershed, vegetation, invasive vegetation, soil, and during drought. It was requested that 

grazing allotment plans be very specific in terms of standards, stocking rates, and other standards 

including strategies to reduce grazing if necessary. 

15.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Evaluate whether and where certain lands are available for grazing.

 Consider closing ephemeral allotments that have not been grazed in 10-15 years. 

 Unauthorized grazing use is a problem.

 Evaluate existing and potential range improvements, including maintenance, to determine if 

they are compatible with land management goals.

 Re-evaluate the grazing classification for perennial and ephemeral (i.e., seasonal) allotments.

 Consider the application of the ephemeral rule to grazing on public lands.

15.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Open range areas and cattle guards are within close proximity to State Highways. 

 Grazing allotments are located near national wildlife refuges. Trespass livestock is a concern. 

15.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

BLM will manage grazing through existing laws, regulations, and policies including the Arizona 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. BLM will provide 

for livestock management in an environmentally sensitive manner consistent with resource 

management objectives, including achieving desired plant communities, and land use conditions. 

Proposed decisions will determine if allotments are available or unavailable to grazing in 

accordance with the TGA and, if available, in what manner. Decisions will include a strategy for 

ensuring that proper grazing practices are followed while preserving habitats for sensitive plant 

and wildlife species. Appropriate BMPs 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. 

ISSUE 16: LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS 

16.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

The identification of lands with wilderness characteristics was a frequently mentioned issue. 

Some commenters want lands with wilderness characteristics identified and protected and closed 

to OHV use. Specifically mentioned areas for identification include BLM lands adjacent to Kofa 

NWR Wilderness Areas, Columbus Peak, Cortez Peak, and all areas adjacent to existing YFO 

Wilderness Areas. Another public issue was the opposition to managing for wilderness 

Page 1-A.28 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

characteristics, and the statement that managing for wilderness characteristics essentially creates 

new Wilderness in violation of congressional intent.

16.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Consider wilderness characteristics when making land and resource allocations. 

16.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

No agency or tribal concerns were identified for this issue. 

16.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Consistent with BLM policy, the Secretary of the Interior letter to Senator Robert Bennett (dated 

April 11, 2003), and the settlement in the case of Utah v. Norton (dated April 14, 2003), BLM 

has the authority to discuss and incorporate wilderness values into the land use plan, in 

accordance with the public process incorporated in all land use planning efforts. Thus, BLM is 

committed to listening to public input through the land use planning process and, where 

appropriate, managing specified areas of land for wilderness values. However, BLM has no 

authority to establish new wilderness study areas or to report such areas to Congress. BLM can 

protect areas in their natural state using a wide range of land use tools other than the wilderness 

study area designation process. The BLM will review, through this planning process, lands 

within the planning area that may possess remote or primitive characteristics. 

16.5 ISSUES NOT WITHIN BLM JURISDICTION 

 Norton’s April 2003 settlement was unlawful and FLPMA gives BLM the authority to create 

wilderness study areas. 

ISSUE 17: SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

(including existing Wilderness Areas, NRTs, NHTs, Back Country Byways, and ACECs) 

17.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Issues focused on the need to identify and protect new and existing special areas in general and 

from activities including oil/gas development, logging, mining, OHV, grazing, and road 

construction. ACEC designation was requested for Sonoran pronghorn and desert tortoise 

habitat. It was also requested that the river corridor be designated as a natural resource area 

rather than general use. 

Comments were also received in opposition to Special Designations stating these designations 

benefit only those few who are fit enough to hike into them to enjoy them, there should be no 

further designations as there are numerous other Wilderness Areas available in the area, and all 

currently designated areas should be opened for access. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.29 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

17.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Identify partners for NRTs and NHTs.

 Evaluate potential for designating additional NRTs, NHTs, State recreation trails, and Back 

Country Byways.

17.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Concern that additional restrictive management or allocations will hinder AGFD ability to 

propose/implement wildlife management activities. 

 The RMP must be clear when describing management allocations. 

 AGFD supports designating key habitats as long as future conditions acknowledge wildlife as 

a management priority and prescriptions allow for both wildlife management and reasonable 

public access. 

 Prefer to not have additional closures or withdrawals on public lands. 

17.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

17.4.1 WILDERNESS AREAS 

Wilderness Areas are designated by Congress and are managed according to the Wilderness Act 

of 1964, the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990, regulations for Wilderness management at 

43 CFR 6300, BLM Manuals 8560 and 8561, BLM Handbook H-8560-1, interim operations 

plans currently in effect for range, wildlife, and fire management in Wilderness, and Wilderness 

Management Plans. The land use plan will not address reducing or eliminating existing 

Wilderness Areas, changing existing Wilderness boundaries, proposing new Wilderness Areas, 

or allowing motor vehicle or other use of mechanical transportation in any Wilderness Area not 

already authorized. 

17.4.2 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) 

ACECs will be designated where special management attention is required to protect historical, 

cultural, or scenic values, natural resources or processes, or human life and safety. Management 

requirements for ACECs will be identified in the plan. YFO is looking at selecting areas to 

consider for new designation (i.e., Dripping Springs and Colorado River Limitrophe), as well as 

expanding the existing Sears Point. ACECs should not be used as a substitute for Wilderness 

designation when an area otherwise meets the criteria for Wilderness. 

ISSUE 18: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

18.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

There were no comments received regarding environmental justice. 

Page 1-A.30 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

18.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

Management concerns will be identified during the Management Situation Analysis phase. 

18.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

No agency or tribal concerns were identified for this issue. 

18.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

The lifestyles of area residents will be considered in the plans for low income and minority 

populations. 

ISSUE 19: SOCIOECONOMICS 

19.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Many of the comments regarding socioeconomics focused on the issue of potential income or 

loss of income from various uses. This includes income from agricultural leases to the local 

agricultural economy and BLM (through lease) and economic benefits of ecotourism and the 

potential income loss if Wilderness is not protected. Other issues included the economic drain of 

grazing and the economic benefit of managing for wilderness characteristics rather than the more 

costly development, maintenance, restoration, and law enforcement required by OHV use. One 

comment pertained to the inability of some lower-income users to pay user fees, and that user 

fees impact the lower income users more than other users. 

19.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

Management concerns will be identified during the Management Situation Analysis phase. 

19.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Identify socioeconomic conditions for the local community related to the adjacent Imperial 

Sand Dunes. 

19.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Management actions will be evaluated for socioeconomic impacts by using the “Economic 

Profile System” and other tools such as IMPLAN.

19.5 ISSUES ADDRESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY 

 Area should be managed through a central office with local representatives. People of La Paz 

County have no way to communicate with BLM individual in person.

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.31 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

ISSUE 20: LAW ENFORCEMENT (INCLUDING PUBLIC 

SAFETY) 

20.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Law enforcement issues primarily focused on the need for more staff to better monitor the area, 

including dumping and trash stations, and stronger prosecution and fining of violators for 

activities such as illegal dumping, vandalism, illegal entry, and hunters taking game over the 

legal limit. 

20.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Determine which uses are incompatible due to public safety issues. Target shooting, for 

example, is a legitimate public lands use but may place nonparticipants at risk, particularly in 

areas of heavy use. 

 Consider the increasing concern regarding undocumented immigrant traffic and smuggling 

activities on the public lands relative to public and employee safety. 

 Determine what level of maintenance should be provided on roads to maintain access and to 

protect both public safety and natural and cultural resources. 

 Consider the effects of hazardous sites, including those created by illegal dumping, on public 

health and safety. 

 Consider outreach programs that provide visitor information including public safety, resource 

protection, and appropriate uses. 

 When developing resource management objectives, consider the need of an enforcement 

aspect, including developing appropriate penalties. 

 Determine what level of maintenance should be provided on roads to maintain access and to 

protect both public safety and natural and cultural resources. 

20.3 AGENCY CONCERNS 

 Address illegal dumping on public lands through proper coordination with local law 

enforcement. 

20.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

There are no resource-specific planning criteria identified for law enforcement. 

20.5 ISSUES ADDRESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY 

 The confluence needs to be cleaned up and maintained in a safe fashion. 

20.6 ISSUES NOT WITHIN BLM JURISDICTION 

 Some private land holders allow hunters to kill over their quota, hunters should be checked 

on. 

Page 1-A.32 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

ISSUE 21: BORDER ISSUES AND UNDOCUMENTED 

IMMIGRANTS 

21.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

There were a few comments received regarding border issues. Some issues focused on the 

impact of illegal immigration to natural resources and the creation of undesignated travel routes. 

Coordination between BLM and other agencies to address all environmental impacts of border 

control was also an issue. One comment stated that agricultural use aids in border control, 

allowing easier security of the area that would revert to underbrush, if not under agricultural 

production. 

21.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

Identify land use plan decisions that need to be made regarding International Boundary issues 

and law enforcement. 

Collaborate with other agencies to address the impacts on resources caused by undocumented 

immigrants and drug smugglers. 

Develop strategies to encourage undocumented immigrants to remain on existing roads, to not 

litter, and to protect and respect natural resources. 

 Undocumented immigrants and drug smugglers often drive vehicles off roads, leave behind 

trash, and burn campfires. This has resulted in management concerns including resource 

damage (to soils, vegetation, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, etc.), unsanitary human 

waste disposal, costly clean-up of trash, and the potential for wildfire. 

 Safety is another significant management concern. Undocumented immigrants are frequently 

ill-prepared for the harsh environmental and climatic conditions they encounter, particularly 

in the summer. This can result in the need for search and rescue operations. Recently, the 

illegal activities also have resulted in an increased concern for employee and visitor safety as 

drug smugglers and guides (also known as coyotes) leading the undocumented immigrants 

have been carrying and sometimes using lethal weapons. 

21.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 Distribution and species of vegetation to promote visibility of undocumented immigrants. 

 International Border issues related to local law enforcement coordination. 

21.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

There are no resource specific planning criteria identified for border issues and undocumented 

immigrants. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-A.33 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-A 

ISSUE 22: WILD HORSES AND BURROS 

22.1 PUBLIC ISSUE SUMMARY 

Few comments were received on this issue. Some stated that all wild horses and burros should be 

removed, while others emphasized more control of these animals. One comment stated that water 

holes for wildlife should also be available to burros. 

22.2 BLM MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

 Complete or incorporate Imperial-Trigo Cooperative Management Plan. 

 Manage for appropriate levels of utilization of key species. 

 Review herd management designations east of State Highway 95. 

22.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 There are wild horses and burros located on the national wildlife refuges. 

22.4 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Management of horses and burros would follow the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act 

(1971), as amended by FLPMA (1976) and Public Rangelands Improvement Act (1978). Horses 

and burros within California would be managed in accordance with the Northern and Eastern 

Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (2002). Management of wild horses and burros 

within the Cibola-Trigo HMA would be in accordance with the Herd Management Area Plan 

(HMAP) (1980). The HMAP would be revised to include multi-agency monitoring protocol, 

utilization levels, and HMA boundary as agreed to by Imperial-Trigo Planning Team. The 

NWRs are not within the HMA, however, wild horse and burro use is allowed at minimal levels. 

Monitoring data will be used to determine AML2s and guide removals to ensure that limits set by 

the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration are 

maintained. 

Page 1-A.34 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

LAWS, REGULATIONS, 

AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS 

BLM must comply with the mandate and intent of the following Federal laws (and any 

applicable regulations) and EOs that apply to BLM-administered lands and resources in the 

planning area. 

AIR 

Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

The primary objective of the CAA is to establish Federal standards for various pollutants from 

both stationary and mobile sources and to provide for the regulation of polluting emissions via 

state implementation plans. In addition, the amendments are designed to prevent significant 

deterioration in certain areas where air quality exceeds national standards, and to provide for 

improved air quality in areas which do not meet Federal standards ("non-attainment" areas). 

Federal facilities are required to comply with air quality standards to the same extent as 

nongovernmental entities. Part C of the 1977 amendments stipulates requirements to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality and, in particular, to preserve air quality in national parks, 

national Wilderness Areas, national monuments and national seashores. 

The amendments establish Class I, II and III areas, where emissions of particulate matter and 

sulfur dioxide are to be restricted. The restrictions are most severe in Class I areas and are 

progressively more lenient in Class II and III areas. 

Mandatory Class I Federal lands include all national Wilderness Areas exceeding 500 acres. 

Federal land managers are charged with direct responsibility to protect the air quality and related 

values (including visibility) of Class I lands and to consider, in consultation with EPA, whether 

proposed facilities will have an adverse impact on these values. 

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act 42 U.S.C. 1996 

This act recognizes that freedom of religion for all people is an inherent right and that traditional 

American Indian religions are an indispensable and irreplaceable part of Indian life. Establishing 

Federal policy to protect and preserve the inherent right of religions freedom for Native 

Americans, this act requires Federal agencies evaluate their actions and policies to determine if 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

changes should be made to protect and preserve the religious cultural rights and practices of 

Native Americans. Such evaluations are made in consultation with native traditional religious 

leaders. 

Consultation & Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments EO 13175, November 6, 2000 

In formulating or implementing policies that have tribal implications, agencies shall respect 

Indian tribal self-government and sovereignty, honor tribal treaty and other rights, and strive to 

meet the responsibilities that arise from the unique legal relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribal governments. 

Indian Sacred Sites EO 13007, May 24, 1996 

In managing Federal lands, agencies shall, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not 

inconsistent with agency functions, accommodate Indian religious practitioners’ access to and 

ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites. Agencies are to avoid adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of these sites, maintaining the confidentiality of such sites, and informing tribes of any 

proposed actions that could restrict access to, ceremonial use of, or adversely affect the physical 

integrity of, sacred sites. 

Native American Graves Protection 

& Repatriation Act 25 U.S.C. 3001-13 

This act establishes requirements for the treatment of Native American human remains and 

sacred or cultural objects found on Federal land. 

In any case where such items can be associated with specific Tribes or groups of Tribes, the 

agency is required to provide notice of the item in question to the Tribe or Tribes. Upon request, 

each agency is required to return any such item to any lineal descendant or specific Tribe with 

whom such item is associated. There are various additional requirements imposed upon the 

Secretary. 

ANTIQUITIES/ARCHAEOLOGY 

Antiquities Act 16 U.S.C. 431-433 

This act authorizes the President to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic 

or scientific interest on lands owned or controlled by the U.S. The act required that a permit be 

obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the gathering of objects 

of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Army, 

and provided penalties for violations. 

Page 1-B.2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Archeological and Historic 

Preservation Act 16 U.S.C. 469-469c 

This law was enacted to carry out the policy established by the Historic Sites Act, directed 

Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they find a Federal or federally 

assisted, licensed or permitted project may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, 

prehistoric or archaeological data. The act authorized use of appropriated, donated and/or 

transferred funds for the recovery, protection and preservation of such data. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act 16 U.S.C. 470aa - 470ll

This act largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act for 

archaeological items. It established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any 

excavation for or removal of archaeological resources from Federal or Indian lands. It also 

established civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of 

any such resources; for any trafficking in such resources removed from Federal or Indian land in 

violation of any provision of Federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such 

resources acquired, transported or received in violation of any State or local law. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and 

Antiquities Act 16 U.S.C. 461-462, 464-467 

This act declared it a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national 

significance. It provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration and protection of 

such sites. Among other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under 

authority of this act. 

National Historic Preservation Act 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. 

This act provided for preservation of significant historical features (buildings, objects and sites) 

through a grant-in-aid program to the states. It established a National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) and a program of matching grants under the existing National Trust for Historic 

Preservation. The act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was made 

a permanent independent agency in1976. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the 

effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Preserve America EO 13287, March 3, 2003 

Agencies shall provide leadership in preserving America’s heritage by actively advancing the 

protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of the historic properties owned by the Federal 

government. 

Each agency is to provide and maintain an assessment of the status of its inventory of historic 

properties and their ability to contribute to community economic development initiatives. 

Where consistent with its mission and governing authorities, and where appropriate, agencies 

shall seek partnerships with State and local governments, Indian tribes, and the private sector to 

promote the unique cultural heritage of communities and of the nation and to realize the 

economic benefit that these properties can provide; and cooperate with communities to increase 

opportunities for public benefit from, and access to, federally owned historic properties. 

Protection & Enhancement of 

Cultural Environment EO 11593, May 13, 1971 

Federal agencies are to provide leadership in the preservation, restoration, and maintenance of 

the historic and cultural environment. Agencies are to locate and evaluate all Federal sites under 

their jurisdiction or control which may qualify for listing on the NRHP or sites that qualify. 

Agencies are to initiate procedures to maintain such federally owned sites. The Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation must be allowed to comment on the alteration, demolition, sale, or 

transfer of property which is likely to meet the criteria for listing as determined in consultation 

with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

ENVIRONMENT - GENERAL 

Environmental Quality 

Improvement Act 42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq. 

Ensures each Federal agency conducting or supporting public works activities affecting the 

environment implements policies established under existing law principally by establishing the 

Office of Environmental Quality to provide assistance to, and oversight of, Federal agencies. 

Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. 

The “Organic Act” for the BLM, this act provides for the inventory and planning of the public 

lands to ensure that these lands are managed in accordance with the intent of Congress under the 

principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The lands are to 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 

Page 1-B.4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

and protect certain public lands in their natural conditions, 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. Many old laws were 

repealed but rights obtained under those laws are protected. New authority for the disposal of 

appropriate public lands through sale or exchange is provided. ROW granting procedures are 

provided for both the BLM and the Forest Service. The regulations contained in 43 CFR Part 

1600 govern the BLM planning process. 

National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

NEPA encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment and 

promotes efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and 

stimulate the health and welfare of man; enriches the understanding of the ecological systems 

and natural resources important to the Nation. 

NEPA requires that for recommendations or reports on proposals for legislation and other major 

actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment that Federal agencies 

through a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the 

natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making 

which may have an impact on man's environment; include a detailed statement by the 

responsible official on: the environmental impact of the proposed action; any adverse 

environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; alternatives 

to the proposed action; the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and any irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it 

be implemented. 

Protection & Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality EO 11514, March 5, 1970 

Federal agencies shall initiate measures needed to direct their policies, plans and programs so as 

to meet national environmental goals of protecting and enhancing the quality of the Nation's 

environment to sustain and enrich human life. 

Agencies should monitor, evaluate, and control on a continuing basis their agencies' activities so 

as to protect and enhance the quality of the environment. Such activities shall include those 

directed to controlling pollution and enhancing the environment and those designed to 

accomplish other program objectives which may affect the quality of the environment. 

Agencies shall ensure the fullest practicable provision of timely public information and 

understanding of Federal plans and programs with environmental impact in order to obtain the 

views of interested parties. This will include, whenever appropriate, provision for public 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

hearings, and shall provide the public with relevant information, including information on 

alternative courses of action. 

Federal Action to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations EO 12898, February 11, 1994 

Agencies shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. 

FIRE 

Timber Protection Act 16 U.S.C. 594 

This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to protect timber on lands under the Department's 

jurisdiction from fire, disease and insects 

FISH & WILDLIFE 

Animal Damage Control Act 7 U.S.C. 426-426c 

This act, as amended, gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority for investigation, 

demonstrations and control of mammalian predators, rodents and birds. 

Bald Eagle Protection Act 16 U.S.C. 668-668d 

This law provides for the protection of the bald eagle (the national emblem) and the golden eagle 

by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession and commerce 

of such birds. 

Conservation of Migratory Birds EO 13186, 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 MOU within two years of its implementation. The order will be coordinated and 

implemented by the USFWS. 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 

Page 1-B.6 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

agency planning, including NEPA analyses; and reporting annually on the level of take of 

migratory birds. 

Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. 1532 et seq. 

This act provides for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend, both through Federal action and by encouraging the 

establishment of State programs. The act: authorizes the determination and listing of species as 

endangered and threatened; prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of 

endangered species; provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, 

using land and water conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements 

and grants-in-aid to states that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for 

endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal 

penalties for violating the act or regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone 

furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the act or any 

regulation issued there under. 

Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or 

carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify 

their critical habitat. 

Exotic Organisms EO 11987, May 24, 1977 

Agencies, to the extent permitted by law, are to: restrict the introduction of exotic species into 

the natural ecosystems on lands and waters owned or leased by the U.S.; encourage states, local 

governments, and private citizens to prevent the introduction of exotic species into natural 

ecosystems of the U.S.; restrict the importation and introduction of exotic species into any 

natural U.S. ecosystems as a result of activities they undertake, fund, or authorize; and restrict 

the use of Federal funds, programs, or authorities to export native species for introduction into 

ecosystems outside the U.S. where they do not occur naturally. 

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 U.S., 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 province from which it was obtained. The USDOI has authority to arrest, with or 

without a warrant, a person violating the act. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act P.L. 106-247 

This act provides grants to countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the U.S. for the 

conservation of neotropical migratory birds that winter south of the border and summer in North 

America. The law encourages habitat protection, education, researching, monitoring, and 

capacity building to provide for the long-term protection of neotropical migratory birds. 

Recreational Fisheries EO 12962, June 7, 1995 

Agencies shall improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. 

aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities by such activities as: 

developing and encouraging partnerships between governments and the private sector to advance 

aquatic resource conservation and enhance recreational fishing opportunities, identifying 

recreational fishing opportunities that are limited by water quality and habitat degradation and 

promoting restoration to support viable, healthy, and, where feasible, self-sustaining recreational 

fisheries, fostering sound aquatic conservation and restoration endeavors to benefit recreational 

fisheries, supporting outreach programs designed to stimulate angler participation in the 

conservation and restoration of aquatic systems, and implementing laws under their purview in a 

manner that will conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems that support recreational 

fisheries. 

Sikes Act 16 U.S.C. 670 

The Sikes Act, as amended, (Public Law 86-797, approved September 15, 1960), provides for 

cooperation by the USDOI and Defense with State agencies in planning, development and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources on military reservations throughout the U.S. An 

amendment enacted August 8, 1968, (P.L. 90-465, 82 Stat. 661) authorizes a program for 

development of outdoor recreation facilities. Public Law 93-452, signed October 18, 1974, (88 

Stat. 1369) authorized conservation and rehabilitation programs on Atomic Energy Commission, 

Forest Service, and BLM lands. These programs are carried out in cooperation with the States by 

the Secretary of the Interior and on Forest Service lands by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

FORESTS 

Forest Service Authorities 

Some of the laws governing the operations and activities of the Forest Service are: 

• The National Forest Management Act of 1976, which extensively amended the Forest 

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and 

which constitutes the "organic act" for the Forest Service. 

Page 1-B.8 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

• The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) established 

purposes for the Forest System, including outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed 

and fish and wildlife. 

• The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (16 U.S.C. 2100 et seq.), authorizes the 

Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate on forest management issues with non-Federal 

forest lands. 

Various other laws and authorities for the Forest Service are codified at 16 U.S.C. sections 471 

through 573. 

Timber Protection Act 16 U.S.C. 594 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to protect timber on lands under the 

Department's jurisdiction from fire, disease, and insects 

LAND 

Desert Land Act 43 U.S.C. 321 et seq. 

This act allows entry of up to 320 acres of desert land where the entryman intends to reclaim the 

land for agricultural purposes within three years. Lands must be determined to be available and 

classified pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 315f before such an entry can be allowed. 

Exchanges of Public Land for 

Non-Federal Land 43 U.S.C. 1716 

Allows the exchange of Public Land, or interests therein, for non-Federal lands where it is 

determined (the Secretary finds) that the public interest will be well served by making the 

exchange. Values of the disposed and acquired lands must be equal in value. 

Federal Land Exchange 

Facilitation Act 43 U.S.C. 1716, August 20, 

1988 

Basically amends the exchange provisions of FLPMA to streamline and facilitate land exchange 

procedures and to expedite exchanges. 

Federal Land Transaction 

Facilitation Act PL 106-248, July 25, 2000 

Provides a more expeditious process for disposal and acquisition of land to facilitate a more 

effective configuration of land ownership patterns. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Funds from the sale of specified land is deposited in a special fund available to acquire land and 

to process additional land sales. 

Recreation and Public Purposes 

Act 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq. 

This act provides for the lease or disposal of public lands, and certain withdrawn or reserved 

lands, to State and local governments and qualified non-profit organizations to be used for 

recreational or public purposes. Prices that are charged for land use or acquisition are normally 

less than market value of the specific lands. The act allows for reversion of the lands under 

certain conditions. 

MINING & MINERAL LEASING 

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments 

Act 30 U.S.C. 201 

This act made major changes in the way coal leases tracts are established, economic and 

environmental considerations, sale/leasing procedures, and penalties for violations. 

General Mining Law 30 U.S.C. 21 et seq. 

This authority sets forth rules and procedures for the exploration, location and patenting of lode, 

placer, and mill site mining claims. Claimants must file notice of the original claim with the 

BLM as well as annual notice of intention to hold, affidavit of assessment work or similar notice. 

Geothermal Steam Act 30 USC 1001 et seq. 

This act authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related resources on public 

lands 

Materials Sales Act 30 U.S.C. 601-604 

This act provides for the disposal of materials on public lands and requires the Secretary, under 

such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, may dispose of mineral materials (including but 

not limited to common varieties of the following: sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders, 

and clay) and vegetative materials (including but not limited to yucca, manzanita, mesquite, 

cactus, and timber or other forest products) on public lands of the U.S. Such materials may be 

disposed of upon the payment of adequate compensation. The Secretary is authorized in his 

discretion to permit any Federal, State, or Territorial agency, unit or subdivision, including 

municipalities, or any association or corporation not organized for profit, to take and remove, 

without charge, materials and resources for use other than for commercial or industrial purposes 

or resale. 

Page 1-B.10 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Mineral Leasing Act 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. 

This act authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of deposits of coal, oil, 

gas and other hydrocarbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium and sodium. 

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired 

Lands 30 U.S.C. 351 et seq. 

This act authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired lands. 

Mining & Mineral Policy Act 30 U.S.C. 21a 

This act expressed the national policy to foster and encourage private enterprise in the 

development of economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral 

reclamation industries, the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources, 

reserves, and reclamation of metals and minerals to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security 

and environmental needs, mining, mineral, and metallurgical research, including the use and 

recycling of scrap to promote the wise and efficient use of our natural and reclaimable mineral 

resources, and the study and development of methods for the disposal, control, and reclamation 

of mineral waste products, and the reclamation of mined land, so as to lessen any adverse impact 

of mineral extraction and processing upon the physical environment that may result from mining 

or mineral activities. 

Stock Raising Homestead Act 43 U.S.C. 291-299 

Patents issued under this authority reserved minerals to the U.S. as well as the right to prospect 

for, mine, and remove said minerals. Certain conditions exist to protect the patentee’s 

improvements. 

Surface Mining Control & 

Reclamation Act 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. 

This act establishes a program for the regulation of surface mining activities and the reclamation 

of coal-mined lands, under the administration of the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and 

Enforcement, in the USDOI. 

The law sets forth minimum uniform requirements for all coal surface mining on Federal and 

State lands, including exploration activities and the surface effects of underground mining. Mine 

operators are required to minimize disturbances and adverse impact on fish, wildlife and related 

environmental values and achieve enhancement of such resources where practicable. Restoration 

of land and water resources is ranked as a priority in reclamation planning. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

POLLUTION—GENERAL 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response Compensation & 

Liability Act (Superfund) 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. 

The "Superfund" statute was enacted in 1980; major amendments were enacted in 1983 and in 

1986. The 1980 statute authorized, through 1985, the collection of taxes on crude oil and 

petroleum products, certain chemicals, and hazardous wastes. It also established liability to the 

U.S. Government for damage to natural resources over which the U.S. has sovereign rights and 

requires the President to designate Federal officials to act as trustees for natural resources. Use 

of Superfund monies to conduct natural resource damage assessments was provided. 

The 1983 amendments established a comprehensive system to react to releases of hazardous 

substances and to determine liability and compensation for those affected. The President is 

authorized to notify Federal and State natural resource trustees of potential damages to natural 

resources and to coordinate related assessments. 

Amendments enacted in 1986 (known as the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act, 

among others, 1) added effects on natural resources as a criterion for determining facilities to be 

placed on the National Priorities List, 2) mandated the designation of Federal officials to act as 

trustees for natural resources and to assess damages and injury to, as well as destruction of, or 

loss of, natural resources, 3) stipulated that Superfund monies may only be used for natural 

resource damage claims if all administrative and judicial remedies to recover costs from liable 

parties have been exhausted, 4) clarified that Federal facilities are subject to the same cleanup 

requirements and liability standards as non-governmental entities, and 5) eliminated the 

authorization for use of Superfund monies to conduct damage assessments. 

Federal Environmental Pesticide 

Control Act 7 U.S.C. 136 

This act, in simple terms, provided for a program for controlling the sale, distribution, and 

application of pesticides through an administrative registration process and for classifying 

pesticides for "general" or "restricted" use. "Restricted" pesticides may only be applied by or 

under the direct supervision of a certified applicator 

Federal Compliance with Pollution 

Control Standards EO 12088 

To ensure Federal compliance with applicable pollution control standards, this EO provides as 

follows: 1) The head of each Executive agency is responsible for ensuring that all necessary 

actions are taken for the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution with 

respect to Federal facilities and activities under the control of the agency, and 2) The head of 

each Executive agency is responsible for compliance with applicable pollution control standards. 

Page 1-B.12 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Applicable pollution control standards means the same substantive, procedural, and other 

requirements that would apply to a private person.

Superfund Implementation EO 12580 

This EO delegates to various Federal officials the responsibilities vested in the President for 

implementing the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. 

This EO and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (the implementing regulations of CERCLA) 

are the basis of DOE’s authority to implement CERCLA at DOE facilities. The EO delegates the 

authority and responsibility to DOE, while the NCP describes EPA’s procedures for 

implementing the CERCLA program. DOE is required to carry out a number of key functions, 

including, providing representatives to the National Response Team, the interagency 

organization responsible for planning for and responding to CERCLA releases; acting as a 

natural resource trustee for land that DOE manages; performing natural resource damage 

assessments (NRDA); and assuming authority for response actions resulting from releases of 

hazardous substances on, over, or under land that DOE manages. 

Federal Compliance with Right to 

Know Laws and Pollution 

Prevention Requirements EO 12856, August 3, 1993 

Requires agencies to comply with the provisions of the Pollution Prevention Act and to assure all 

necessary actions are taken to prevent pollution. The CEQ provided guidance on pollution 

prevention in the Federal Register of January 29, 1993. 

Resource Conservation & 

Recovery Act 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 

This act regulates the treatment, transportation, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous 

wastes. The Service is required to comply with standards for wastes generated at its facilities. 

The key provisions include: 

 Identification and listing of hazardous waste and standards applicable to hazardous waste -- 

Requires reporting of hazardous waste, permitting for storage, transport, and disposal, and it 

includes provisions for oil recycling and Federal hazardous waste facilities inventories. 

 Management for solid waste, including landfills. 

 Applicability of Federal, State, and local laws to Federal agencies. 

 Management, replacement, and monitoring of underground storage tanks. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Toxic Substances Control Act 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. 

This act authorized the EPA to obtain data from industry on health and environmental effects of 

chemical substances and mixtures. If unreasonable risk or injury may occur, EPA may regulate, 

limit or prohibit the manufacture, processing, commercial distribution, use and disposal of such 

chemicals and mixtures. 

Pollution Prevention Act 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. 

This act 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. 

Solid Waste Disposal Act 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 

Establishes a national policy that, wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be 

reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Waste that is nevertheless generated should 

be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to minimize the present and future threat to human health 

and the environment. It directs the EPA to provide guidelines for the treatment, handling, and 

storage of such wastes. 

RANGELANDS 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq. 

This act provides the Secretary of Agriculture authority to designate plants as noxious weeds by 

regulation, and prohibits the movement of all such weeds in interstate or foreign commerce 

except under permit. The Secretary also has authority to inspect, seize and destroy products, and 

to quarantine areas, if necessary to prevent the spread of such weeds. He is also authorized to 

cooperate with other Federal, State and local agencies, farmers associations and private 

individuals in measures to control, eradicate, or prevent or retard the spread of such weeds. 

Each Federal land-managing agency is to designate an office or person adequately trained in 

managing undesirable plant species to develop and coordinate a program to control such plants 

on the agency's land. 

Page 1-B.14 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Invasive Species EO 13112, February 3, 1999 

The purpose is to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control, as 

well as to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species 

cause. 

Agencies whose actions may affect the status of invasive species shall: (1) identify such actions, 

(2) use relevant programs and authorities to prevent, control, monitor, and research such species, 

and (3) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the 

introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere 

Noxious Plant Control Act 43 U.S.C. 1241-43 

Authorizes agencies to allow, and pay for, State authorities to enter Federal land for the 

control/destruction of noxious plants. 

Public Rangelands Improvement 

Act 43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. 

This act was instituted to improve public rangeland conditions in the 16 contiguous western 

states on which there is, or is capable 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. 

Taylor Grazing Act 43 U.S.C. 215 et seq. 

The TGA was the Federal government’s first effort to regulate grazing on federal lands. Under 

the act grazing districts were established of vacant, unreserved, public domain lands which were 

chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops. Grazing is regulated through leases or 

licenses for which a fee is paid. Regulations provide for the development of state Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guideline for Grazing Management. Such standards and guidelines are 

approved through the BLM’s planning and NEPA processes. 

The TGA also eliminated settlement on the public domain and provided for the classification and 

disposal of public lands more valuable for uses other than grazing or the production of 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 BLM planning and NEPA 

processes. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Wild Free-Roaming Horse & Burro Act 16 U.S.C. 1331-1340 

This act provides for protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros. It directs the BLM of 

the USDOI and Forest Service to manage such animals on public lands under their jurisdiction. 

RECREATION 

RIGHTS-OF-WAY 

With the passage of FLPMA in 1976, BLM was left with existing ROWs (“Pre-FLPMA” 

ROWs) and three basic authorities under which public lands may be used or dedicated to various 

types of ROWs. 

Action to Expedite Energy 

Related Projects EO 13212, May 18, 2001 

For energy-related projects, agencies shall expedite their review of permits or take other actions 

as necessary to accelerate the completion of such projects, while maintaining safety, public 

health, and environmental protections. The agencies shall take such actions to the extent 

permitted by law and regulation, and where appropriate. 

Environmental Stewardship & 

Transportation Infrastructure 

Project Reviews EO 13274, September 18, 2002 

Agencies shall take appropriate actions, to the extent consistent with applicable law and 

available resources, to promote environmental stewardship in the Nation's transportation system 

and expedite environmental reviews of high-priority transportation infrastructure projects. 

For transportation infrastructure projects, agencies shall, in support of the Department of 

Transportation, formulate and implement administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms that 

enable each agency required by law to conduct environmental reviews with respect to such 

projects to ensure completion of such reviews in a timely and environmentally responsible 

manner. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use EO 13211, May 18, 2001 

This order requires an impact and alternative analysis for any proposed rule that would have an 

adverse impact on energy supply, distribution, or use. 

Federal Aid Highways 23 U.S.C. 317 

Page 1-B.16 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Where Federal Aid highways are involved, the Secretary of Transportation may appropriate 

Federal land for such highway projects. Applications or requests are usually filed by the State 

Department of Transportation through the local office of the FHWA. If BLM does not 

disapprove such a request within 120 days, the appropriation is automatic. When BLM issues a 

letter “consenting” to the appropriation reasonable terms and conditions may be included. 

FLPMA ROWs 43 U.S.C. 1761 et seq. 

Title V of FLPMA gives the BLM authority to authorize most types of ROW use, other than oil 

& gas ROWs, on the public lands. The term of the ROW is determined by need and conditions; it 

may be indefinite but usually is around 30 years. ROWs may be renewed. 

Off-Road Vehicles EO 11644, February 8, 1972

and EO 11989, May 24, 1977 

These orders require public land managers "to establish policies and procedures that will ensure 

that the use of off-highway vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed to protect the 

resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize 

conflicts among the various uses of those lands." 

Oil and Gas Pipeline ROWs 30 U.S.C. 185 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, contains provisions for the issuance of ROWs for 

the transportation of natural gas and oil or products derived there from. The term of the ROW is 

limited to 30 years but is renewable. Where an application involves land administered by two or 

more Federal agencies, the Secretary of the Interior has delegated the decision making to the 

BLM. Federal agencies are not eligible under this authority. 

Pre-FLPMA ROWs 43 U.S.C. 1701 Savings 

Provision 

Various laws provided for ROWs ranging from ditches and canals through communications to 

railroads. Some are indefinite in term and will remain under the pre-FLPMA authority until 

abandoned. Others have definite terms and will come under current authorities if amended or 

renewed. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

RIVERS AND STREAMS 

American Heritage Rivers EO 13061, September 11, 1997 

This EO has three objectives: natural resource and environmental protection, economic 

revitalization, and historic and cultural preservation. Agencies, to the extent permitted by law 

and consistent with their missions and resources, shall coordinate Federal plans, functions, 

programs, and resources to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their associated resources 

important to our history, culture, and natural heritage 

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

This act establishes a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and prescribes the methods and 

standards through which additional rivers may be identified and added to the system. 

TRAILS 

National Parks and Recreation 

Act of 1978 PL 95-625 

This act provides for increases in appropriations ceilings, development ceilings, land acquisition, 

and boundary changes in certain Federal park and recreation areas, and for other purposes. It 

provides for the establishment of new units of the national park system, numerous boundary 

changes, and authorization increases for existing units of the national park system, and 

designated portions of a number of existing national park system areas as Wilderness. It also 

established a new category in the National Trails System labeled "National Historic Trails" and 

would designate additional national scenic trails. 

National Trails System Act 16 U.S.C. 1241-1249 

This act provides for establishment of NRTs, National Scenic Trails, and National Historic Trails 

NHTs. 

NRTs may be established by the Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture on land wholly or partly 

within their jurisdiction, with the consent of the involved State(s), and other land managing 

agencies, if any. National Scenic Trails and NHTs may only be designated by an act of Congress. 

Page 1-B.18 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

WATER—GENERAL 

Arizona Revised Statutes A.R.S. Title 45 – Waters 

Title 45 of the Arizona Revised Statues governs water use within the State. Arizona’s water law 

is based on the doctrine of prior appropriation, but it is administered based on a bifurcated 

system where surface water is regulated separately from ground water. There are basically four 

categories of water supplies available in Arizona: Colorado River water, surface water other than 

Colorado River water, ground water, and effluent. Each water supply is managed in a different 

manner. Colorado River water is allocated through the Law of the River and Arizona's water 

banking program, surface water rights are based on "first in time, first in right," and groundwater 

rights vary depending on location. 

Clean Water Act PL 95-217 

The CWA extensively amended the Federal Water Pollution Act. Of particular significance were 

the following provisions: 

Colorado River Floodway 

Protection Act 100 Stat. 1129 

This act established a Colorado River Floodway Area, within which are prohibited 1) all new 

Federal funding or financial assistance for any purpose (except for listed exceptions), 2) Federal 

flood insurance for new construction or substantial improvements begun six months after 

enactment on existing structures, and 3) the granting of new Federal leases (unless the Secretary 

determines the purpose is consistent with the act). 

Colorado River Basin Project Act 43 U.S.C. 1501-1556 

This act provided a program for the comprehensive development of the water resources of the 

Colorado River Basin, and directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop, after consultation 

with affected states and appropriate Federal agencies, a regional water plan to serve as the 

framework under which projects in the Colorado River Basin may be coordinated and 

constructed. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Act 43 USC 1571-1599 

This act authorized the construction of facilities necessary to meet the terms of the 1973 Salinity 

Agreement with Mexico. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Colorado River Storage Project Act 43 U.S.C. 620 

This act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to construct a variety of dams, power plants, 

reservoirs and related works. The act also authorized and directed the Secretary, in connection 

with the development of the Colorado River Storage Project and participating projects, to 

investigate, plan, construct and operate facilities to mitigate losses of, and improve conditions 

for, fish and wildlife and public recreational facilities. The act provided authority to acquire 

lands and to lease or convey lands and facilities to State and other agencies. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

The original 1948 statute, the Water Pollution Control Act, authorized the Surgeon General of 

the Public Health Service, in cooperation with other Federal, State and local entities, to prepare 

comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and 

tributaries and improving the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters. During the 

development of such plans, due regard was to be given to improvements necessary to conserve 

waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life, recreational purposes, and 

agricultural and industrial uses. The original statute also authorized the Federal Works 

Administrator to assist states, municipalities, and interstate agencies in constructing treatment 

plants to prevent discharges of inadequately treated sewage and other wastes into interstate 

waters or tributaries. 

Since 1948, the original statute has been amended extensively either to authorize additional 

water quality programs, standards and procedures to govern allowable discharges, funding for 

construction grants or general program funding. Amendments in other years provided for 

continued authority to conduct program activities or administrative changes to related activities. 

 Development of a "Best Management Practices" Program as part of the State area wide 

planning program 

 Authority for the USACE to issue general permits on a state, regional, or national basis for 

any category of activities which are similar in nature, will cause only minimal environmental 

effects when performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse impact 

on the environment 

 Exemption of various activities from the dredge and fill prohibition including normal 

farming, silviculture, and ranching activities (33 USC 1344(f)) 

 Procedures for State assumption of the regulatory program. 

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 permit. National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 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 U.S. Section 404 permits are issued by the 

USACE. 

Page 1-B.20 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Flood Control Act 16 U.S.C. 460d et seq. 

This act, as amended and supplemented by other flood control acts and river and harbor acts, 

authorizes various USACE water development projects. This statute expressed Congressional 

intent to limit the authorization and construction of navigation, flood control, and other water 

projects to those having significant benefits for navigation and which could be operated 

consistent with other river uses. The authority to construct, operate and maintain public park and 

recreational facilities in reservoir areas was also provided. 

Floodplain Management EO 11988, May 24, 1977 

The purpose of this EO is to prevent agencies from contributing to the "adverse impacts 

associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains" and the "direct or indirect 

support of floodplain development." 

In the course of fulfilling their respective authorities, agencies "shall take action to reduce the 

risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains." 

Before proposing, conducting, supporting or allowing an action in a floodplain, each agency is to 

determine if planned activities will affect the floodplain and evaluate the potential effects of the 

intended actions on its functions. Agencies shall avoid siting development in a floodplain "to 

avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in the floodplains," 

Oil Pollution Act 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. 

This act established new requirements and extensively amended the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act to provide enhanced capabilities for oil spill response and natural resource damage 

assessment 

Among other provisions are that Federal trustees shall assess natural resource damages for 

natural resources under their trusteeship. Federal trustees may, upon request from a State or 

Indian tribe, assess damages to natural resources for them as well. Trustees shall develop and 

implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent 

of natural resources under their trusteeship. 

Protection of Wetlands EO 11990, May 24, 1977 

Similar to Floodplain Management, agencies are directed to consider alternatives to avoid 

adverse effects and incompatible developments in areas of wetlands. New construction is to be 

avoided if possible. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.21 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Safe Drinking Water Act 42 U.S.C. 300h 

This act establishes a program to monitor and increase the safety of all commercially and 

publicly supplied drinking water. This act was amended in 1986 to require the EPA to establish 

Maximum Contaminant Levels, Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, and Best Available 

Technology treatment techniques for organic, inorganic, radioactive, and microbial 

contaminants, and turbidity. In 1996, current Federal Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and 

Best Available Technology treatment techniques in public drinking water supplies were set. 

Water Quality Act PL 100-4 

This act provided the most recent series of amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Act. 

Provisions included: 

 Requirement that states develop strategies for toxics cleanup in waters where the application 

of "Best Available Technology" discharge standards is not sufficient to meet State water 

quality standards and support public health, 

 Increase in the penalties for violations of Section 404 permits, and 

 Requirement that EPA study and monitor the water quality effects attributable to the 

impoundment of water by dams. 

Water Resources Planning Act 42 U.S.C. 1962a - 1962(a)(4)(e) 

This act established a Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet representatives, 

including the Secretary of the Interior. It also established River Basin Commissions and 

stipulated their duties and authorities. 

The Council was empowered to maintain a continuing assessment of the adequacy of water 

supplies in each region of the U.S. In addition, the Council was mandated to establish principles 

and standards for Federal participants in the preparation of river basin plans and in evaluating 

Federal water projects. Upon receipt of a river basin plan, the Council was required to review the 

plan with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, industrial, recreational and fish and wildlife 

needs. 

Water Rights 43 U.S.C. 666 

This act waives the sovereign immunity of the U.S. where there is a suit designed to establish the 

rights to a river or other source of water, or the administration of such rights, and the U.S. 

appears to own or be in the process of acquiring rights to any such water. (The effect is to permit 

State courts to adjudicate Federal water rights claims under State law.) 

Page 1-B.22 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

WILDERNESS 

Arizona Desert Wilderness P.L. 101-628 

This act added 38 BLM administered areas and four USFWS administered areas in Arizona to 

the National Wilderness Preservation System and increased the size of an existing BLM 

Wilderness. Additional provisions of the act included the retention of two BLM areas in 

wilderness study status and the designation of a National Conservation Area. The YFO 

administers four Wilderness Areas (Eagletail Mountains, Muggins Mountain, New Water 

Mountains, and Trigo Mountains) designated by this act. 

The California Desert Protection 

Act P.L. 103-433 

This act designated lands in the BLM California Desert District as Wilderness, established Death 

Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks, and established the Mojave National Preserve. The YFO 

administers portions of four Wilderness Areas (Big Maria Mountains, Little Picacho, Palo Verde 

Mountains, and Riverside Mountains) designated by this act in coordination with two California 

Desert District Field Offices. 

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

This act established a National Wilderness System of areas to be designated by Congress. It 

directed the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or 

more acres and every roadless island (regardless of size) within NWR and NPS and to 

recommend to the President the suitability of each such area or island for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System, with final decisions made by Congress. The Secretary 

of Agriculture was directed to study and recommend suitable areas in the National Forest 

System. 

The act provides criteria for determining suitability and establishes restrictions on activities that 

can be undertaken on a designated area. 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. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.23 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

OTHER 

Base Closure & Realignment Act Title II of P.L. 100-526 

The act establishes a preference for the sale of land made surplus as a result of base closures or 

reductions, with the funds to be utilized for the costs of the closures, or for transfer of the land to 

a local redevelopment authority. It does not require such sales, however, nor does it repeal the 

provisions of law permitting the no- or reduced-cost transfer of such land to Federal agencies or 

the states for conservation purposes. 

Cave Resources Protection Act 16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. 

This act established requirements for the management and protection of caves and their 

resources on Federal lands, including allowing the land managing agencies to withhold the 

location of caves from the public, and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities 

in caves on Federal lands. 

Federal Advisory Committee Act P.L. 92-463 

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (or FACA) is a U.S. federal law(P.L. 92-463, October 6, 

1972), which governs the behavior of advisory committees. In particular it restricts the formation 

of such committees to only those which are deemed essential, limits their powers to provision of 

advice to officers and agencies in the executive branch of the Federal government, and limits the 

length of term during which any such committee may operate. Further, the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act was an attempt by congress to curtail the rampant "locker-room discussion" that 

had become prevalent in administrative decisions. The Federal Advisory Committee Act 

declared that all administrative procedures and hearings were to be public knowledge. Also see 

"sunshine clause" and "Administrative Procedure Act Section 553." 

Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791-828c 

Established what is now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Studies water related 

power development possibilities. Licenses and oversees the development of water power project 

on Federal and non-Federal land. On Federal land coordinates with agencies and, for some 

agencies they may dictate conditions to be included in licenses. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also regulates interstate electric transmission lines 

and interstate oil and gas pipelines. Issues “certificates of public convenience” for these 

interstate facilities. 

Page 1-B.24 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Federalism EO 13132, August 4, 1999 

In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall be 

guided by the following principles: 

 Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are 

most appropriately addressed by the level of government closest to the people. 

 The people of the states created the national government and delegated to it enumerated 

governmental powers. All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the states 

by the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people. 

 The Framers recognized that the states possess unique authorities, qualities, and abilities to 

meet the needs of the people and should function as laboratories of democracy. 

 The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies 

adopted by the people of the several states according to their own conditions, needs, and 

desires. One-size-fits-all approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of 

effective solutions to those problems. 

 Policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility of--and should 

encourage opportunities for--individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and 

private associations to achieve their personal, social, and economic objectives through 

cooperative effort. 

 The national government should be deferential to the states when taking action that affects 

the policymaking discretion of the states and should act only with the greatest caution where 

State or local governments have identified uncertainties regarding the constitutional or 

statutory authority of the national government. 

Freedom of Information Act P.L. 85-619 

The Freedom of Information Act is the implementation of freedom of information legislation in 

the U.S. The act explicitly applies only to Federal government agencies. These agencies are 

under several mandates to comply with public solicitation of information. Along with making 

public and accessible all bureaucratic and technical procedures for applying for documents from 

that agency, agencies are also subject to penalties for hindering the process of a petition for 

information. However, there are nine exemptions, ranging from a withholding “specifically 

authorized under criteria established by an EO to be kept secret in the interest of national defense 

or foreign policy” and “trade secrets” to “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” In 

all cases, the President has unlimited power in declaring something off-limits or necessarily 

classified in the concern of national safety. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 16 USC 460l - 460l-11 

This fund is derived from various types of revenue (primarily Outer Continental Shelf oil 

monies) and appropriations from the fund may be used for 1) matching grants to states for 

outdoor recreation projects and 2) land acquisition for various Federal agencies. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.25 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs EO 12372 

In order to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism by relying on 

State and local processes, the provisions of EO 12372, July 14, 1982, provides that: 1) Federal 

agencies shall provide opportunities for consultation by elected officials of those State and local 

governments that would provide the non-Federal funds for, or that would be directly affected by, 

proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development, and 2) To the extent the 

states, in consultation with local general purpose governments, and local special purpose 

governments they consider appropriate, develop their own processes or refine existing processes 

for State and local elected officials to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial 

assistance and direct Federal development. 

Privacy Act of 1974 P.L. 93-579 

The Privacy Act states in part, that no agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a 

system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except 

pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the 

record pertains. However, there are specific exceptions for the record allowing the use of 

personal records. These exceptions are as follows: (1) For statistical purposes by the Census 

Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (2) For routine uses within a U.S. government 

agency, (3) For archival purposes "as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to 

warrant its continued preservation by the U.S. Government," (4) For law enforcement purposes, 

(5) For Congressional investigations, and (6) Other administrative purposes. The Privacy Act 

mandates that each U.S. Government agency have in place an administrative and physical 

security system to prevent the unauthorized release of personal records. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis EO 12866, September 30, 1993 

Requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of proposed rules. 

Takings EO 12630, March 15, 1988 

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken 

for public use without just compensation. Government historically has used the formal exercise 

of the power of eminent domain, which provides orderly processes for paying just compensation, 

to acquire private property for public use. Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, in 

reaffirming the fundamental protection of private property rights provided by the Fifth 

Amendment and in assessing the nature of governmental actions that have an impact on 

constitutionally protected property rights, have also reaffirmed that governmental actions that do 

not formally invoke the condemnation power, including regulations, may result in a taking for 

which just compensation is required. 

Page 1-B.26 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Agencies shall evaluate carefully the effect of their actions on constitutionally protected property 

rights to prevent unnecessary takings and should account in decision-making for those takings 

that are necessitated by statutory mandate. 

Yuma Field Office Page 1-B.27 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 1-B 

Page intentionally left blank. 

Page 1-B.28 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-A 

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONCERN EVALUATION REPORTS 

To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in 

BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. In this evaluation report, YFO staff answered 

specific evaluation questions listed in the manual for relevance and importance. Seven areas 

were evaluated as part of the land use planning process. Two of the areas were previously 

designated ACECs in the 1987 Yuma District RMP. Five areas are evaluated as new proposals. 

As required under BLM Manual 1613.33E, the rationale for proposing or not proposing an area 

for ACEC designation in the Proposed Plan is discussed for each proposal. YFO staff determined 

that four of the proposals do not require special management attention because standard or 

routine management prescriptions are sufficient to protect the resources or values from risks or 

threats of damage/degradation. The management prescriptions that would be used to manage 

these areas can be found throughout Chapter 2 of this document. 

Table 1 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Proposals Evaluated 

Name 

Acres 

Evaluated 

Acreage Proposed as 

ACEC under Proposed 

Plan Values of Concern 

Big Marias 4,500 / 

9,200* 

4,500 Cultural resources, riparian 

habitat. 

Dripping Springs 9,800 / 

11,700* 

11,700 Perennial spring, desert bighorn 

sheep, cultural resources. 

Gila River Terraces 

and Trails 

140,400 28,500** Cultural resources, historic and 

prehistoric trails along Gila River, 

riparian habitat. 

Limitrophe 4,500 0 Riparian habitat, migratory birds, 

cultural resources, border issues. 

Palomas Plains 429,900 0 Unfragmented wildlife habitat, 

desert bighorn sheep, mule deer. 

Sears Point (Gila 

River Cultural Area) 

3,700 / 

28,500* 

28,500 Cultural resources, historic and 

prehistoric trails, migratory birds, 

riparian habitat. 

Walters Camp 3,500 0 Cultural resources, migratory 

birds. 

* Acreage for ACEC proposal varies by alternative. 

** Expanded Sears Point ACEC is within the Gila River Terraces and Trails evaluation area. 

ACEC = Area of Critical Environmental Concern; CMA = Coordinated Management Area; SCRMA = Special Cultural Resources 

Management Area; WHA = Wildlife Habitat Management Area 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-A.1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-A 

Page 2-A.2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008

1.1 BIG MARIAS ACEC 

1.1.1 RELEVANCE 

A. A Significant Historic, Cultural, or Scenic Value 

The Big Marias ACEC contains the single greatest concentration of geoglyphs in North America. 

The density of intaglio features in this ACEC is extremely rare and presents unique management 

challenges for cultural resource protection and opportunities for scientific research. The ground 

figures within the ACEC are known to be of tremendous importance to several Native American 

tribes. The Blythe Intaglios, one of the most well- known intaglio sites in the country, is a public 

use site that is located inside this ACEC. This prominent intaglio site was listed on the NRHP on 

August 22, 1975. 

B. A Fish and Wildlife Resource

Desert bighorn sheep are known to inhabit the Big Maria Mountains within this ACEC. The Big 

Marias ACEC also contains habitat for the rosy boa snake, a special status species. 

C. A Natural Process or System

Not applicable. 

D. Natural Hazards

Not applicable. 

1.1.2 IMPORTANCE 

A. Has More Than Locally Significant Qualities Which Give It Special 

Worth, Consequence, Meaning, Distinctiveness, or Cause for 

Concern, Especially Compared to Any Similar Resource

The intaglio features found in this ACEC are of international significance. Similar ground figure 

techniques exist in Peru, Chile, England, and Australia. These delicate designs in the desert 

pavement, which can only be found in this region of the U.S., provide important insights into 

early lifeways along the lower Colorado River landscape. Two sensitive plant species that are 

known to occur within the ACEC, Alverson’s foxtail cactus and barrel cactus, also make this 

area more than locally significant. 
Appendix 2-A 

B. Has Qualities or Circumstances That Make It Fragile, Sensitive, 

Rare, Irreplaceable, Exemplary, Unique, Endangered, Threatened, 

or Vulnerable to Adverse Change

Intaglio designs are created on sensitive desert pavement surfaces by removing the darker 

surface gravels to reveal the lighter gravels and soils underneath. Consequently these features are 

extremely fragile and vulnerable to damage. Tracks caused by vehicle tires are currently the 

largest threat to the desert pavement designs. Other human uses of the area and natural processes, 

such as weathering of the ground surface, threaten the preservation of these features. 

C. Has Been Recognized as Warranting Protection in Order to Satisfy 

National Priority Concerns or to Carry Out the Mandates of 

FLPMA

The potential for impacts to the ACEC’s cultural resource values make this area a priority 

concern for management attention. Protection of this area’s relevant and important features 

would carry out the FLPMA mandate to protect the quality of the planning area’s scientific, 

ecological, environmental, and archeological values. 

D. Has Qualities Which Warrant Highlighting in Order to Satisfy 

Public or Management Concerns About Safety and Public Welfare

Not applicable. 

E. Poses a Significant Threat to Human Life and Safety or to Property

Not applicable. 

1.1.3 PROPOSED PLAN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

The resource values within the existing 4,500-acre Big Marias ACEC, originally designated in 

the 1987 Yuma District RMP, continue to warrant special management attention as an ACEC. 

The 4,700-acre expansion area evaluated under Alternative D does not require special 

management attention. In addition to standard or routine management prescriptions, under the 

Proposed Plan these 4,700 acres would be managed according to the Big Marias Terraces 

SCRMA and the Desert Mountains WHA allocations. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-A.3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-A 

Page 2-A.4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008

2.1 DRIPPING SPRINGS 

2.1.1 RELEVANCE 

A. A Significant Historic, Cultural, or Scenic Value

The proposed ACEC contains a combination of archaeological and historic features that are 

frequently visited by the public and that are eligible for listing on the NRHP. The indigenous 

features in the ACEC include a concentration of large petroglyph boulders that are an excellent 

example of the Patayan culture style. In addition, remains of historic habitation, such as a tworoom stone cabin and several other smaller stone structures, add to the cultural resource values of 

the area. A mini oasis with rock outcroppings, sheer cliffs along the backdrop of the area, 

exposed bedrock, and significant cholla stands add to the scenic value of the proposed ACEC. A 

waterfall with seasonal flows is located within a canyon adjacent to the spring. The area has had 

unusual displays of wildflowers after rains. 

B. A Fish and Wildlife Resource

The proposed Dripping Springs ACEC contains a watering hole that is an important source of 

water for wildlife in the area. The area is crucial bighorn sheep habitat. The bighorn sheep herd 

in the area is used as a source of sheep transplants. The spring is a perennial water source and the 

only natural spring within the planning area and this water is crucial for wildlife in times of 

drought. The area surrounding the spring supports a dense cover of native plants that provide 

refuge and forage for wildlife. Plant species in the area include willow, jojoba, mesquite, 

paloverde, scrub oak, wolfberry, primrose, cholla, desert lavender, saguaro, and native grasses 

and forbs. The area also supports an abundant pollinator population. 

C. A Natural Process or System

The proposed Dripping Springs ACEC contains the only perennial spring in the planning area. 

This area also contains a relic stand of scrub oak, skunk bush, and other plants found in the 

chaparral of Arizona. Similar occurrences are documented in other southwestern Arizona 

mountains, such as the nearby Kofa Mountains (Brown 1978). The waterfall located in a canyon 

adjacent to the spring fills tinajas and potholes after rains. Surface waters in the area consist of 

the spring (primary), waterfall, and natural catchments, which have continued to function as a 

hydrologic system during extended droughts. Water is crucial to wildlife populations in times of 

drought. 

D. Natural Hazards

This proposed ACEC area is prone to flash flooding. 
Appendix 2-A 

2.1.2 IMPORTANCE 

A. Has More Than Locally Significant Qualities Which Give It Special 

Worth, Consequence, Meaning, Distinctiveness, or Cause for Concern, 

Especially Compared to Any Similar Resource

The indigenous cultural features within the proposed ACEC tie into other Patayan sites 

throughout the region. The natural spring at the center of the ACEC is the only perennial spring 

in the planning area. The spring inside the proposed ACEC does not currently require human 

maintenance and should be protected because of the rarity of natural springs in the planning area. 

Any water in the desert is more than locally significant, due to the scarcity of water resources. 

The surface waters in the proposed ACEC sustain wildlife through long periods of drought. The 

area also provides connectivity to resources important to wildlife. 

B. Has Qualities or Circumstances That Make It Fragile, Sensitive, Rare, 

Irreplaceable, Exemplary, Unique, Endangered, Threatened, or 

Vulnerable to Adverse Change 

The petroglyph panels in the proposed ACEC, the historic structure remains, and other cultural 

resource features are vulnerable to vandalism, looting, and impacts from other land uses. Human 

visitation during hot and/or dry periods may impact wildlife use of the area. Impacts of visitation 

during these periods may need to be monitored. The proposed ACEC’s proximity to the intensive 

recreational uses in and around the Town of Quartzsite increases the likelihood of recreational 

damage occurring to the resources. OHV use through the area increases the potential of nonnative invasive species unintentionally being spread into the proposed ACEC. 

C. Has Been Recognized as Warranting Protection in Order to Satisfy 

National Priority Concerns or to Carry Out the Mandates of FLPMA

The potential for impacts to the ACEC’s natural and cultural resource values make this ACEC a 

BLM management priority. Protection of this area’s relevant and important features would carry 

out the FLPMA mandate to protect the quality of the planning area’s scientific, scenic, historical, 

ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values. 

D. Has Qualities Which Warrant Highlighting in Order to Satisfy Public or 

Management Concerns About Safety and Public Welfare

Soil erosion through natural flooding and weathering of bedrock limit the type of access that can 

be sustained in the area. Erosion has caused portions of the existing road within the proposed 

ACEC to become unsafe and poses a risk to public welfare. 

E. Poses a Significant Threat to Human Life and Safety or to Property

Not applicable. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-A.5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-A 

Page 2-A.6 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008

2.1.3 PROPSED PLAN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

Under the Proposed Plan, 11,700 acres at Dripping Springs would be designated as an ACEC. 

This area warrants special management attention to manage the high amount of recreational use 

in the area while simultaneously protecting the area’s relevant and important resource values. 

3.1 GILA RIVER TERRACES AND TRAILS 

3.1.1 RELEVANCE 

A. A Significant Historic, Cultural, or Scenic Value

The proposed Gila River Terraces and Trails ACEC follows the course of the Gila River, which 

was a vital lifeline in the desert from Archaic times through the historic period. Indigenous 

cultural sites are scatted throughout the river valley, and together these sites along the Gila River 

create a significant landscape of traditional importance to Native American tribes. This proposed 

ACEC corridor is also known as an important historic travel route, with several important 

historic trails following the course of the Gila River, including the Anza Trail, Mormon Battalion 

Trail, Butterfield Overland Mail Route, and the Gila Trail. The proposed ACEC area includes the 

existing Sears Point (Gila River Cultural Area) ACEC with all of its relevant and important 

values. Scenic vistas are common throughout much of the proposed ACEC, particularly during 

rare high flow events of the Gila River. 

B. A Fish and Wildlife Resource

A portion of the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt (described in Chapter 3) is located within this ACEC. 

The Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt provides riparian habitat for marshbirds, waterfowl, raptors, and 

shorebirds, including Yuma clapper rail, and habitat for white-winged dove, mourning dove, and 

other game birds. The area provides outstanding recreational opportunities as a hunting 

destination. 

C. A Natural Process or System

Desert pavement occurs on the terraces above the Gila River and provides runoff water to the 

surrounding wash and riparian habitats. 

D. Natural Hazards

Not applicable. 
Appendix 2-A 

3.1.2 IMPORTANCE 

A. Has More Than Locally Significant Qualities Which Give It Special 

Worth, Consequence, Meaning, Distinctiveness, or Cause for 

Concern, Especially Compared to Any Similar Resource

The cultural resources on the terraces above the Gila River connect with a network of cultural 

sites further east, including Sears Point and Painted Rocks, and to the network of village sites 

along the Colorado River. The Anza Trail is distinctive for its connectivity between northern 

California and Mexico, and there is an international effort to manage this trail. The other historic 

trails that traverse the area are of special worth and warrant interpretation and special 

management. The Gila corridor is a popular regional hunting destination, attracting visitors 

during dove season. Cattail marsh provides important habitat for the endangered Yuma clapper 

rail. 

B. Has Qualities or Circumstances That Make It Fragile, Sensitive, 

Rare, Irreplaceable, Exemplary, Unique, Endangered, Threatened, 

or Vulnerable to Adverse Change

Desert pavement within the proposed ACEC is fragile and subject to increased wind and water 

erosion when disturbed by mechanical means. Any increase in soil erosion would increase 

sediment deposits into the Gila River bed. The wildlife, cultural, and scenic values are threatened 

by increased development on land adjacent and within the proposed ACEC. The cultural 

resources on the desert pavement terraces are vulnerable to damage from OHV, other humancaused impacts, and natural deterioration. 

C. Has Been Recognized as Warranting Protection in Order to Satisfy 

National Priority Concerns or to Carry Out the Mandates of 

FLPMA

Portions of the proposed ACEC were covered in the Anza Trail NPS Management Plan. Cultural 

resources found within the proposed ACEC are listed on or eligible to the NRHP. A portion of 

the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt (described in Chapter 3) is also located within this proposed ACEC. 

D. Has Qualities Which Warrant Highlighting in Order to Satisfy 

Public or Management Concerns About Safety and Public Welfare

Not applicable. 

E. Poses a Significant Threat to Human Life and Safety or to Property

Not applicable. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-A.7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-A 

Page 2-A.8 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008

3.1.3 PROPOSED PLAN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

This area was evaluated for ACEC designation because the adjacent Lower Sonoran Field Office 

evaluated a similar proposal for the Gila River corridor within their planning area. In the YFO, 

BLM has management authority on only 52,300 acres of the 140,400-acre corridor evaluated for 

ACEC designation under Alternative D. These 52,300 acres are not contiguous and would be 

better managed according to standard or routine management prescriptions. In addition, under 

the Proposed Plan portions of the BLM-administered lands within this area would be managed 

according to prescriptions for the Sears Point ACEC and Anza Trail designations, and the 

Laguna Mountains SCRMA, Ligurta Area SCRMA, Muggins Mountains Terraces SCRMA, 

North Gila Mountains SCRMA, Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt VHA, and Gila River Riparian WHA 

allocations. 

4.1 LIMITROPHE 

4.1.1 RELEVANCE 

A. A Significant Historic, Cultural, or Scenic Value

The proposed Limitrophe ACEC is known to have traditional use values that are of importance 

to many Native American tribes. Native American traditional uses of the area include tribal 

education, gathering, hunting and fishing; collection of mesquite wood for funerary and 

construction purposes; collection of willow for basket materials; possibly collection of clay used 

for pottery making; and collection of river rocks. The area is internationally significant because 

indigenous peoples live on both sides of the border, in the U.S. and Mexico. It is a cultural 

landscape to practice traditional beliefs based on the river. 

B. A Fish and Wildlife Resource

The proposed Limitrophe ACEC contains habitat for migratory neotropical songbird populations; 

migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, burrowing owl, western yellow-billed cuckoo, 

and other wetland dependent species; and endangered species such as the SWFL and Yuma 

clapper rail. This area is an important migratory corridor, provides forage and cover for a variety 

of wildlife species, and provides a water source, which is crucial for wildlife during times of 

drought. The opportunities to enhance and restore cottonwood and willow communities would 

increase populations of birds and provide more birding opportunities. Loss of habitat in other 

areas is concentrating wildlife to the Limitrophe area. 

C. A Natural Process or System

This portion of the lower Colorado River is one of the largest remaining contiguous tracts of 

native cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation, despite its interspersion with salt cedar. It 

contains a representative of every major tree type found in southern Arizona. Native trees are 

reestablishing in areas that have been cleared of salt cedar. Water table fluctuations as a result of 

releases from Morelos Dam and agriculture return flows are beneficial to native species. 
Appendix 2-A 

Although the Gila and Colorado rivers stream flows are manipulated by man, the local area 

retains natural qualities due to surface water fluctuations and groundwater changes. Future water 

delivery and retention actions by Reclamation upstream could reduce the presence of surface 

water in the area. 

D. Natural Hazards

Frequent fires reduce the presence of valuable native vegetation and promote the overgrowth of 

salt cedar in the Limitrophe area. These fires are usually caused by humans. 

4.1.2 IMPORTANCE 

A. Has More Than Locally Significant Qualities Which Give It Special 

Worth, Consequence, Meaning, Distinctiveness, or Cause for 

Concern, Especially Compared to Any Similar Resource

The Limitrophe area is of international concern. The group Colorado River International 

Conservation Area was formed to promote the protection of the area. In addition, the Limitrophe 

area is of traditional value to several Native American tribes and groups. A large variety of 

wildlife habitats are found within the relatively small Limitrophe area. 

B. Has Qualities or Circumstances That Make It Fragile, Sensitive, 

Rare, Irreplaceable, Exemplary, Unique, Endangered, Threatened, 

or Vulnerable to Adverse Change

The remnants of the riparian woodland gallery are threatened by: high fire occurrence; the lack 

of water due to river operations and local groundwater pumping to maintain the local water table 

at an appropriate level for agriculture; and drought. The Limitrophe area resources are vulnerable 

due to the lack of water in the hydrologic system and the unpredictability and/or infrequency of 

water flows. The Limitrophe is a critical area for Native American traditional practices, and 

traditional use of the Limitrophe is threatened, if natural and cultural resource values are 

impacted or degraded. 

C. Has Been Recognized as Warranting Protection in Order to Satisfy 

National Priority Concerns or to Carry Out the Mandates of 

FLPMA

This area is important to satisfy BLM recreation priorities, and protection of this area is 

applicable to FLPMA mandates for natural resources, cultural resources, and recreation. 

Neotropical migratory birds and threatened and endangered species are national priorities to the 

USFWS. Wetlands in the area are regulated as waters of the U. S. by the USACOE. Recreation 

opportunities are severely limited due to public safety and access issues. The Cocopah Indian 

Tribe recognized this area as important on a national level and requested national recognition of 

the area as an International Wildlife Refuge from officials in Washington, D.C. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-A.9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-A 

Page 2-A.10 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008

D. Has Qualities Which Warrant Highlighting in Order to Satisfy 

Public or Management Concerns About Safety and Public Welfare

Criminal activity in the Limitrophe area has an impact on all resources. There is a constant 

concern for public safety due to its location on the International Boundary. Criminal activity, 

diversionary fires, and litter associated with illegal border trafficking of humans and illegal items 

are a constant concern for law enforcement, government employees, residents, hunters, farmers 

and the recreating public present in the area. Resolutions to these safety issues need to be 

coordinated among many different agencies. 

E. Poses a Significant Threat to Human Life and Safety or to Property

There are increasing concerns for public safety in the Limitrophe area; injuries and fatalities have 

occurred within the area. The area is a major trafficking route for illegal immigration. Border 

crossers build sand bag bridges underwater that can create a hazard to the public. 

4.1.3 PROPOSED PLAN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

Alternative D evaluates a proposal to designate 4,500 acres as the Limitrophe ACEC. Due to the 

complex issues and overlapping jurisdictions of the Limitrophe, no single agency has the 

authority or capacity to comprehensively manage the entire area. Under the Proposed Plan, 

standard and routine management prescriptions plus management prescriptions associated with 

the Limitrophe CMA would enable all interested stakeholders, including those in Mexico, to 

participate in the development of the first multi-jurisdictional MOU and management plan for 

the area. In addition, the area would be managed according to prescriptions for the Colorado 

River Riparian WHA allocation. 

5.1 PALOMAS PLAIN 

5.1.1 RELEVANCE 

A. A Significant Historic, Cultural, or Scenic Value

The proposed Palomas Plain ACEC is located in a rugged Sonoran desert range of basalt and 

volcanics cut by two 800-foot-deep canyons and numerous small canyons around the Little Horn 

Mountains, which includes portions of the Ranegrass Plain, Palomas Plains, and Nottebusch 

Butte. The red, buff, and yellow canyons show a striking geologic color contrast. There are vast 

areas of relatively undisturbed desert pavement, which contrast with the surrounding mountains. 

There are known cultural resources in the area, which are likely eligible to the NRHP. 
Appendix 2-A 

B. A Fish and Wildlife Resource

This proposed ACEC is an expansive unfragmented habitat in southwest Arizona where a large 

variety of wildlife, including bighorn sheep and mule deer, can be found. 

C. A Natural Process or System

This proposed ACEC contains braided channel floodplains and mixed cacti-paloverde 

communities on rocky slopes and bajadas. 

D. Natural Hazards

Not applicable. 

5.1.2 IMPORTANCE 

A. Has More Than Locally Significant Qualities Which Give It Special 

Worth, Consequence, Meaning, Distinctiveness, or Cause for 

Concern, Especially Compared to Any Similar Resource

The contiguous tract of unfragmented habitat supports big game populations that are regionally 

significant to the hunting community and the AGFD’s management of these species. This area is 

a potential reintroduction area for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn. Portions of this area are 

Category II desert tortoise habitat. 

B. Has Qualities or Circumstances That Make It Fragile, Sensitive, 

Rare, Irreplaceable, Exemplary, Unique, Endangered, Threatened, 

or Vulnerable to Adverse Change

The proximity of this proposed ACEC to YPG makes it vulnerable to a variety of disturbances. 

OHV and other disturbances to the desert pavement increase wind and water erosion from the 

area and degrade habitat quality. Increased development threatens fragmentation of what is 

currently contiguous habitat. 

C. Has Been Recognized as Warranting Protection in Order to Satisfy 

National Priority Concerns or to Carry Out the Mandates of 

FLPMA

Protection of this area is applicable to FLPMA mandates for natural and cultural resources. 

D. Has Qualities Which Warrant Highlighting in Order to Satisfy 

Public or Management Concerns About Safety and Public Welfare

Not applicable. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-A.11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-A 

Page 2-A.12 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008

E. Poses a Significant Threat to Human Life and Safety or to Property

Not applicable. 

5.1.3 PROPOSED PLAN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

Alternative D evaluates a proposal to designate 429,900 acres as the Palomas Plain ACEC. It 

was determined that this area does not require special management attention. In addition to 

standard or routine management prescriptions, under the Proposed Plan the Palomas Plain would 

be managed according to prescriptions for the Palomas Plain WHA and Desert Mountains WHA 

allocations. 

6.1 SEARS POINT (GILA RIVER CULTURAL AREA 

ACEC) 

6.1.1 RELEVANCE 

A. A Significant Historic, Cultural, or Scenic Value

The Sears Point ACEC contains the Sears Point Archaeological District, which was listed on the 

NRHP in 1985. Occupation of the Sears Point area spanned over thousands of years and is 

evidenced by extensive rock art panels concentrated along the basalt mesas overlooking the Gila 

River. The ACEC contains a rare example of a combination of elements from three 

archaeological cultures. First the Desert Archaic and then the Patayan and Hohokam cultures 

contributed to the petroglyphs at Sears Point. In addition, the ACEC is along an historic travel 

corridor with portions of the Anza Trail, Butterfield Overland Mail Route, Mormon Battalion 

Trail, and the Gila Trail all following the same course along the Gila River floodplain. The 

scenic values of this area include volcanic geology, prominent mesas, riparian vegetation, and 

the absence of levees. 

B. A Fish and Wildlife Resource

This ACEC contains a mesquite bosque composed of mature mesquite trees that provides habitat 

for quail, dove, deer, and a variety of other wildlife species. In 1954, a segregation order on the 

Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt withdrew a total of 62,735 acres under Public Land Order 1015 for 

wildlife habitat. BLM manages 12,400 acres of the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt, of which a portion 

overlaps with the existing and proposed Sears Point ACEC (see Chapter 3, Section 3.16.2 b for 

additional information). 

C. A Natural Process or System

The mesquite bosque within the Sears Point ACEC is the largest and oldest in the planning area. 

Salt cedar has not invaded several of the mesquite stand areas. The floodplain at this location has 

not been modified for agriculture or flood control. The Gila River maintains the hydrological 
Appendix 2-A 

function of the natural floodplain when the river is at flood stage, such as during the 1993 flood 

or during the releases from Painted Rock Dam in 2005. 

D. Natural Hazards

Not applicable. 

6.1.2 IMPORTANCE 

A. Has More Than Locally Significant Qualities Which Give It Special 

Worth, Consequence, Meaning, Distinctiveness, or Cause for 

Concern, Especially Compared to Any Similar Resource

The rock art at Sears Point is one of the most extensive examples of petroglyphs in Arizona and 

has become an international tourist destination. The location is also significant through its 

association with the congressionally designated Anza Trail, which connects Mexico to San 

Francisco, California. In addition, the area is of known importance to several Native American 

tribes. 

B. Has Qualities or Circumstances That Make It Fragile, Sensitive, 

Rare, Irreplaceable, Exemplary, Unique, Endangered, Threatened, 

or Vulnerable to Adverse Change

The archaeological district at Sears Point contains a rare density of cultural features for this 

corner of the Sonoran Desert. The area’s indigenous artifact scatters, intaglios, trail network, and 

other desert pavement features are extremely fragile and vulnerable to impacts from other land 

uses such as recreational OHV. The ACEC’s basalt mesas contain one of the most extensive 

examples of petroglyphs in the region, and these panels are a unique and irreplaceable part of 

America’s heritage that requires increased protection to prevent looting and vandalism. 

C. Has Been Recognized as Warranting Protection in Order to Satisfy 

National Priority Concerns or to Carry Out the Mandates of 

FLPMA

FLPMA directs the BLM to manage the public lands “in a manner that will protect the quality of 

scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and 

archeological values.” The relevance and importance of this ACEC illustrates this area’s 

extensive natural and cultural resource values. The potential for impacts to the ACEC’s 

archaeological features, geologic features, and riparian vegetation, including the mesquite 

bosque and Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt, make this ACEC a BLM management priority. 

D. Has Qualities Which Warrant Highlighting in Order to Satisfy 

Public or Management Concerns About Safety and Public Welfare

Not applicable. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-A.13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-A 

Page 2-A.14 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008

E. Poses a Significant Threat to Human Life and Safety or to Property

Not applicable. 

6.1.4 PROPOSED PLAN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

The existing 3,700-acre Sears Point ACEC, originally designated in the 1988 Lower Gila South 

RMP, and an additional 24,800 acres in the Sears Point area were evaluated for ACEC 

designation in this plan. It was determined that the entire 28,500-acre area requires special 

management attention to manage the increasing amount of recreational use in the area while 

simultaneously protecting the relevant and important resource values at Sears Point. 

7.1 WALTERS CAMP 

7.1.1 RELEVANCE 

A. A Significant Historic, Cultural, or Scenic Value

The proposed Walters Camp ACEC area links two national wildlife refuges and contains 

significant cultural resources important to Native American tribes. Hills within the proposed 

ACEC overlook both wildlife refuges and offer a panoramic view of five Wilderness areas: Palo 

Verde Mountains, Trigo Mountains, Imperial, Indian Pass, and Picacho Peak. The area includes a 

complex of archaeological resources, including the Xam Kwitcam creation trail, that are eligible 

to the NRHP. 

B. A Fish and Wildlife Resource

The proposed ACEC includes 400 feet of undeveloped river bank with a wetlands/riparian area 

that is potential habitat for endangered species, including the SWFL and Yuma clapper rail. The 

proposed ACEC includes the Walker Lake wetlands habitat adjacent to the river. 

C. A Natural Process or System

The area incorporates a variety of plant communities, including desert mountain foothills, wash 

and floodplain, and creosote bush flats. Spontaneous thunderstorms transform Milpitas, Vinagre, 

and Turnaround Washes into rivers as evidenced by hundreds of sheer cliffs, canyons, and rock 

formations. 

D. Natural Hazards

Not applicable. 
Appendix 2-A 

7.1.2 IMPORTANCE 

A. Has More Than Locally Significant Qualities Which Give It Special 

Worth, Consequence, Meaning, Distinctiveness, or Cause for 

Concern, Especially Compared to Any Similar Resource

The proposed Walters Camp ACEC is important for neotropical migratory birds because it 

provides stopover habitat along the lower Colorado River portion of the Pacific Flyway. The 

Xam Kwitcam creation trail extends between Avikwame near Laughlin, Nevada to Yuma, 

Arizona. The archaeological sites in the proposed ACEC are of significance to several Native 

American tribes and are an example of cultures living prehistorically along the lower Colorado 

River. 

B. Has Qualities or Circumstances That Make It Fragile, Sensitive, 

Rare, Irreplaceable, Exemplary, Unique, Endangered, Threatened, 

or Vulnerable to Adverse Change

The proposed ACEC contains cultural resources that are delicate and in need of additional 

protection measures from visitor use damages, such as from OHV use. Vacation home 

development along the river on adjacent private lands is increasing visitor use of the area, which 

could result in damage to the proposed ACECs natural and cultural resources. Increased use 

would detract from the existing undeveloped nature of the area. 

C. Has Been Recognized as Warranting Protection in Order to Satisfy 

National Priority Concerns or to Carry Out the Mandates of 

FLPMA

Protection of this area is applicable to FLPMA mandates for natural and cultural resources. 

There are cultural resource sites that are eligible to the NRHP and should be nominated for 

listing under Section 110 of the NHPA. 

D. Has Qualities Which Warrant Highlighting in Order to Satisfy 

Public or Management Concerns About Safety and Public Welfare

Not applicable. 

E. Poses a Significant Threat to Human Life and Safety or to Property

Not applicable. 

7.1.4 PROPOSED PLAN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

Alternative D evaluates a proposal to designate 3,500 acres as the Walters Camp ACEC. It was 

determined that standard or routine management prescriptions would be sufficient for managing 

the Walters Camp area. Under the Proposed Plan, the Walters Camp area would be managed 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-A.15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-A 

Page 2-A.16 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008

according to prescriptions for the Walters Camp SCRMA and Colorado River Riparian WHA 

allocations. 
Appendix 2-B 

LISTS OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED, STATE 

LISTED, SPECIAL STATUS, PRIORITY, AND 

INVASIVE SPECIES IN PLANNING AREA 

Table 1 

Federally-Protected Species (Listed, Proposed, Candidate) in Arizona 

and California Considered in the Planning Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Status Vegetation Community County

Mammals (1 species) 

Sonoran pronghorn Antilocapra americana 

sonoriensis 

Endangered Sonoran Desert Scrub Maricopa, Yuma 

(AZ) 

Birds (6 species) 

California brown 

pelican 

Pelecanus occidentalis 

californicus 

Endangered Riparian/Aquatic La Paz, Maricopa, 

Yuma (AZ) 

Northern aplomado 

falcon 

Falco femoralis 

septentrionalis 

Endangered, 

Proposed NEP

Semidesert Grassland Yuma (AZ) 

Extirpated from AZ

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher 

Empidonax traillii 

extimus 

Endangered, 

Proposed 

Critical Habitat

Riparian La Paz, Maricopa, 

Yuma (AZ) 

Yuma clapper rail Rallus longirostris 

yumanensis 

Endangered Riparian La Paz, Maricopa, 

Yuma (AZ) 

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

Coccyzus americanus Candidate Riparian La Paz, Maricopa, 

Yuma (AZ) 

Reptiles (1 species) 

Desert tortoise, Mojave 

population 

Gopherus agassizii 

(xerobates) 

Threatened Mohave Desert Scrub, 

Lower Sonoran Desert 

Scrub 

Riverside, Imperial 

(CA) 

Fish (4 species) 

Bonytail chub Gila elegans Endangered Riparian/Aquatic within 

Sonoran Desert Scrub 

La Paz (AZ) 

Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Endangered, 

Designated 

Critical Habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within 

Mohave Desert Scrub, 

Lower Sonoran Desert 

Scrub, Semi-desert 

Grassland 

La Paz, Maricopa, 

Yuma (AZ) 

Desert pupfish Cyprinodon macularius Endangered Riparian/Aquatic within 

Upland Sonoran Desert 

Scrub 

Extirpated from 

planning area 

Gila topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis 

occidentalis 

Endangered Riparian/Aquatic within 

Upland Sonoran Desert 

Scrub 

Extirpated from 

planning area 

AZ – Arizona; CA – California; NEP – Nonessential Experimental Population 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-B.1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 2 

BLM Sensitive and State Species of Concern in Arizona and 

California Considered in the Planning Area 

Common Name SCIENTIFIC NAME Status

Mammals 

Bats

Allen’s (Mexican) big-eared bat Idionycteris phyllotis BLM 

Arizona myotis Myotis lucifugus occultus BLM, CASC 

Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis BLM, CASC 

California leaf-nosed bat Macrotus californicus AZSC, CASC 

Cave myotis Myotis velifer BLM, CASC 

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes BLM 

Greater western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus CASC 

Mexican long-tongued bat Choeronycteris mexicana AZSC, CASC 

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus CASC 

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii CASC 

Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus BLM, CASC 

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum AZSC, CASC 

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii AZSC 

Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus AZSC 

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum BLM 

Rodents

Colorado River cotton rat Sigmodon arizonae plenus CASC 

Yuma hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus eremicus CASC 

Large Mammals

Yuma mountain lion Puma concolor browni AZSC, CASC 

Birds 

Grebes 

Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarki AZSC 

Pelicans 

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos CASC 

Cormorants

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus CASC3

Herons, Egrets, Bitterns 

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus AZSC 

Western least bittern Ixobrychus exilis hesperis AZSC, CASC 

Great egret Casmerodius albus AZSC 

Snowy egret Egretta thula AZSC 

Ibises & Spoonbills 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi CASC3

Storks 

Wood stork Mycteria americana CASC 

Swans, Geese & Ducks 

Fulvous whistling duck Dendrocygna bicolor CASC 

Page 2-B.2 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 2 

BLM Sensitive and State Species of Concern in Arizona and 

California Considered in the Planning Area 

Common Name SCIENTIFIC NAME Status

Birds (cont.) 

Hawks, Kites & Eagles 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus AZSC 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus CASC 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi CASC3

Common black hawk Buteogallus anthracinus AZSC 

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CAT 

Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus CASC 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis AZSC, CASC

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus AZSC, CASC 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos CAFP 

Falcons & Caracaras 

Merlin Falco columbarius CASC3

Peregrine falcon Falcoperegrinus anatum AZSC, CAE, CAFP 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus CASC 

Rails, Gallinules & Coots 

California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus AZSC, CAT 

Plovers 

Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus AZSC, CASC 

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus CASC 

Sandpipers & Allies 

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus CASC3

Gulls, Terns & Allies 

Black tern Chlidonias niger CASC 

California gull Larus californicus CASC3

Owls 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl Glaucidium brasilianum AZSC 

Elf owl Micrathene whitneyi CAE 

Long-eared owl Asio otus CASC 

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus CASC 

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugea BLM, CASC 

Swifts 

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi CASC 

Kingfishers 

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon AZSC

Woodpeckers

Gila woodpecker Melanerpes uropygialis CAE

Gilded flicker Colaptes chrysoides CAE 

Tyrant Flycatchers 

Brown-crested flycatcher Myiarchis tyrannulus CASC3

Thick-billed kingbird Tyrannus crassirostris AZSC 

Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus CASC 

Swallows 

Bank swallow Riparia riparia CAT 

Purple martin Progne subis CASC 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-B.3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 2 

BLM Sensitive and State Species of Concern in Arizona and 

California Considered in the Planning Area 

Common Name SCIENTIFIC NAME Status

Birds (cont.) 

Mockingbirds & Thrashers 

Bendire’s thrasher Toxostoma bendirei CASC 

Crissal’s thrasher Toxostoma crissale CASC 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis AZSC 

Le Conte’s thrasher Toxostoma lecontei CASC 

Shrikes 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus CASC 

Vireos 

Arizona’s bell vireo Vireo belli arizonae CAE 

Wood-Warblers 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla AZSC 

Sonoran yellow warbler Dendroica petechia sonorana CASC 

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens CASC 

Tanagers 

Summer tanager Piranga rubra CASC 

Cardinals 

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis CASC3

Sparrows 

Bell’s sage sparrow Aimophila belli bellii CASC 

Large-billed savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus CASC 

Reptiles 

Banded Gila monster Heloderma suspectum cinctum BLM, CASC

Chuckwalla Sauromalus ater BLM 

Flat-tailed horned lizard Phrynosoma mcallii AZSC 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard Uma scoparia AZSC 

Rosy boa Charina trivirgata BLM

Sonoran Desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii AZSC 

Yuma desert (Cowles) fringe-toed 

lizard 

Uma notata rufopunctata AZSC 

Amphibians 

Colorado River toad Bufo alvarius CASC 

Couch’s spadefoot toad Scaphiopus couchii CASC 

Lowland leopard frog Rana yavapaiensis AZSC, CASC

Fish 

None 

Invertebrates 

Cheese-weed moth lacewing Oliarces clara BLM 

MacNeill sooty wing skipper Hesperopsis gracielae BLM 

AZSC – Arizona Species of Concern; BLM – BLM Sensitive; CAE – California Endangered; CAFP – California Fully Protected; CASC – 

California Species of Concern; CAT – California Threatened 

Page 2-B.4 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 3 

BLM Priority Animal Species Considered in the Planning Area 

Common Name SCIENTIFIC NAME Status

Bats 

Lesser long-nosed Bat Leptonycteris curasoae Rare

California Myotis Myotis californicus Common 

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Rare 

Western Pipistrelle Pipistrellus hesperus Common 

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Locally common 

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinerus Rare 

Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum Rare 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendi Rare 

Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus Locally Common 

American Free-tailed Bat Tadaria brasiliensis Common 

Pocketed Free-tailed Bat Tadaria femorosaccus Uncommon

Big Game 

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Common 

Desert Bighorn Sheep Ovis Canadensis Mexicana Locally common 

Collard Peccary Pecari tajacu Uncommon 

Mountain Lion Puma concolor Rare 

Game Birds 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Common, year-round 

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica Common, summer 

Gambel’s Quail Callipepla gambelii Common, year-round 

Ring Necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Uncommon, year-round 

Nongame Migratory Birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and Raptors 

Loons

Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica Rare, winter 

Common Loon Gavia immer Uncommon, winter 

Grebes

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Common, year-long 

Eared Grebe Podilymbus nigricollis Uncommon, winter 

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentallis Common, year-round 

Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii Common, year-round 

Pelicans

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Uncommon, year-round 

Cormorants

Double-breasted Comorant Phalacrocorax auritus Common, year-round 

Herons, Egrets, Bitterns

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Rare, winter 

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Uncommon, year-round 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Common, year-round 

Great Egret Ardea alba Common, year-round 

Snowy Egret Egretta thula Common, year-round 

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea Rare, transient 

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Uncommon, year-round 

Green Heron Butorides virescens Uncommon, year-round 

Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Common, year-round 

Ibises & Spoonbills

White-faced Ibis Eudocimus albus Uncommon, year-round 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-B.5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 3 

BLM Priority Animal Species Considered in the Planning Area (cont.) 

Common Name SCIENTIFIC NAME Status

Nongame Migratory Birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and Raptors (cont.) 

Storks

Wood Stork Mycteria americana Rare, summer 

Swans, Geese & Ducks

Fulvous Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna bicolor Rare, summer 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Rare, winter 

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Rare, winter 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Uncommon, winter 

Ross’s Goose Chen rossii Rare, winter 

Canada Goose Branta Canadensis Common, winter 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa Rare, winter 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Common, winter 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Common, winter 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta Common, winter 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Uncommon, transient 

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera Common, year-round 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Common, winter 

Gadwall Anas strepera Common, winter 

American Wigeon Anas americana Common, winter 

Canvasback Aythya valisneria Uncommon, winter 

Redhead Aythya americana Uncommon, winter 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Common, winter 

Greater Scaup Aythya marila Rare, winter 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Common, winter 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Common, winter 

Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Common, winter 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Common, winter 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Rare, winter 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser Common, winter 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Uncommon, winter 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Common, winter 

American Vultures

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Common, year-round 

Hawks, Kites & Eagles

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Common, year-round 

White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus Rare, winter 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Uncommon, year-round 

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Uncommon, winter 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Uncommon, winter 

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii Uncommon, year-round 

Common Black-Hawk Buteogallus anthracinus Rare, summer 

Harris’ Hawk Parabuteo unicinctus Uncommon, year-round 

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Uncommon, transient 

Zone-tailed Hawk Buteo albonotatus Rare, summer 

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Rare, summer 

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Uncommon, winter 

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Rare, winter 

Golden Eagle Aguila chrysaetos Uncommon, year-round 

Page 2-B.6 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 3 

BLM Priority Animal Species Considered in the Planning Area (cont.) 

Common Name SCIENTIFIC NAME Status

Nongame Migratory Birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and Raptors (cont.) 

Falcons & Caracaras

American Kestrel Falco sparverius Common, year-round 

Merlin Falco columbarius Uncommon, winter 

Peregrine Falcon Faldo peregrinus Rare, transient 

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Uncommon, year-round 

Rails, Gallinules & Coots

Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis Uncommon, year-round 

Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris Uncommon, year-round 

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola Uncommon, year-round 

Sora Porzana carolina Uncommon, winter 

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Uncommon, year-round 

American Coot Fulica americana Common, year-round 

Cranes

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Uncommon, winter 

Plovers

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola Uncommon, transient 

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus Rare, transient 

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Uncommon, transient 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous Common, year-round 

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus Rare, winter 

Avocets & Stilts

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus Uncommon, year-round 

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Uncommon, transient 

Sandpipers & Allies

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Uncommon, winter 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Uncommon, transient 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Uncommon, winter 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Uncommon, transient 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Common, winter 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Rare, transient 

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Uncommon, transient 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa Uncommon, transient 

Red Knot Calidris canutus Rare, transient 

Sanderling Calidris alba Rare, transient 

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Common, transient 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Common, winter 

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Uncommon, transient 

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Uncommon, transient 

Dunlin Calidris alpina Uncommon, winter 

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Rare, transient 

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Common, winter 

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Common, winter 

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Uncommon, transient 

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Rare, transient 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-B.7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 3 

BLM Priority Animal Species Considered in the Planning Area (cont.) 

Common Name SCIENTIFIC NAME Status

Nongame Migratory Birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and Raptors (cont.) 

Gulls, Terns & Allies

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan Rare, transient 

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia Rare, winter 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Common, winter 

California Gull Larus californicus Common, winter 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus Rare, winter 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Uncommon, transient 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo Uncommon, transient 

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri Uncommon, winter 

Least Tern Sterna antillarum Rare, transient 

Black Tern Chlidonias leucopterus Uncommon, transient 

Pigeons & Doves

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica Common, summer 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Common, year-round 

Inca Dove Columbina inca Uncommon, year-round 

Common Ground Dove Columbina passerina Uncommon, year-round 

Ruddy Ground Dove Columbina talpacoti Rare, winter 

Cuckoos & Roadrunners

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Rare, summer 

Greater Roadrunner Geococcyx californianus Rare, summer 

Owls

Barn Owl Tyto alba Uncommon, year-round 

Western Screech Owl Otis kennicottii Uncommon, year-round 

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Uncommon, year-round 

Elf Owl Micrathene whitneys Uncommon, summer 

Burrowing Owl Speotyto cunicularia Uncommon, year-round 

Long-eared Owl Asio otus Rare, winter 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Rare, winter 

Nightjars

Lesser Nighthawk Chordeiles acutipennis Common, summer 

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Uncommon, summer 

Swifts

Vaux’s Swift Chaetura pelagica Uncommon, transient 

White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis Common, year-round 

Hummingbirds

Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Common, summer 

Anna’s Hummingbird Calypte anna Common, year-round 

Costa’s Hummingbird Calypte costae Common, year-round 

Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope Rare, transient 

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Uncommon, transient 

Allen’s Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin Rare, transient 

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Common, winter 

Page 2-B.8 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 3 

BLM Priority Animal Species Considered in the Planning Area (cont.) 

Common Name SCIENTIFIC NAME Status

Nongame Migratory Birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and Raptors (cont.) 

Woodpeckers

Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Rare, winter 

Gila Woodpecker Melanerpes uropygialis Common, year-round 

Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis Uncommon, winter 

Ladder-backed Woodpecker Picoides scalaris Common, year-round 

Gilded Flicker Colaptes chrysoides Common, year-round 

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Common, winter 

Tyrant Flycatchers

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis Uncommon, transient 

Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus Uncommon, transient 

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Uncommon, summer 

Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Uncommon, transient 

Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri Rare, transient 

Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii Uncommon, transient 

Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis Uncommon, transient 

Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis Uncommon, transient 

Black Phoebe Sayornis nigricans Common, year-round 

Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya Common, year-round 

Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus Uncommon, year-round 

Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Common, summer 

Brown-crested Flycatcher Myiarchus tyrannulus Rare, summer 

Cassin’s Kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Rare, transient 

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Common, summer 

Larks

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Common, year-round 

Swallows

Purple Martin Progne subis Rare, transient 

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Common, winter 

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Uncommon, transient 

North, Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Common, summer 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Uncommon, transient 

Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota Common, summer 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Common, transient 

Jays & Crows

Western Scrub Jay Aphelocoma californica Rare, winter 

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Uncommon, winter 

Common Raven Corvus corax Common, year-round 

Verdins & Bushtits

Verdin Auriparus flaviceps Common, year-round 

Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Rare, winter 

Nuthatches & Creepers

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Rare, transient 

Brown Creeper Certhia Americana Rare, winter 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-B.9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 3 

BLM Priority Animal Species Considered in the Planning Area (cont.) 

Common Name SCIENTIFIC NAME Status

Nongame Migratory Birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and Raptors (cont.) 

Wrens 

Cactus Wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus Common, year-round 

Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus Common, year-round 

Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus Common, year-round 

Bewick’s Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Uncommon, year-round 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon Common, winter 

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Rare, winter 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Common, year-round 

Kinglets, Gnatcatchers & Allies

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Rare, winter 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Reguluscalendula Common, winter 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Uncommon, year-round 

Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Polioptila melanura Common, year-round 

Western Bluebird Sialia Mexicana Uncommon, winter 

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Uncommon, winter 

Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi Rare, winter 

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus Uncommon, transient 

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Uncommon, winter 

American Robin Turdus migratorius Uncommon, winter 

Mockingbirds & Thrashers

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Common, year-round 

Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Uncommon, transient 

Curve-billed Thrasher Toxostoma curvirostre Uncommon, year-round 

Crissal Thrasher Toxostoma crissale Uncommon, year-round 

Le Conte’s Thrasher Toxostoma lecontei Uncommon, year-round 

Pipits

American Pipit Anthus rubescens Common, winter 

Waxwings

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Uncommon, winter 

Silky-Flycatchers

Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens Common, year-round 

Shrikes

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Common, year-round 

Vireos

Bell’s Vireo Vireo bellii Uncommon, summer 

Gray vireo Vireo vicinior Rare, transient 

Cassin’s vireo Vireo cassinii Uncommon, winter 

Plumbeous Vireo Vireo plumbeus Uncommon, winter 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Common, transient 

Wood-Warblers

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Common, winter 

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Common, transient 

Virginia’s Warbler Vermivora virginiae Rare, transient 

Lucy’s Warbler Vermivora luciae Uncommon, summer 

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Uncommon, summer 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Common, winter 

Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens Common, transient 

Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendi Common, transient 

Page 2-B.10 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 3 

BLM Priority Animal Species Considered in the Planning Area (cont.) 

Common Name SCIENTIFIC NAME Status

Nongame Migratory Birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and Raptors (cont.) 

Wood-Warblers (cont.)

Hermit Warbler Dendroica occidentalis Common, transient 

Black-and-white Warbler Dendroica varia Rare, transient 

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Rare, transient 

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis Rare, transient 

MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmei Common, transient 

Common Yellowthroat Geothylpis trichas Common, year-round 

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla Common, transient 

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens Common, summer 

Tanagers

Summer Tanagers Piranga rubra Uncommon, summer 

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Common, transient 

Cardinals, Grosbeakeaks & Allies

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Rare, year-round 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Rare, transient 

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Common, transient 

Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea Common, summer 

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena Common, transient 

Indigo Bunting Passerina ciris Rare, summer 

Sparrows

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Uncommon, transient 

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Uncommon, winter 

Canyon Towhee Pipilo fuscus Common, year-round 

Abert’s Towhee Pipilo aberti Common, year-round 

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Uncommon, winter 

Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri Uncommon, winter 

Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella trogularis Rare, winter 

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Common, winter 

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Uncommon, year-round 

Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Common, year-round 

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza bellii Uncommon, winter 

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Rare, transient 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Common, winter 

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Rare, winter 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Rare, winter 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Common, year-round 

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Uncommon, winter 

Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla Rare, winter 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Common, winter 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Uncommon, winter 

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Rare, winter 

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus Rare, winter 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-B.11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 3 

BLM Priority Animal Species Considered in the Planning Area (cont.) 

Common Name SCIENTIFIC NAME Status

Nongame Migratory Birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and Raptors (cont.) 

Blackbirds & Orioles

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Common, year-round 

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Common, year-round 

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Common, summer 

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Common, winter 

Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus Common, year-round 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Common, year-round 

Bronzed Cowbird Molothrus aeneus Rare, summer 

Hooded Oriole Molothrus cucullatus Uncommon, summer 

Bullock’s Oriole Icterus bullockii Uncommon, summer 

Scott’s Oriole Icterus parisorum Rare, summer 

Finches

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Common, year-round 

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Rare, winter 

Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria Uncommon, year-round 

Lawrence’s Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei Rare, transient 

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Uncommon, winter 

Blackbirds & Orioles 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Common, year-round 

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Common, year-round 

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Common, summer 

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Common, winter 

Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus Common, year-round 

Table 4 

BLM Sensitive, State Protected, and Priority Plants Considered in the Planning Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Ajo lily Hesperocallis undulate ANPL-SR 

Algodones Dune Sunflower Helianthus niveus ssp. tephrodes CA-E, CNPS 1B.2 

Alverson’s Foxtail Cactus Coryphantha alversonii Priority 

Barrel Cactus Ferocactus wislizeni ANPL-SR 

Beavertail Cactus Opuntia basilaris var. basilaris ANPL-SR 

Beehive Cactus Echinomastus johnsonii ANPL-SR 

Big Galleta Hilaria rigida Priority 

Bigelow’s Nolina Nolina bigelovii ANPL-SR, HR 

Blue Paloverde Parkinsonia florida ANPL-SA 

Blue Sand Lily Triteliopsis palmeri BLM, ANPL-SR, 

Buckhorn Cholla Opuntia acanthocarpa var. acanthocarpa ANPL-SR 

Bush Muhly Muhlenbergia porteri Priority 

California Snakewood Colubrina californica CNPS 

Catclaw Acacia Acacia greggii Priority 

Cottonwood Populus fremontii Priority 

Crucifixion Thorn Castella emoryi ANPL-SR 

Desert Agave Agave deserti ssp. simplex ANPL-SR 

Page 2-B.12 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 4 

BLM Sensitive, State Protected, and Priority Plants Considered in the Planning Area (cont.) 

Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Desert Holly Atriplex hymenelytra ANPL-SR 

Desert Willow Chilopsis linearis ANPL-SA 

Devil’s Cholla Opuntia kunzei ANPL-SR 

Diamond Cholla Opuntia ramosissima ANPL-SR 

Dudleya Dudleya arizonica ANPL-SR 

Dune Buckwheat Eriogonum deserticola Priority 

Dune Spurge Euphorbia platysperma Priority 

Elephant Tree, Torote Bursera microphylla ANPL-SR 

Fairy Duster Calliandra eriophylla CNPS 

Foothill Paloverde Parkinsonia microphylla ANPL-SA 

Hall’s Tetracoccus Tetracoccus hallii CNPS 

Hedgehog Cactus Echinocereus engelmanii var. chrysocentrus ANPL-SR 

Ironwood Olneya tesota ANPL-SA, HR 

Kearney Sumac Rhus kearneyi ssp kearneyi BLM, ANPL- SR 

Kofa Mountain Barberry Berberis harrisoniana BLM, CNPS 1B.2 

Long leaf Sandpaper Plant Petalonyx linearis Priority 

Mammillaria Cactus Mammillaria tetrancistra ANPL-SR 

Mesquite Prosopis spp. ANPL-SA, HR 

Night Blooming Cereus Peniocereus greggii ANPL-SR 

Ocotillo Fouquieria splendens ANPL-SR 

Parish Wild Onion Allium parishii BLM, AZPL-HS 

Pencil Cholla Opuntia leptocaulis ANPL-SR 

Queen-of-the-Night Peniocereus greggii var. transmontanus ANPL-SR 

Saguaro Cactus Carnegiea gigantea ANPL-SR, CNPS 

Saguaro Cactus ‘Crested’ or ‘Fan-top’ Carnegia gigantea ANPL-HS 

Sand Food Pholisma sonorae BLM , CNPS 1B.2, 

ANPL- HS 

Scaly Sandplant Pholisma arenarium BLM, ANPL-HS 

Schott Wire Lettuce Stephanomeria schottii BLM 

Scrub Oak Quercus turbinella Priority 

Silver Cholla Opuntia echinocarpa ANPL-SR 

Smoke Tree Psorothamnus spinosus ANPL-SA 

Teddy-bear Cholla Opuntia bigelovii ANPL-SR 

Thurber’s Pilostyles Pilostyles thurberi CNPS 

Wiggins Croton Croton wigginsii CA-R 

Goodding’s Willow Salix gooddingii Priority 

ANPL Arizona Native Plant Law (ANPL) Categories of Protection 

ANPL-HS Highly Safeguarded Protected Native Plants includes those species of native plants and parts of plants, including the seeds 

and fruit, whose prospects for survival in Arizona are in jeopardy or which are in danger of extinction. 

ANPL-SR Salvage Restricted Protected Native Plants includes those species of native plants that are not included in the highly 

safeguarded category but are subject to damage by theft or vandalism. In addition to the plants listed under Agavaceae, Cactaceae, 

Liliaceae, and Orchidaceae, all other species in these families are salvage restricted protected native plants 

ANPL-SA Salvage Assessed Protected Native Plants includes those species of native plants that are not included in either the highly 

safeguarded or salvage restricted category but have a sufficient value of salvaged to support the cost of salvage 

ANPL-HR Harvest Restricted Protected Native Plants includes those species of native plants that are not included in the highly 

safeguarded category but are subject to excessive harvesting or overcutting because of their intrinsic value. 

BLM Arizona BLM Sensitive Species 

CA-R Categorized by the State of California as “rare”; California Department of Fish and Game, 2000 

CA-E Categorized by the State of California as “endangered”; California Department of Fish and Game, 2000 

CNPS Listed by California Native Plants Society 

 1B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 

 0.2 Fairly endangered in California 

Priority Priority species in planning area 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-B.13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Table 5 

Invasive or Non-native Plant Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Habit Designation Presence in YFO 

Bermuda Grass Cynodon dactylon Terrestrial Common 

Buffel Grass Pennisetum ciliare Terrestrial AZ-regulated Common on roadsides 

Camelthorn Alhagi pseudalhagi Terrestrial Small infestations 

Dodder Cuscuta spp. Terrestrial AZ-regulated Uncommon 

Eurasian Waternilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum Aquatic Common 

Fountain grass Pennisetum setaceum Terrestrial Small infestations 

Garden Rocket Eruca vesicaria Terrestrial Small infestations 

Giant Reed Arundo donax Terrestrial/ 

Riparian 

Uncommon 

Giant Salvinia Salvinia molesta Aquatic Federally listed 

noxious, AZprohibited 

Widespread 

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticaillata Aquatic AZ-prohibited Not known to occur 

Iceplant Mesembryanthemum spp. Terrestrial Small infestations 

Lead Plant Leucaena spp. Terrestrial Small infestations 

Lehmann’s Lovegrass Eragrostis lehmanniana Terrestrial Not known to occur 

Malta Starthistle Centaurea melitensis Terrestrial Not known to occur 

Mediterranean Grass Scismus barbatus, 

Scismus arabicus 

Terrestrial Widespread 

Pampas Grass Cortaderia selloana Terrestrial Not known to occur 

Parrot feather Myriophyllum aquaticum Aquatic Small infestations 

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris Terrestrial AZ-regulated Uncommon 

Ravenna Grass Erianthus ravennae Terrestrial Small infestations 

Red Brome Bromus rubens Terrestrial Common 

Russian Thistle Salsola spp. Terrestrial Uncommon 

Sahara Mustard Brassica tornefortii Terrestrial Widespread 

Salt Cedar Tamarix spp. Terrestrial/ 

Riparian 

Widespread 

Water Hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes Aquatic AZ-restricted Not known to occur 

AZ - Arizona 

Page 2-B.14 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Literature Cited 

Arizona Department of Agriculture 

 2006 Protected Arizona Native Plants. Arizona Native Plant Law online database. 

http://www.azda.gov/ESD/nativeplants.htm. 

Birds Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

 http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/intrnltr/mbta/taxolst.html. Accessed in September 

2006. 

California Department of Fish and Game 

 2006a California Natural Diversity Database State and Federally Listed Endangered, 

Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Habitat Conservation Division Wildlife & 

Habitat Data Analysis Branch, May 2006. 

California Department of Fish and Game 

 2006b Habitat Conservation Planning Branch online database. http://www.dfg.ca.gov. 

California Native Plant Society 

 2006 Inventory of Native Plants online database. http://cnps.web.aplus.net. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

 2005h Updated BLM Sensitive Species List for Arizona. Instruction Memorandum No. AZ2006-002, Change 1. Arizona State Office Memorandum dated November 4, 2005. 

 2005i Mammals of the Yuma Field Office. Pamphlet. Accessed in September 2006. 

 2005j Birds of the Yuma Field Office. Pamphlet. Accessed in September 2006. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-B.15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-B 

Page intentionally left blank. 

Page 2-B.16 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES 

1.0 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 (M.I.S.T.) 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 Resource Advisor will be consulted to ensure habitat 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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 and AGFD. 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 burn 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 structures and maintaining adequate patches of key habitat components) 

during project planning and implementation. 

FT-2 M.I.S.T. 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 burns 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 crosscountry travel paths will be surveyed prior to use and will be closed and rehabilitated 

after the prescribed burn 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 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. 

Page 2-C.2 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

1.3 REHABILITATION AND RESTORATION (RR) 

RR-1 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 shortterm 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 burn, 

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 OHV 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 AGFD. 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 fireprone 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. 

2.0 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 aquatic habitats, unless firefighter or public safety, or the protection of 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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 M.I.S.T. 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 corridors. 

RA-8 When using water from sources 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. 

Page 2-C.4 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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 nonnative 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-11 (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 and AGFD. 

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-12 All Conservation Measures for wildland fire suppression (RA-1 to RA-11, Section 2.1) 

also apply to fuels treatment activities (prescribed fire; mechanical, chemical, and biological 

treatments) in riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats. 

RA-13 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, BLM biologists and other resource specialists, as 

appropriate, in coordination with USFWS and AGFD, 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 deferments from grazing will only 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

occur when necessary to protect streams from increased ash or sediment flow into 

streams. 1

If agreement cannot be reached or treatment will not meet fuel reduction objectives, BLM will 

reinitiate consultation. BLM authority to make these types of changes is in the regulations at 43 

CFR 4110.3-3(b). 

3.0 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. For all activities, if Conservation Measures for a species cannot be 

implemented, BLM would be required to initiate Section 7 consultation with USFWS for that 

particular activity. 

3.1 AMPHIBIANS [CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (FT); 

RELICT LEOPARD FROG (FC)] 

AM-1 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 

 

1 The Interagency Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook, Exhibit 4-2 ,BLM supplemental 

guidance, page 5 of 9 (http://fire.r9.fws.gov/ifcc/ESR/handbook/4PolicyGuidance.htm) establishes the following policy for 

livestock exclusion following burns: 

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 revegetated 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. 

Page 2-C.6 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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). 

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 (PROPOSED CH, 

WILDLIFE OF CONCERN IN ARIZONA) 

FP-1 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-1 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. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

CC-2 Any presence of condors in the project area will be recorded and reported immediately to 

the Resource Advisor. 

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 

concerns 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 ADEQ. 

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 closures to human access and 

project implementation (wildland fire use, prescribed burning, vegetation treatments) within 1⁄2 

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 1⁄2 mile from downwind smoke effects. 

3.2.5 SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER (FE) 

WF-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and 

Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0). 

Page 2-C.8 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

WF-2 Except where fires are active in occupied habitat, minimize unnecessary low-level 

helicopter flights during the breeding season (April 1 to 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 1⁄4 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 RR5). 

WF-6 Prescribed burning will only be allowed within 1⁄2 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 to 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 to March 31). 

3.2.6 YUMA CLAPPER RAIL (FE) 

CR-1 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 (WILDLIFE OF CONCERN IN ARIZONA) 

BE-1 No human activity within 1⁄2 mile of known bald eagle nest sites between December 1 and 

June 30. 

BE-2 No tree cutting within 1⁄4 mile of known nest trees. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

BE-3 No human activity within 1⁄4 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 1⁄2 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 burn activities outside of nesting season in a manner to ensure nest and 

winter roost sites are more than 1⁄2 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 1⁄2 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-1 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: 

 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 

Page 2-C.10 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

will be to limit mortality of trees greater than 18 inches dbh to less than five 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 18 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 18 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: 

A) Manage mixed-conifer and pine-oak forest types to provide continuous replacement 

nest habitat over space and time (Table III.B.1 of the Recovery Plan for Mexican 

Spotted Owl). 

B) Incorporate natural variation, such as irregular tree spacing and various stand/patch 

sizes, into management prescriptions and attempt to mimic natural disturbance 

patterns. 

C) Maintain all species of native vegetation in the landscape, including early seral 

species. To allow for variation in existing stand structures and provide species 

diversity, both uneven-aged and even-aged systems may be used as appropriate. 

D) Allow natural canopy gap processes to occur, thus producing horizontal variation in 

stand structure. 

E) Within pine-oak types, fuels treatment activities should emphasize retaining existing 

large oaks and promoting the growth of additional large oaks. 

F) Retain all trees >24 inches dbh. 

G) Retain hardwoods, large down logs, large trees, and snags. 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 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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-1 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 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-1 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 burns 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 runoff 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. 

Page 2-C.12 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

3.3.3 GILA TOPMINNOW (FE) 

GT-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and 

Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0). 

GT-2 Conduct prescribed burns 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. 

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 AGFD 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-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and 

Aquatic Habitats (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-1 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-1 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. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

3.3.7 LITTLE COLORADO SPINEDACE (FT, CH) 

LS-1 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-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and 

Aquatic Habitats (Section 2.0) for occupied reaches and critical habitat. 

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 AGFD 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 AGFD 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. 

Page 2-C.14 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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 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 OHVs be allowed within the 100-

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 protected and sensitive plant populations unless 

specifically 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. nicholii), Peebles Navajo Cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. 

peeblesianus), Pima Pineapple Cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina), Jones 

Cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii), Siler Pincushion Cactus (Pediocactus sileri), 

Acuña Cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis), Fickeisen Plains Cactus 

(Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae). 

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. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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. 

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 1⁄4 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 blackfooted ferrets. 

BF-4 In Apache and Navajo counties, prairie dog complexes suitable for black-footed ferrets 

within 1⁄4 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-1 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 burn 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 

Page 2-C.16 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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 

burns 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 period to encourage additional herbaceous growth. Post-monsoon burns would 

help avoid the dry conditions that could result in extremely hot fires that reduce the recruitment 

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, unburned 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 construction 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. 2-21-01-F-241) continue to apply to the 

Pine Lake project. 

3.5.3 JAGUAR (FE) 

JA-1 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 BLMadministered lands in identified locations south of I-10 and Highway 86. Locations will be 

identified in site-specific fire management plans. 

3.5.4 LESSER LONG-NOSED BAT (FE) 

LB-1 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 concentrationsare 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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. 

LB-5 A mitigation plan will be developed by the BLM in coordination with the USFWS for 

prescribed fires or fuels management projects (mechanical, chemical, biological treatments) 

within 0.5 mile 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 percent 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 percent 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 April1 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: 

Page 2-C.18 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

PD-1 No heavy equipment operation off of existing roads within 1⁄4 mile of black -tailed prairie 

dog colonies. 

PD-2 No aerial retardant application within 1⁄4 mile of black -tailed prairie dog colonies. 

PD-3 No surface disturbance of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. 

3.6 REPTILES 

3.6.1 DESERT TORTOISE, MOJAVE POPULATION (FT) 

DT-1 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 1995 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. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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 OHV 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-11 Fire-related vehicles will drive slow enough to ensure that tortoises on roads can be 

identified and avoided. 

DT-12 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-13 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 

Page 2-C.20 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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-14 Elevated predation by common ravens or other predators attributable to fire suppression 

activities will be reduced to the maximum extent possible. Work 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-18 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 AGFD. 

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-1 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 to 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 

burns will be fully 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. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.21 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

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. 

Page 2-C.22 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-C 

Page intentionally left blank. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-C.23 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-D 

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 4115.2-1 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 eight-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 rules 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. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-D.1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-D 

Page intentionally left blank. 

Page 2-D.2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 






Main Features Include: 

1. Logical, standardized, balanced and repeatable approach to route evaluation. 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 potential impact or degradation to specially protected resources, such as species 

protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), 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 Agency Organic Acts and their 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 the Organic Acts 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. 

R

Close

01

Close: A rout

Physical closublend with subarriers and s

4. Systematic consideration of mitigation and/or limited designation as a means by which to 

ameliorate resource impacts. Recommended 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. 

Mitigate/Limit

5. Systematic recordation of data allowing for future retrieval and review/updating of evaluation 

information as needed (i.e. evaluation pathways are numerically coded). 

6. Systematic ability to assess a route’s recommended designation status based upon the 

management goals of each individual alternative. 

How does the 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 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 evaluation process and enables the public to make comment on 

specific routes. 

4. Each route is systematically assessed by sequentially answering the questions in the Evaluation Tree. 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 recommendation of a 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 evaluation record.

Limit 

05 

Limit: A route 

entities with vvehicle types

Mitigate/

Open 

05

Mitigate/Openmitigation actestimated imp

Open

02 Open: A route 

Mitigate/

Limit 

09

parties or entcertain vehicl

aimed at avoi

identified dur
C. Does the rou

(e.g. via pres

• Is the route a • Is the route a • Officially rec

maintenance

A. Is the route an officially recognized 

right-of-way or an officially recognized County or State route? 

B. Might the continued use of this route impact State or Federal special status species or their habitat or cultural or any other specially protected resources or objects identified by Agency planning documents, plan amendments or any other special area designations (e.g. National Monuments)? 

D. Can the impacts to the above sensitive resources be avoided, minimized, or mitigated? 

F. Might the continued use of this route impact State or Federal special status species or their habitat or cultural or any other specially protected resources or objects identified by Agency planning documents, plan amendments or any other special area designations (e.g. National Monuments)?

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 avoided, minimized, or mitigated?

I. Would route closure or some other form of mitigation address cumulative evarious other resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or spec

Y N

Y N Y N 

Y N Y N Y N Y N 

L. Does this route contribute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in agency Organic laws? 

X. Can the commercial, private-property and public uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) 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(s) that minimizes impacts to thesensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?

Y N

Y N

Close 

01 

Limit 

01 

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

01

Open

04 

Limit 

02 

Close 

02 

Mitigate/ 

Open 

01

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

02

Close 

19 

Limit 

16 

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

11

Open

12 

Limit 

17 

Close 

20 

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

12

Y

N

N. Does this route contribute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in agency Organic laws?

BB. Can the commercial, private-property and public uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) that minimizes cumulative effects on various resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or specially protected?

Y N

CC. Can the commercial or private-property uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) that minimizes cumulative effects on various resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or specially protected?

Y N

Close 

05 

Limit 

05 

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

03

Open

06 

Limit 

06 

Close 

06 

Mitigate/ 

Open 

02

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

04

Close 

23 

Limit 

20 

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

13

Limit 

21 

Close 

24 

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

14

Y

N

M. Does this route contribute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in agency Organic laws? 

Z. Can the commercial, private-property and public uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?

Limit 

03 

Close 

03 

Y N

AA. Can the commercial or private-property uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?

Y

N

Y N

Open

05 

Close 

04 

Limit 

04 

Limit 

18 

Close 

21 

Open

13 

Close 

22 

Limit 

19 

O. Does this route contribute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in agency Organic laws?

Open

01 

Y N

Limit 

06 

Open

07 

P. Does this route contribute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in agency Organic laws? 

DD. Can the commercial, private-property and public uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) that minimizes impacts to thesensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?

Y N

EE. Can the commercial or private-property uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) that minimizes impacts to thesensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?

Y N

Close 

07 

Limit 

07 

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

05

Open

07 

Limit 

08 

Close

08 

Mitigate/ 

Open 

03

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

06

Close 

25 

Limit 

22 

Mitigate/ 

Limit 

15

Limit

23 

Close 

26 

Mitigate/

Limit 

16

Y

N

Q. Does this route contribute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in agency Organic laws?

FF. Can the commercial, private-property and public uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?

Limit

09 

Close

09

Y N

GG. Can the commercial or private-property uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) that minimizes impacts to the sensitive resources identified above or that minimizes cumulative effects on various other resources?

Y

N

Y N

Open

08 

Close

10

Limit

10 

Limit

24 

Close

27

Open

14 

Close

28

Limit

25 

R. Does this route contribute to recreational opportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in agency Organic laws? 

HH. Can the commercial, private-property and public uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) that minimizes cumulative effects on various resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or specially protected?

Y N

II. Can the commercial or private-property uses of this route be adequately met by another route(s) that minimizes cumulative effects on various resources not specifically identified above as sensitive or specially protected?

Y N

Close

11

Limit

11 

Mitigate/

Limit 

07

Open

09 

Limit

12 

Close

12

Mitigate/

Open 

04

Mitigate/

Limit 

08

Close

29

Limit

26 

Mitigate/

Limit 

17

Limit

27 

Close

30

Mitigate/

Limit 

18

Y

N

S. Does this route contribute to recreationopportunities, route network connectivity, public safety, or other public use access opportunities enumerated in agency Organic laws?

Open

02 

Y 

Limit

28 

O

©Advanced Resource Solutions, Inc. 2003-2005 

Patent Pending 

Mitigate/ 

Open 

07

©
Appendix 2-F 

SPECIAL CULTURAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Special Cultural Resource Management Area (SCRMA) – An area containing 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 8110.4. Management prescriptions for these areas should reflect and support the 

primary values for which the areas are allocated. For example, management prescriptions for a 

SCRMA allocated primarily for public use should focus on developing and interpreting sites for 

public visitation, including heritage tourism. Management prescriptions for a SCRMA allocated 

primarily for scientific use should focus on protecting sites for study, supporting field schools 

and other research efforts. Management prescriptions for a SCRMA allocated primarily for 

traditional use should seek to accommodate the traditional cultural practices of Native American 

tribes or other cultural groups that ascribe religious or other heritage values to specific cultural 

properties or places within the area. Management prescriptions for a SCRMA allocated primarily 

to protect scarce sites of singular importance that should not be subjected to invasive studies or 

other uses that would threaten their present condition should focus on conserving sites for the 

future. 

Management prescriptions for a single SCRMA 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 8110.4. For example, a SCRMA 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 resources 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. The allocation might also indicate priority areas for proactive inventory. However, 

highlighting a geographic area for its special cultural resource values does not diminish the 

importance of cultural resources in other areas. Cultural resources on lands not included within 

SCRMAs still need to be managed for the values they contain and opportunities they afford. 

This land use allocation carries no inherent restrictions on competing land uses. Decisions about 

proposed land uses that may affect individual cultural properties within SCRMAs will be made 

on a case-by-case basis, weighing the cultural resource values in the balance along with all other 

considerations. Enclosing cultural properties within SCRMAs does not add value to those 

properties beyond what they would have if they were not within SCRMAs. SCRMA allocations 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-F.1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-F 

provide focus to management but they do not in themselves increase the scientific, public, 

traditional or other values that cultural properties possess. Some cultural properties within 

SCRMAs may, in fact, have little or no value beyond the information gathered by documenting 

them in the field. 

ACEC is a designation that can be used to protect and provide special management attention to 

areas with significant cultural resource values. ACEC designation should be considered 

whenever an area containing important cultural resources meets the criteria for designation. 

However, allocation of a SCRMA can be useful in focusing management attention on an area not 

meeting the criteria for designation as an ACEC or where designation of an ACEC would be 

inappropriate. In such cases, a SCRMA can be allocated, incorporating management 

prescriptions that will provide the special protection or other emphasis needed to achieve 

management objectives. 

Page 2-F.2 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-G 

CURRENT WITHDRAWALS IN THE YUMA 

FIELD OFFICE 

Agency/Project Mechanism Date 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Temporary Withdrawal Colorado River 

Reclamation Project Secretarial Order 9/15/1902 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Temporary Withdrawal Colorado River 

Reclamation Project Secretarial Order 2/5/1903 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Reclamation Project Secretarial Order 4/14/1903 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Temporary Withdrawal Colorado River 

Project, Yuma and Picacho Dam Sites Secretarial Order 8/1/1903 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Project Secretarial Order 8/1/1903 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project, Ditch Riders Quarters Secretarial Order 8/5/1903 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Project Secretarial Order 4/9/1904 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Temporary Withdrawal Colorado River 

Project, Laguna Reservoir Site Secretarial Order 7/1/1904 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project Secretarial Order 9/30/1904 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project Secretarial Order 7/20/1905 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project Missing Document 5/26/1906 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project Missing Document 6/23/1908 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Project Secretarial Order 6/15/1910 

U.S. Department of Defense, National Guard of Arizona Executive Order 1255 10/13/1910 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Survey 3/27/1913 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project (AZAZAAA3528) Secretarial Order 5/5/1917 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project (AZA17413) Secretarial Order 5/5/1917 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Mesa Auxiliary Project Secretarial Order 7/12/1917 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sentinel Project Secretarial Order 11/16/1918 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project Secretarial Order 10/22/1919 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project Secretarial Order 8/7/1920 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project Secretarial Order 12/10/1921 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project, Ditch Riders Quarters Secretarial Order 12/10/1921 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project (AZAZAA003530) Secretarial Order 12/19/1924 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project, Ditch Riders Quarters 

(AZA013414) Secretarial Order 12/19/1924 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Project Secretarial Order 1/30/1929 

U.S. Customs, San Luis #71 Secretarial Order 8/26/1929 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Storage Project 4/5/1930 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Storage Project Secretarial Order 6/4/1930 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Reclamation Project Secretarial Order 3/26/1931 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Storage Project Secretarial Order 10/6/1931 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kofa Game Range Executive Order 8039 1/25/1939 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cabeza Prieta Game Range Executive Order 8038 1/25/1939 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Gila Project Secretarial Order 5/23/1940 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Imperial National Wildlife Refuge Executive Order 8685 2/14/1941 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Storage Project Bureau Order 8/3/1949 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Storage Project Secretarial Order 2/19/1951 

U.S. Department of Air Force, Dateland Air Force Auxiliary Field Public Land Order 780 12/29/1951 

U.S. Department of Army, Yuma Test Station Public Land Order 848 7/8/1952 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-G.1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-G 

Page 2-G.2 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

Agency/Project Mechanism Date 

U.S. Department of Defense, Vincent Air Force Base Public Land Order 1889 6/26/1959 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Control Public Land Order 2644 4/6/1962 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cibola National Wildlife Refuge Public Land Order 3442 8/21/1964 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Storage Project Public Land Order 3752 7/30/1965 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Crystal Hill Recreation Area Public Land Order 4216 4/29/1967 

U.S. Department of Justice, Customs Facility (Administrative Site) Public Land Order 4525 9/30/1968 

Withdrawal for Flood Control Public Land Order 5003 1/26/1971 

U.S. Department of Army, Yuma Proving Ground Public Land Order 6475 10/5/1983 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kofa National Wildlife Refuge Public Law 100-696 11/18/1988 

U.S. Navy, Marine Corps Air Station Public Land Order 6804 10/16/1990 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Eagletail Mountains Wilderness Area Public Law 101-628 11/28/1990 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Muggins Mountains Wilderness Area Public Law 101-628 11/28/1990 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, New Water Mountains Wilderness 

Area Public Law 101-628 11/28/1990 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Trigo Mountains Wilderness Area Public Law 101-628 11/28/1990 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Big Maria Mountains Wilderness Public Law 103-433 10/31/1994 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Little Picacho Wilderness Public Law 103-433 10/31/1994 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Riverside Mountains Wilderness Public Law 103-433 10/31/1994 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Gila River Cultural Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern Public Land Order 7212 8/27/1996 

U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Air Force, Barry M. Goldwater Range Public Law 106-65 10/5/1999 
Appendix 2-H 

GUIDE TO STIPULATIONS WITH CODES 

MACRO INDEX

The standard stipulations on the following pages are organized by subject matter; the 

alphanumeric code preceding each stipulation corresponds to the following list. 

The page each starts on is given on the right. 

a - Construction Plans .....................................................................2 

b - Cultural / Pesticides / Weeds / Survey Monuments...................4 

c - Civil Rights / Corps of Engineers 404 Permits ..........................5 

d - Staking .......................................................................................5 

e - Clearing ......................................................................................6 

f - Construction................................................................................7 

g - Cattleguards / Fences .................................................................8 

h - Drainage Structures....................................................................8 

i - Construction Access....................................................................9 

j - Pipelines....................................................................................10 

k - Powerlines................................................................................10 

l - Rehabilitation............................................................................11 

m - Seed Mix / Mulch.................................................................... 12 

n - Fire ...........................................................................................13 

p - Row Maintenance ....................................................................14 

q - Bonds / Liability.......................................................................15 

r - Hazardous Waste / Liability / Waste Disposal .........................16 

s - Oil & Gas Boundary Adjustment / Termination ......................17 

t - Contingency Plans / Spills ........................................................17 

u - Road Maintenance Agreements ............................................... 18 

v - Communication Sites ............................................................... 18 

w - Dams and Reservoirs............................................................... 24 

x - Air quality ................................................................................25 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

A. CONSTRUCTION PLANS 

a1 The holder shall construct, operate, and maintain the facilities, improvements, and 

structures within this ROW in strict conformity with the plan(s) of development which was 

(were) approved and made part of the grant on [user entry]. Any relocation, additional 

construction, or use that is not in accord with the approved plan(s) of development, shall not be 

initiated without the prior written approval of the authorized officer. A copy of the complete 

ROW grant, including all stipulations and approved plan(s) of development, shall be made 

available on the right-of-way area during construction, operation, and termination to the 

authorized officer. Noncompliance with the above will be grounds for an immediate temporary 

suspension of activities if it constitutes a threat to public health and safety or the environment. 

NOTE: Select the appropriate version of the text inside parentheses, delete the other versions 

and this note. 

a2 The holder shall submit a plan or plans of development that describe in detail the 

construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of the ROW and its associated 

improvements and/or facilities. The degree and scope of these plans will vary depending upon 

(1) the complexity of the ROW or its associated improvements and/or facilities, (2) the 

anticipated conflicts that require mitigation, and (3) additional technical information required by 

the authorized officer. The plans will be reviewed and, if appropriate, modified and approved by 

the authorized officer. An approved plan of development shall be made a part of the ROW grant. 

a3 The holder shall contact the authorized officer at least [user entry] days prior to the 

anticipated start of construction and/or any surface disturbing activities. The authorized officer 

may require and schedule a preconstruction conference with the holder prior to the holder’s 

commencing construction and/or surface disturbing activities on the ROW. The holder and/or his 

representative shall attend this conference. The holder’s contractor, or agents involved with 

construction and/or any surface disturbing activities associated with the ROW, shall also attend 

this conference to review the stipulations of the grant including the plan(s) of development. 

a4 The holder shall designate a representative(s) who shall have the authority to act upon 

and to implement instructions form the authorized officer. The holder’s representative shall be 

available for communication with the authorized officer within a reasonable time when 

construction or other surface disturbing activities are underway. 

a5 The authorized officer may suspend or terminate in whole or in part, any notice to 

proceed which has been issued when, in his judgment, unforeseen conditions arise which result 

in the approved terms and conditions being inadequate to protect the public health and safety or 

to protect the environment. 

a6 The holder shall not initiate any construction or other surface disturbing activities on the 

ROW without the prior written authorization of the authorized officer. Such authorization shall 

be a written notice to proceed issued by the authorized officer. Any notice to proceed shall 

authorize construction or use only as therein expressly stated and only for the particular location 

or use therein described. 

Page 2-H.2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

a7 Where slope stabilization requires significant terrace or bench construction, the holder 

shall include engineering drawings for this work to be reviewed and, where appropriate, 

modified and approved by the authorized officer. 

a8 No surface disturbing activities shall take place on the subject ROW until the associated 

APD is approved. The holder will adhere to special stipulations of the Surface Use Program of 

the approved APD, relevant to any ROW facilities. 

a9 The holder shall perform the necessary transportation studies and recommend a road 

standard to meet the purpose of the road. This standard and the topography, soils, and geologic 

hazards of the lands crossed will define the level of survey and design necessary. Accepted 

standards for road design, including the BLM Manual Section may be used. 

a10 The holder shall obtain the services of a licensed professional engineer to locate, survey, 

design, and construct the proposed road as directed by the authorized officer. The road design 

shall be based on the (1) width, (2) maximum grade, and (3) design speed of the road. 

a11 The holder shall submit standard or typical cross sections of the road to be constructed, 

maintained, or reconstructed as directed by the authorized officer. The cross sections should 

include, but are not limited to, the proposed road width, ditch dimensions, cut and fill slopes, and 

typical culvert installation. 

a12 As directed by the authorized officer, the completed subgrade shall be submitted to the 

BLM for approval prior to the placement of any surfacing. 

a13 As directed by the authorized officer, surfacing shall be designed to accommodate 

anticipated loading and traffic volumes and shall provide for future maintenance. 

a14 The holder shall submit a plan of development that describes in detail the construction, 

operation, maintenance, and termination of the ROW and its associated improvements and/or 

facilities. The plan shall include drawings in sufficient detail in enable a complete evaluation of 

all proposed structures, facilities, and landscaping to ensure compliance with the requirements of 

the grant and to ensure visual compatibility with the site. These drawings shall be the 

construction documents and must show dimensions, materials, finishes, etc. to demonstrate 

compliance with the requirements. The plans will be reviewed and, if appropriate, modified and 

approved by the authorized officer. An approved plan of development shall be made a part of the 

ROW grant. 

a15 The design and location of all facilities shall be approved by the authorized officer prior 

to construction. 

a16 No signs or advertising devices shall be placed on the premises or on adjacent public 

lands, except those posted by or at the direction of the authorized officer. 

a17 The site plan, building design, floor plan, tower design, and electrical drawings submitted 

with the original proposal shall be made a part of this ROW grant. All construction must 

conform to these drawings. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

B. CULTURAL/PESTICIDES/WEEDS/MONUMENTS 

b1 Any cultural and/or paleontological resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) 

discovered by the holder or any person working on his behalf, on public or Federal land shall be 

immediately reported to the authorized officer. Holder shall suspend all operations in the 

immediate area of such discovery until written authorization to proceed is issued by the 

authorized officer. An evaluation of the discovery will be made by the authorized officer to 

determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural or scientific values. The 

holder will be responsible for the cost of evaluation and any decision as to proper mitigation 

measures will be made by the authorized officer after consulting with the holder. 

b2 Use of pesticides shall comply with the applicable Federal and State laws. Pesticides 

shall be used only in accordance with their registered uses and within limitations imposed by the 

Secretary of the Interior. Prior to the use of pesticides, the holder shall obtain from the 

authorized officer written approval of a plan showing the type and quantity of material to be 

used, pest(s) to be controlled, method of application, location of storage and disposal of 

containers, and any other information deemed necessary by the authorized officer. Emergency 

use of pesticides shall be approved in writing by the authorized officer prior to such use. 

b3 The holder shall be responsible for weed control on disturbed areas within the limits of 

the ROW. The holder is responsible for consultation with the authorized officer and/or local 

authorities for acceptable weed control methods (within limits imposed in the grant stipulations). 

b4 The holder shall protect all survey monuments found within the ROW. Survey 

monuments include, but are not limited to, General Land Office and BLM Cadastral Survey 

Corners, reference corners, witness points, U.S. Coastal and Geodetic benchmarks and 

triangulation stations, military control monuments, and recognizable civil (both public and 

private) survey monuments. In the event of obliteration or disturbance of any of the above, the 

holder shall immediately report the incident, in writing, to the authorized officer and the 

respective installing authority if known. Where General Land Office of BLM ROW monuments 

or references are obliterated during operations, the holder shall secure the services of a registered 

land surveyor or a BLM cadastral surveyor to restore the disturbed monuments and references 

using surveying procedures found in the Manual of Surveying Instructions for the Survey of the 

Public Lands in the United States, latest edition. The holder shall record such survey in the 

appropriate county and send a copy to the authorized officer. If the BLM cadastral surveyors or 

other Federal surveyors are used to restore the disturbed survey monument, the holder shall be 

responsible for the survey cost. 

C. CIVIL RIGHTS/CORPS OF ENGINEERS 404 PERMITS 

c1 The holder of this ROW grant or the holder’s successor in interest shall comply with 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) and the regulations of the 

Secretary of the Interior issued pursuant thereto. 

c2 The holder shall comply with the construction practices and mitigating measures 

established by 33 CFR 323.4, which sets forth the parameters of the “nationwide permit” 

Page 2-H.4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If the proposed action exceeds the parameters of 

the nationwide permit, the holder shall obtain an individual permit from the appropriate office of 

the USACOE and provide the authorized officer with a copy of same. Failure to comply with this 

requirement shall be cause for suspension or termination of this ROW grant. 

D. STAKING 

d1 The holder shall place slope stakes, culvert location and grade stakes, and other 

construction control stakes as deemed necessary by the authorized officer to ensure construction 

in accordance with the plan of development. If stakes are disturbed, they shall be replaced before 

proceeding with construction. 

d2 The holder shall mark the exterior boundaries of the ROW with a stake and/or lath at 

[user entry] foot intervals. The intervals may be varied at the time of staking at the discretion of 

the authorized officer. The tops of the stakes and/or laths will be painted and the laths flagged in 

a distinctive color as determined by the holder. The survey station numbers will be marked on 

the boundary stakes and/or laths at the entrance to and the exit from public land. Holder shall 

maintain all boundary stakes and/or laths in place until final cleanup and restoration is completed 

and approved by the authorized officer. The stakes and/or laths will then be removed at the 

direction of the authorized officer. 

d3 The holder shall survey and clearly mark the centerline and/or exterior limits of the 

ROW, as determined by the authorized officer. 

d4 No surface disturbance or construction activity will be allowed within [user entry] feet of 

[user entry] which shall be clearly marked as specified by the authorized officer. Any deviation 

from this requirement shall have the prior written approval of the authorized officer. 

d5 The holder shall set center line stakes to identify the location of the proposed road as 

directed by the authorized officer. 

d6 Cut and fill slope stakes shall be set as directed by the authorized officer. 

d7 Culverts and lateral ditches shall be staked for location, skew, and elevation as directed 

by the authorized officer. 

E. CLEARING 

e1 ROW clearing shall be limited to ([user entry] on each side of the centerline) (the limits 

of the ROW) ( the limits of the cut and fill stakes). 

NOTE: Select the appropriate version of the text inside parentheses, delete the other versions 

and this note. 

e2 A buffer strip of vegetation [user entry] feet wide shall be left between areas of surface 

disturbance and riparian vegetation as determined necessary by the authorized officer. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

e3 Suitable topsoil material removed in conjunction with clearing and stripping shall be 

conserved in stockpiles (within the ROW) (at the following staked locations: [user entry]). Top 

soil shall be stripped to an average depth of [user entry] inches. A total of [user entry] cubic 

yards of topsoil shall be stockpiled. 

NOTE: Select the appropriate version of the text within parentheses, delete the other versions 

and this note. 

e4 The holder shall trim trees in preference to cutting trees and shall cut trees in preference 

to bulldozing them as directed by the authorized officer. 

e5 The holder shall not clear trees to allow passage of equipment for stringing the line 

without the prior written approval of the authorized officer. 

e6 Excavation and embankment quantities shall be balanced as nearly as design and 

construction considerations allow. Any waste and/or borrow needs shall be specifically identified 

by the holder. 

e7 Material encountered on the project and needed for select borrow, surfacing, riprap, or 

other special needs shall be conserved. 

e8 Excess excavated, unsuitable, or slide materials shall be disposed of as directed by the 

authorized officer. 

e9 As directed by the authorized officer, clearing limits shall extend [user entry] feet beyond 

the cut stakes and [user entry] feet beyond the fill stakes. 

e10 Clearing and grubbing debris shall not be placed or permitted to remain in or under any 

embankment sections. Clearing and grubbing debris may be placed under waste material with a 

minimum of three feet of cover as directed by the authorized officer. 

e11 Prior to any operations, the holder, if required, shall enter into a timber sale contract with 

the BLM for timber designated for cutting on the ROW. 

e12 The holder shall cut and deck all timber located within the ROW as directed by the 

authorized officer. 

e13 The holder shall clear and remove all roots, woody plants over [user entry] feet high, and 

other vegetative materials from the surfaces to be covered by embankments and disturbed by 

excavation. Clearing shall be accomplished without mixing topsoil with vegetation. Cleared 

vegetative materials shall be disposed of as directed by the authorized officer; excess mineral 

materials shall be stockpiled for disposal by the U.S. or used in construction in accordance with 

43 CFR 2801.1-1(d). 

e14 Earthwork areas shall be cleared of vegetation and the topsoil stockpiled for future 

rehabilitation. Prior to fill construction, the existing surface shall be sloped to avoid sharp banks 

and allow equipment operations. No fills shall be made with water-saturated soils. Materials 

Page 2-H.6 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

shall be placed in uniform layers not to exceed [user entry]. Construction equipment shall be 

routed evenly over the entire width of the fill to obtain a thorough compaction. 

e15 Holder shall remove only the minimum amount of vegetation necessary for the 

construction of structures and facilities. Topsoil shall be conserved during excavation and reused 

as cover on disturbed areas to facilitate regrowth of vegetation. 

F. CONSTRUCTION 

f1 No construction or routine maintenance activities shall be performed during periods 

when the soil is too wet to adequately support construction equipment. If such equipment creates 

ruts in excess of [user entry] inches deep, the soil shall be deemed too wet to adequately support 

construction equipment. 

f2 Construction activity and surface disturbance will be prohibited during the period from 

[user entry] to [user entry] for the protection of [user entry]. Any exceptions to this requirement 

must have prior written approval from the authorized officer. 

f3 The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the construction, operation, and 

termination of the ROW within the authorized limits of the ROW. 

f4 Construction holes left open over night shall be covered. Covers shall be secured in place 

and shall be strong enough to prevent livestock or wildlife from falling through and into a hole. 

f5 All design, material, and construction, operation, maintenance, and termination practices 

shall be in accordance with safe and proven engineering practices. 

f6 Holder shall limit excavation to the areas of construction. No borrow areas for fill 

material will be permitted on the site. All off-site borrow areas must be approved in writing by 

the authorized officer in advance of excavation. All waste material resulting from construction or 

use of the site by holder shall be removed from the site. All waste disposal sites on public land 

must be approved in writing by the authorized officer in advance of use. 

G. CATTLEGUARDS/FENCES 

g1 Cattleguards shall be [user entry] feet by [user entry] feet and as a minimum meet the 

[user entry] standard. They shall be set on (timber, precast concrete, cast-in-place concrete) bases 

at right angles to the roadway. Backfill around cattleguards shall be thoroughly compacted. A 

bypass gate shall be built adjacent to each cattleguard structure. Gate materials, dimensions, and 

construction shall conform to the requirements as specified by the authorized officer. 

NOTE: Select one material from those within parentheses, delete the rest and this note. 

g2 Cattleguards shall be constructed and installed as shown on attached drawings and 

specifications as provided by the authorized officer. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

g3 Fences, gates, and brace panels shall be reconstructed to appropriate BLM standards 

and/or specifications as determined by the authorized officer. 

When construction activity in connection with the ROW breaks or destroys a natural barrier used 

for livestock control, the gap, thus opened, shall be fenced to prevent the drift of livestock. The 

subject natural barrier shall be identified by the authorized officer and fenced by the holder as 

per instruction of the authorized officer. 

H. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 

h1 The holder shall furnish and install culverts of the gauge, materials, diameter(s), and 

length(s) indicated and approved by the authorized officer. Culverts shall be free of corrosion, 

dents, or other deleterious conditions. Culverts shall be placed on channel bottoms on firm, 

uniform beds which have been shaped to accept them and aligned to minimize erosion. Backfill 

shall be thoroughly compacted. No equipment shall be routed over a culvert until backfill depth 

is adequate to protect the culverts. 

h2 As directed by the authorized officer, construction stakes shall be set for each culvert to 

show location as well as inlet and outlet elevations, diameter, and length. 

h3 As directed by the authorized officer, the holder shall submit a complete culvert list to 

reflect the drainage plan for the road. The list shall include, but not be limited to, size(s), lengths, 

and locations of the culverts. 

h4 The minimum diameter for culverts shall be 18 inches. 

h5 As directed by the authorized officer, drainage structures with an end area greater than 

[user entry] square feet and all bridges shall be designed by a registered professional engineer. 

Design of drainage facilities shall include, but not limited to, design storms, debris, bedload, fish 

passage, erosion, and floodplain impact. 

h6 The holder shall construct low-water crossings in a manner that will prevent any 

blockage or restriction of the existing channel. Material removed shall be stockpiled for use in 

rehabilitation of the crossings. 

h7 The holder shall design and construct adequate water-control structures in each drainage 

crossing to prevent excessive erosion along the pipeline and protect the pipeline from the natural 

erosion process within the drainage. 

h8 All roads and parking areas shall be constructed to provide drainage and minimize 

erosion. Culverts shall be installed if necessary to maintain drainage. All areas to be used for 

roads and parking shall be surfaced with [user entry]. 

Page 2-H.8 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

I. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 

i1 Specific sites as identified by the authorized officer (e.g., archaeological sites, areas with 

threatened and endangered species, or fragile watersheds) where construction equipment and 

vehicles shall not be allowed, shall be clearly marked onsite by the holder before any 

construction or surface disturbing activities begin. The holder shall be responsible for assuring 

that construction personnel are well trained to recognize these markers and understand the 

equipment movement restrictions involved. 

i2 The holder shall provide for the safety of the public entering the ROW. This includes, but 

is not limited to, barricades for open trenches, flagmen/women with communication systems for 

single-lane roads without intervisible turnouts, and attended gates for blasting operations. 

i3 The holder shall permit free and unrestricted public access to and upon the ROW for all 

lawful purposes except for those specific areas designated as restricted by the authorized officer 

to protect the public, wildlife, livestock, or facilities constructed within the ROW. 

i4 Construction-related traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the authorized 

officer. New access roads or cross-country vehicle travel will not be permitted unless prior 

written approval is given by the authorized officer. Authorized roads used by the holder shall be 

rehabilitated or maintained when construction activities are complete as approved by the 

authorized officer. 

i5 Existing roads and trails on public lands that are blocked as a result of the construction 

project shall be rerouted or rebuilt as directed by the authorized officer. 

i6 Fording of streams and rivers with construction equipment and other motorized vehicles 

shall be permitted only with prior approval of the authorized officer. Temporary bridges, 

culverts, or other structures shall be used whenever stream crossings are required, unless 

otherwise approved of in writing by the authorized officer. Rivers, streams, and impoundments 

shall be promptly cleared of all pilings, debris, or other obstructions placed therein or caused by 

construction activities. 

i7 If “cross country” access is necessary, clearing vegetation or grading a roadbed will be 

avoided whenever practicable. All construction and vehicular traffic shall be confined to the 

ROW or designated access routes, roads, or trails unless otherwise authorized in writing by the 

authorized officer. All temporary roads used for construction shall be rehabilitated after 

construction is completed. Only one road or access route will be permitted to each site requiring 

access. 

J. PIPELINES 

j1 The stipulation number Aj1" has been deleted from the handbook. 

j2 The holder shall inform the authorized officer with 48 hours of any accidents on Federal 

lands that require reporting to the Department of Transportation as required by 49 CFR Part 195. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

j3 The holder is prohibited from discharging oil or other pollutants into or upon the 

navigable waters of the U., adjoining shorelines, or the waters of the contiguous zone in violation 

of Section 311 of the CWA as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1321, and the regulations issued thereunder, 

or applicable laws of the State(s) of [user entry] and regulations issued thereunder. Holder shall 

give immediate notice of any such discharge to the authorized officer and such other Federal and 

State officials as are required by law to be given such notice. 

j4 Prior to any discharge, hydrostatic testing water will be tested and processed, if 

necessary, to ensure that the water meets local, State, or Federal water quality standards. Prior to 

discharge of hydrostatic testing water from the pipeline, the holder shall design and install a 

suitable energy dissipater at the outlets, and design and install suitable channel protection 

structures necessary to ensure that there will be no erosion or scouring of natural channels within 

the affected watershed as a result of such discharge. The holder will be held responsible for any 

erosion or scouring resulting from such discharge. Sandbags, rock, or other materials or objects 

installed shall be removed from the site upon completion of hydrostatic testing. 

j5 The pipelines may be laid above ground from station [user entry] to station [user entry] 

and no blading shall be allowed between these stations. 

K. POWERLINES 

k1 Unless otherwise agreed to by the authorized officer in writing, powerlines shall be 

constructed in accordance to standards outlined in “Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on 

Powerlines,” Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., 1981. The holder shall assume the burden and 

expense of proving that pole designs not shown in the above publication are “eagle safe.” Such 

proof shall be provided by the raptor expert approved by the authorized officer. The BLM 

reserves the right to require modifications or additions to all powerline structures placed on this 

ROW, should they be necessary to ensure the safety of large perching birds. Such modifications 

and/or additions shall be made by the holder without liability or expense to the U.S. 

k2 The holder shall coordinate with the authorized officer on the design and color of the 

poles and transmission lines to achieve the minimum practicable visual impacts. 

k3 The holder shall use nonreflecting lines and conductors at the following locations: [user 

entry]. 

L. REHABILITATION 

l1 The holder shall recontour disturbed areas or designated sections of the ROW by grading 

to restore the site to approximately the original contour of the ground as determined by the 

authorized officer. 

l2 The holder shall recontour the disturbed area and obliterate all earthwork by removing 

embankments, backfilling excavations, and grading to re-establish the approximate original 

contours of the land in the ROW. 

Page 2-H.10 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

l3 The holder shall evenly spread the excess soil excavated from pole holes within the ROW 

and in the immediate vicinity of the pole structure. 

l4 The holder shall restore drainages, to the greatest extent possible, to the original bank 

configuration, stream bottom width, and channel gradient. Loose soil, fill, and culverts shall be 

removed from drainage channels as directed by the authorized officer. 

l5 The holder shall uniformly spread topsoil over all unoccupied disturbed areas (outside the 

ditch line, fence line, work area). Spreading shall not be done when the ground or topsoil is 

frozen or wet. 

l6 The holder shall construct waterbars on all disturbed areas to the spacing and cross 

sections specified by the authorized officer. Waterbars are to be constructed to: (1) simulate the 

imaginary contour lines of the slope (ideally with a grade of one or two percent); (2) drain away 

from the disturbed area; and (3) begin and end in vegetation or rock whenever possible. 

l7 All above-ground structures not subject to safety requirements shall be painted by the 

holder to blend with the natural color of the landscape. The paint used shall be a color which 

simulates “Standard Environmental Colors” designated by the Rocky Mountain Five-State 

Interagency Committee. The color selected for this [user entry] is [user entry]. 

l8 Upon completion of construction, the holder shall post as directed by the authorized 

officer, the BLM serial number assigned to this ROW grant at the following location(s): [user 

entry]. 

l9 The existing subgrade shall be scarified to its full width and to a depth sufficient to 

eliminate surface irregularities. The scarified surface shall then be bladed and shaped to the lines, 

grades, dimensions, and typical cross section shown on the plans. 

l10 As directed by the authorized officer, all road segments shall be winterized by providing 

a well-drained roadway by water barring, maintaining drainage, and any additional measures 

necessary to minimize erosion and other damage to the roadway or the surrounding public lands. 

M. SEED MIX/MULCH 

m1 The holder shall prepare a seedbed by (scarifying the disturbed area) (distributing topsoil 

uniformly) (disking the topsoil) as directed by the authorized officer. 

NOTE: select the text with parentheses as appropriate, delete the other text, the parentheses, and 

this note. 

m2 The holder shall mulch disturbed areas designated by the authorized officer. The type of 

mulch shall meet one of the following requirements: 

(a) Straw used for mulching shall be from oats, wheat, rye, or other approved grain 

crops, and free from noxious weeds or other objectionable material as determined by the 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

authorized officer. Straw mulch shall be suitable for placing with mulch blower 

equipment. 

(b) Hay shall be of approved herbaceous mowings, free form noxious weeds or other 

objectionable material as determined by the authorized officer. Hay shall be suitable for 

placing with mulch blower equipment. 

(c) Wood cellulose fiber shall be natural or cooked wood cellulose fiber, shall disperse 

readily in water, and shall be nontoxic. The homogeneous slurry or mixture shall be 

capable of application with power spray equipment. A colored dye that is non-injurious 

to plant growth may be used when specified. Wood cellulose fiber shall be packaged in 

new, labeled containers. 

m3 The holder shall seed all disturbed areas using an agreed upon method suitable for the 

location. Seeding shall be repeated if a satisfactory stand is not obtained as determined by the 

authorized officer upon evaluation after the [user entry] growing season. 

m4 The holder shall seed all disturbed areas with the seed mixture(s) listed below. The seed 

mixture(s) shall be planted in the amounts specified in pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre. 

There shall be no primary of secondary noxious weed seed in the seed mixture. Seed shall be 

tested and the viability testing of seed shall be done in accordance with State law(s) and within 

[user entry] months prior to purchase. Commercial seed shall be either certified or registered 

seed. The seed mixture container shall be tagged in accordance with State law(s) and available 

for inspection by the authorized officer. 

Seed shall be planted using a drill equipped with a depth regulator to ensure proper depth of 

planting where drilling is possible. The seed mixture shall be evenly and uniformly planted over 

the disturbed area (smaller/heavier seeds have a tendency to drop to the bottom of the drill and 

are planted first). The holder shall take appropriate measures to ensure this does not occur. 

Where drilling is not possible, seed shall be broadcast and the area shall be raked or chained to 

cover the seed. When broadcasting the seed, the pounds per acre noted below are to be doubled. 

The seeding will be repeated until a satisfactory stand is established as determined by the 

authorized officer. Evaluation of growth will not be made before completion of the [user entry] 

growing season after seeding. The authorized officer is to be notified of the minimum of [userentry] days prior to seeding of the project. 

Seed Mixture

Species of seed Variety Pounds PLS/acre 

[user entry] [user entry] [user entry] 

Total [user entry] lbs/acre PLS 

Pure Live Seed (PLS) formula: % of purity of seed mixture times % germination of seed 

mixture = portion of seed mixture that is PLS. 

Page 2-H.12 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

N. FIRE 

n1 The holder shall prepare a fire prevention and suppression plan, that shall be reviewed, 

modified, and approved, as appropriate, by the authorized officer. The holder shall take into 

account such measures for prevention and suppression of fire on the ROW and other public land 

used or traversed by the holder in connection with operations of the ROW. Project personnel 

shall be instructed as to individual responsibility in implementation of the plan. 

n2 During construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of the ROW, during the 

period from [user entry] to [user entry], vehicles, gas-powered equipment, and flues shall be 

equipped with spark arrestors approved by the authorized officer. 

n3 During conditions of extreme fire danger, operations shall be limited or suspended in 

specific areas, or additional measures may be required by the authorized officer. 

n4 The holder shall maintain a fire watch with fire-fighting equipment during construction at 

the following locations: [user entry] as required by the authorized officer. 

n5 When requested by the authorized officer, the holder shall make his equipment already at 

the site with operators, temporarily available for fighting fires in the vicinity of the project. 

Payment for such services will be made at rates determined by the authorized officer. 

P. ROW MAINTENANCE 

p1 The holder shall be liable for damage or injury to the U.S. to the extent provided by 43 

CFR Sec. 2803.1-4. The holder shall be held to a standard of strict liability for damage or injury 

to the U.S. resulting from fire or soil movement (including landslides and slumps as well as wind 

and water-caused movement of particles) caused or substantially aggravated by any of the 

following within the ROW or permit area: 

(1) Activities of the holder, including but not limited to construction, operation, 

maintenance, and termination of the facility. 

(2) Activities of other parties including, but not limited to: 

(a) Land clearing and logging; 

(b) Earth-disturbing and earth-moving work; 

(c) Blasting; and 

(d) Vandalism and sabotage. 

The maximum limitation for such strict liability damages shall not exceed $[user entry] for any 

one event, and any liability in excess of such amount shall be determined by the ordinary rules of 

negligence of the jurisdiction in which the damage or injury occurred. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

This section shall not impose strict liability for damage or injury resulting primarily from the 

negligent acts or omissions of the U.S. 

p2 The holder shall be liable for damage or injury to the U.S. to the extent provided by 43 

CFR Sec. 2883.1-4. The holder shall be held to a standard of strict liability for damage or injury 

to the U.S. resulting from fire or soil movement (including landslides and slumps as well as wind 

and water-caused movement of particles) caused or substantially aggravated by any of the 

following within the ROW or permit area: 

(1) Activities of the holder including, but not limited to, construction, operation, 

maintenance, and termination of the facility. 

(2) Activities of other parties including, but not limited to: 

(a) Land clearing and logging; 

(b) Earth-disturbing and earth-moving work; 

(c) Blasting; 

(d) Vandalism and sabotage; and 

(e) Acts of God. 

The maximum limitation for such strict liability damages shall not exceed $[user entry] for any 

one event, and any liability in excess of such amount shall be determined by the ordinary rules of 

negligence of the jurisdiction in which the damage or injury occurred. 

This section shall not impose strict liability for damage or injury resulting primarily from an act 

of war or from the negligent acts or omissions of the U.S. 

p3 The holder shall provide a bond in the amount of $[user entry] to be maintained until 

restoration of disturbed areas and other requirements relative to the construction phase of the 

project have been accepted by the authorized officer. Upon completion, or partial completion of 

these construction related requirements, the authorized officer may terminate or reduce the 

amount of the bond. 

p4 A bond, acceptable to the authorized officer, shall be furnished by the holder by [user 

entry] or at such earlier date as may be specified by the authorized officer. The amount of this 

bond shall be determined by the authorized officer. This bond must be maintained in effect until 

removal of improvements and restoration of the ROW have been accepted by the authorized 

officer. 

p5 The holder agrees that all monies deposited with the authorized officer as security for 

holder’s performance of the terms and conditions of this grant may, upon failure on the holder’s 

part to fulfill any of the requirements herein set forth or made a part hereof, be retained by the 

U.S. to be applied as far as may be needed to the satisfaction of the holder’s obligations assumed 

hereunder, without prejudice whatever to any other rights and remedies of the U.S. 

Page 2-H.14 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

p6 Should the bond delivered under this grant become unsatisfactory to the authorized 

officer, the holder shall, within 30 days of demand, furnish a new bond. 

p7 The holder shall provide a bond, acceptable to the authorized officer, in the amount of 

$[user entry], to be maintained until the electronic operations of the holder and/or the holder’s 

sub-lessee(s) have been accepted by the authorized officer. Said period of bond maintenance 

shall not be less than six (6) months following the completion of construction and continuous 

operation of the holder’s electronic equipment authorized by this grant or following the initiation 

of continuous operation of the electronic equipment of holder’s sub-lessee(s) authorized by this 

grant or future amendments to this grant. Upon acceptance of the electronic operations of the 

holder or the holder’s sub-lessee(s), the authorized officer may terminate or reduce the amount 

of the bond. Prior to approving an amendment of this grant to authorize the addition of a new 

sub-lessee or to change the authorized equipment or technical operating parameters of the holder 

of existing sub-lessee(s), the authorized officer shall require the holder to provide a similar bond 

in the amount of $[user entry] to be maintained as specified above. The bond shall be available 

to cure interference problems to existing site users when, in the judgment of the authorized 

officer, the operation of the holder’s or sub-lessee’s facility and/or equipment is the direct cause 

of that interference. 

Q. BONDS/LIABILITY 

q1 If snow removal from the road is undertaken, equipment for snow removal operations 

shall be equipped with shoes to keep the blade [user entry] inches off the road surface. Holder 

shall take special precautions where the surface of the ground is uneven and at drainage 

crossings to ensure that equipment blades do not destroy vegetation. 

q2 Holder shall maintain the ROW in a safe, usable condition, as directed by the authorized 

officer. (A regular maintenance program shall include, but is not limited to, blading, ditching, 

culvert installation, and surfacing.) 

q3 Except ROW expressly authorizing a road after construction of the facility is completed, 

the holder shall not use the ROW as a road for purposes other than routine maintenance as 

determined necessary by the authorized officer in consultation with the holder. 

R. HAZARDOUS WASTE/LIABILITY/WASTE DISPOSAL 

r1 Construction sites shall be maintained in a sanitary condition at all times; waste materials 

at those sites shall be disposed of promptly 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. 

r2 A litter policing program shall be implemented by the holder, and approved of in writing 

by the authorized officer, which covers all roads and sites associated with the ROW. 

r3 The holder(s) shall comply with all applicable Federal laws and regulations existing or 

hereafter enacted or promulgated. In any event, the holder(s) shall comply with the Toxic 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

Substances Control Act of 1976, as amended (15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.) with regard to any toxic 

substances that are used, generated by, or stored on the ROW or on facilities authorized under 

this ROW grant. (See 40 CFR, Part 702-799 and especially, provisions on polychlorinated 

biphenyls, 40 CFR 761.1-761.193.) Additionally, any release of toxic substances (leaks, spills, 

etc.) in excess of the reportable quantity established by 40 CFR, Part 117 shall be reported as 

required by CERCLA of 1980, Section 102b. A copy of any report required or requested by any 

Federal agency or State government as a result of a reportable release or spill of any toxic 

substances shall be furnished to the authorized officer concurrent with the filing of the reports to 

the involved Federal agency or State government. 

r4 The holder of ROW No. [user entry] agrees to indemnify the U.S. against any liability 

arising form the release of any hazardous substance or hazardous waste (as these terms are 

defined in the CERCLA of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. or the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) on the ROW (unless the release or threatened 

release is wholly unrelated to the ROW holder’s activity on the ROW). This agreement applies 

without regard to whether a release is caused by the holder, its agent, or unrelated third parties. 

S. OIL AND GAS BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT/ 

TERMINATION 

s1 Boundary adjustments in Oil and Gas [user entry (lease or unit number)] shall 

automatically amend this ROW to include that portion of the facility no longer contained within 

the above described [user entry]. In the event of an automatic amendment to this ROW grant, the 

prior on-lease/unit conditions of approval of this facility will not be affected even though they 

would now apply to facilities outside of the lease/unit as a result of a boundary adjustment. 

Rental fees, if appropriate shall be recalculated based on the conditions of this grant and the 

regulations in effect at the time of an automatic amendment. 

s2 Prior to termination of the ROW, the holder shall contact the authorized officer to 

arrange a pre-termination conference. This conference will be held to review the termination 

provisions of the grant. 

s3 [user entry, period of time] prior to termination of the ROW, the holder shall contact the 

authorized officer to arrange a joint inspection of the ROW. This inspection will be held to 

agree to an acceptable termination (and rehabilitation) plan. This plan shall include, but is not 

limited to, removal of facilities, drainage structures, surface material, recontouring, topsoiling, or 

seeding. The authorized officer must approve the plan in writing prior to the holder’s 

commencement of any termination activities. 

T. CONTINGENCY PLANS/SPILLS 

t1 The holder shall submit its contingency plan to the authorized officer prior to scheduled 

start up. 

a. Include provisions for oil or other pollutant spill control. 

Page 2-H.16 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

b. The agencies responsible for contingency plans in [user entry] shall be among the first to be 

notified in the event of any pipeline system failure resulting in a spill of oil or other pollutant. 

c. Provide for restoration of the affected resource. 

d. Provide that the authorized officer shall approve any materials or devices used for oil spill 

control and any disposal sites or techniques selected to handle oil, matter, or other pollutants. 

e. Include separate and specific techniques and schedules for cleanup of spills of oil or other 

pollutants on land or waters. 

t2 If during any phase of the construction, operation, or termination of the pipeline or 

related facilities, any oil or other pollutant should be discharged from the pipeline system, or 

from containers or vehicles impacting Federal lands, the control and total removal, disposal, and 

cleanup of such oil or other pollutant, wherever found, shall be the responsibility of the holder, 

regardless of fault. Upon failure of holder to control, cleanup, or dispose of such discharge on or 

affecting Federal lands, or to repair all damages to Federal lands resulting therefrom, the 

authorized officer may take such measures as he deems necessary to control and cleanup the 

discharge and restore the area, including where appropriate, the aquatic environment and fish 

and wildlife habitats, at the full expense of the holder. Such action by the authorized officer shall 

not relieve the holder of any liability or responsibility. 

U. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 

(Numbers u1 and u2 intentionally omitted.) 

u3 For the purpose of determining joint maintenance responsibilities, the holder shall make 

road use plans known to all other authorized users of the road. Holder shall provide the 

authorized officer, within 30 days from the date of the grant, with the names and addresses of all 

parties notified, dates of notification, and method of notification. Failure of the holder to share 

proportionate maintenance costs on the common use access road in dollars, equipment, materials, 

or manpower with other authorized users may be adequate grounds to terminate the ROW grant. 

The determination as to whether this has occurred and the decision to terminate shall rest with 

the authorized officer. Upon request, the authorized officer shall be provided with copies of any 

maintenance agreement entered into. 

V. COMMUNICATION SITES 

v1 The holder and the holder’s sub-grantees shall operate within the parameters of the [user 

entry] Site Management Plan. 

v2 The U.S. will not be held liable for any damage to the communication facility caused by 

the general public or as a result of fire, wind, or other natural disasters or as a result of 

silvicultural practices, timber harvesting operations, or other actions stemming from the normal 

land management activities of the BLM. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

v3 The ROW herein granted is conditioned upon the submission to the authorized officer of 

a copy of an approved license and/or renewal license granted by the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) or Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) for each electronic 

station installation authorized by this grant or future amendment to this grant. A copy of the FCC 

or IRAC authorization shall be submitted with 90 days of issuance of this grant or within 90 days 

of issuance of this grant or within 90 days following approval of an amendment to this grant. 

Failure to submit the FCC or IRAC authorization copy within the time specified shall be grounds 

for termination of this grant or cancellation of an amendment to this grant. The authorized officer 

may grant an extension of up to 90 days, if requested in writing by the holder. 

v4 The holder shall not allow the operation of any electronic equipment in the building or on 

the site unless and until the user has obtained a license from the Federal Communications 

Commission or the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee. 

v5 Each electronic type station installation authorized by this grant shall be operated in 

conformity with the requirements of the FCC or, in the case of Federal government installation 

operations, in accordance with the IIRAC agreements. 

v6 The holder may authorize or sub-grant to third parties the right to use the holder’s 

facilities upon a filing of a grant amendment application and a finding by the authorized officer 

that the amendment is acceptable. Third party sub-grant holders shall be required to comply with 

the requirements as presented herein as well as those stipulations imposed by the authorized 

officer upon approval of the grant amendment. 

v7 The holder shall not authorize or sub-grant the right to use the holder’s facilities to any 

third party who would operate at an effective radiated power of 1000 watts or greater unless and 

until such high power third party user has obtained a separate ROW grant from the authorized 

officer. 

v8 The holder agrees not to install or allow the installation of any other radio electronic type 

equipment not specified in this grant or amendment to this grant on or within the structure or on 

the premises authorized and covered by this grant, without advance notification and written 

approval of the authorized officer. 

v9 The holder shall not install nor allow the installation of any other organization’s 

electronic equipment in the holder’s building, or attachment to the holder’s antenna support 

structures, without the new organization obtaining a separate right-of-way grant from the BLM 

for the joint occupancy of the said facility. 

v10 The holder shall notify the authorized officer of any intent to locate additional users 

within or upon their existing facilities, not less than 45 days prior to occupancy of holder’s 

facilities. Information that must be included is: 

(1) Name, current address, and phone number of the third party. 

(2) Expected date of occupancy. 

Page 2-H.18 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

(3) A photo or sketch illustrating the type of antenna to be installed, as well as any other 

planned physical changes to the exterior facilities operated by the holder. If the proposed use 

is not specified in the original ROW grant, an amendment will be required. 

v11 The holder shall furnish a listing of, or other information pertaining to, all occupants of 

the facility upon request of the authorized officer. 

v12 No less that 45 days prior to occupancy of the holder’s facility, the holder shall notify 

existing users within a one-mile radius that the holder intends to accommodate a new 

communication user in its facility. Existing users can then file any comments pertaining to 

potential frequency or electromagnetic problems, with the FCC, 1919 M Street, N. W., 

Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to the authorized officer. 

v13 The holder shall accept all applications for compatible uses of the facility on a first-come 

first-served basis. If an applicant agrees to comply with all the terms and conditions for use of 

the site contained herein, obtains a FCC or IRAC authorization, and there is space available, the 

holder may not refuse to enter into a use agreement with applicant. 

v14 The holder may place no restriction on what brand of equipment is installed on the site so 

long as it conforms to industry standards, as determined by the authorized officer. 

v15 The holder shall place no unreasonable restriction on persons who service units 

belonging to users of the building, providing the servicing personnel are qualified and licensed to 

service the type units involved. 

v16 At any time a government agency wishes to make use of the facility, its application shall 

become the first application in line for available space. 

v17 Utility and service facilities constructed by the holder, including but not limited to power 

and telephone lines, roads, and fences, within the reasonable capacity of such facilities, shall be 

available for use by the U.S. for construction and operation of electronic facilities installed by 

the U.S. without any contribution for construction costs of such facilities. The U.S. agrees to pay 

the rental as determined by a mutually acceptable method, for any use made of buildings, 

antenna tower(s), or other structures belonging to the holder. 

v18 The BLM reserves the right to authorize joint use by other electronic communication 

users of the site, together with the roads and the power, telephone, and other auxiliary utility 

service lines installed and operated by the holder, upon payment by such users to the holder of a 

just and equitable portion of the costs of installation, maintenance, and operation; provided that 

such joint use will conform to sound engineering practices. 

v19 Federal government agencies shall be provided 20 percent of building space at no charge 

for the installation of communication facilities. Federal agencies shall be required to enter into 

available combining systems whenever technically feasible, and the cost of combiner ports shall 

be paid by the Federal government at the same cost as paid by other users. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

v20 Twenty percent of the microwave antenna capacity of the tower (based on wind loading) 

shall be available for Federal government use. If the government has not installed microwave 

equipment at the time only 20 percent of tower capacity remains, the holder may allocate 

remaining capacity to customers. 

v21 The holder shall make a reasonable and uniform charge for building and tower space, 

services rendered, and equipment to all users of the facility. 

v22 The holder shall upon request furnish the authorized officer a current price schedule for 

all services provided by said holder to other users, both to such other users using the equipment 

owned by the holder and other users using their own equipment. 

v23 The holder will reduce to writing all agreements with authorized third party users of the 

facilities covered by this grant, specifying therein, as a separate item, the rental and service 

charge for the use of said facilities, and will furnish a true copy of each such agreement and 

changes therein to the authorized officer. 

v24 The holder is permitted to use, without charge, up to three (3) rack spaces so long as the 

equipment is for the sole benefit of the holder. Any additional use by the holder or authorized 

third parties shall require the assessment of a rental charge as specified in the pricing schedule. 

Such charges shall be included as part of the gross receipts. 

v25 The holder shall follow generally accepted accounting principles in recording financial 

transactions and reporting results to the authorized officer. Holder shall maintain suitable 

systems of internal control to ensure the recording of all revenue, in the accounts and reports. 

When requested by the authorized officer, the holder, at holder’s expense, shall have its 

accounting records and reports audited by a public accountant acceptable to the authorized 

officer and shall furnish the authorized officer a complete copy of the accountant’s report. 

v26 The holder shall at all times operate its radio-electronic equipment in such a manner so as 

not to cause interference with radio-electronic operations of existing users in the vicinity. If such 

interference results from holder’s operations, holder will promptly, at its own expense, modify 

the equipment and operations, or shut down if necessary to eliminate or reduce the interference 

to the satisfaction of the FCC and/or the authorized officer. 

v27 It will be the responsibility of the holder to ascertain whether existing facilities on the 

same or adjoining sites will adversely affect the proposed operations. Holder will accept 

operations, i.e., frequencies, emissions, power output, radiation fields, antenna arrays, etc., of 

existing facilities on the same or adjoining sites, provided such operations are consistent with the 

regulations of the FCC if a non-Federal government use, and the Standards of the IRAC if a 

Federal government use. 

v28 The holder shall take measures necessary to eliminate interference to other site users 

caused by holder’s sub-lessee(s). If the holder does not eliminate such interference within 10 

days of receipt of notice from the authorized officer, the operations of the sub-lessee causing the 

interference, as determined by the authorized officer, shall be terminated by the holder. 

Page 2-H.20 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

v29 Buildings shall not exceed [user entry] feet in height, including roof. 

v30 Fences not directly related to the security of the telecommunication equipment or 

structures are not permitted. Any fencing material shall be approved, prior to installation, by the 

authorized officer. Metallic fencing shall be vinyl clad and grounded to prevent electrical 

interference. Any fencing material shall be neutral medium gray or color blended to match the 

building and surrounding environment. 

v31 Antenna support structures (towers) shall be designed and certified by a Professional 

Engineer registered in the State of [user entry]. 

v32 The antenna support structures (towers) shall be galvanized steel. The tower(s) shall 

reflect uniformity of design a materials for the entire site. Antenna tower(s) shall be jointly used 

when electronically compatible. If the location of the tower (s) and guy wires will create 

conflicts with ground personnel, vehicles, and equipment, or any other safety hazards, tower(s) 

shall be self-supporting. 

v33 All towers shall meet Electronics Industries Associates Standard RS-222-C, Structural 

Standards for Steel Antenna Towers. 

v34 All installations, antenna supports, etc., shall be constructed and maintained in a neat and 

safe condition in accordance with good engineering practices as accepted by industry and 

applicable laws. Antenna supports shall conform to the installation specifications of the tower 

manufacturer. Any variance from these standards shall be allowed only to the extent required 

because of local terrain or obstructions at the site, and all variances shall conform to good 

engineering practice. 

v35 All metallic structural materials shall be galvanized, plated, or coated. Dissimilar metals 

will not be placed in contact with each other in such a manner that could create a galvanic 

junction. 

v36 Location and height of tower(s) and location of antennas on tower(s) shall not be changed 

after the initial installation and tests without the approval of the authorized officer. The tower 

height(s) shall not exceed [user entry] feet. 

v37 Combining electronic features are required where technically feasible to minimize 

apparent overall antenna mass and height. 

v38 Adequate ventilation shall be provided for the protection of personnel and to prevent the 

accumulation of explosive gasses and heated stagnant air. Where feasible, maximum protection 

against dust is recommended. If forced air ventilation systems are used, they shall be equipped 

with removable filters for servicing. 

v39 All structures shall meet the requirements of the latest codes governing designs of 

facilities as outlined in the Uniform Building Codes. All structures shall be designed to meet 

minimum loads for a wind velocity of [user entry]. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.21 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

v40 All electric facilities, equipment, and their installation shall conform to the current 

National Electrical Safety Code and applicable laws and all regulations. 

v41 Installations shall include an effective lightning ground in accordance with the “cone of 

protection” theory. All electrical outlets shall be of the three-conductor grounding receptacle 

type. All electrical or electronic equipment cabinets shall be properly connected to the system 

ground. Structures shall be designed for maximum lightning protection through bonding and a 

grounding system. 

v42 Standards and specifications for raceways, switching, grounding, wiring methods, and 

materials shall be equivalent to or greater than those issued by the National Fire Protection 

Association in its most current National Electrical code. 

v43 The holder shall join the [user entry] Users Association and remain a member in good 

standing. Within [user entry] days from the effective date of this grant, the holder shall provide 

the authorized officer with evidence of membership. Failure of the holder to join the [user entry] 

Users Association and remain a member in good standing shall constitute sufficient grounds for 

termination of this ROW grant. 

v44 At such future time as a Users Association for this communication site is formed, the 

holder shall join the Users Association and remain a member in good standing. Within [user 

entry] days of the creation of such Users Association, the holder shall provide the authorized 

officer with evidence of membership. Failure of the holder to join the Users Association and 

remain a member in good standing shall constitute sufficient grounds for termination of this 

ROW grant. 

v45 The holder shall not implement or allow a sub-grantee to implement any changes in or 

additions to the authorized operating frequencies, types of emission, band widths, radio 

frequency power outputs, class of service, types of antenna, or named FCC licensees without 

providing advance notification to, and receiving written approval from, the authorized officer. 

v46 The holder may not increase the effective radiated power of [user entry] KW without first 

requesting an amendment of this grant and obtaining written approval from the authorized 

officer. 

v47 Copies of the amended FCC license or IRAC frequency assignment must be filed with 

the authorized officer before modification of previously authorized facilities will be approved. 

v48 Construction of the facility must be complete and the facility operational within [user 

entry] months from the effective date of this grant unless an extension is approved in writing by 

the authorized officer prior to the end of the [user entry] month period. 

v49 Holder shall, within 30 days following completion of the facility, submit proof of 

construction. Said proof shall include “as built” drawings of site construction, location of 

building, tower, roads, utility lines, and an “as built” drawing of the building showing all 

changes from the approved design. Final approval and occupancy will not be allowed until these 

drawings are approved by the authorized officer. 

Page 2-H.22 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

v50 Holder shall file, within 30 days of completion of construction and before proof-ofconstruction is approved, certification by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of [user 

entry], that the facilities are constructed in conformance with approved design. 

v51 This ROW shall terminate 60 days after expiration or cancellation of the FCC license or 

IRAC radio frequency assignment, unless renewal is obtained within this period and a copy of 

such renewal is furnished to the authorized officer. 

v52 The following clause must be made a part of every sublease or use agreement associated 

with this grant. 

In the event of termination of this ROW grant, sub-lessee shall, at the option of the BLM 

authorized officer, either transfer to the next BLM designated holder as lessee or apply 

for a ROW in his/her own name. 

v53 In the event the grant is terminated for any cause, the holder agrees that, if the authorized 

officer so elects, holder will convey by quitclaim deed all improvements on the site necessary to 

operate the multi-user facility (other than equipment on site used solely by the holder) to the next 

holder authorized by the BLM, upon payment of fair market value as determined by the BLM 

appraisal for the improvements on the date of termination 

W. DAMS AND RESERVOIRS 

w1 The dam and reservoir shall be designed by an engineer licensed in the State of [user 

entry] with demonstrable experience in dam design. 

w2 The holder shall submit, for the authorized officer’s review and approval, designs and 

plans approved by the [user entry] State Engineer (or other appropriate state authority) prior to 

beginning construction or other surface disturbing activity. The authorized officer shall issue a 

Notice to Proceed (BLM Form 2800-15) upon approval of the design and plans. 

NOTE: Edit the text in parentheses as appropriate and delete this note. 

w3 Within [user entry] days after receipt of the authorized officer’s written notification of 

damage or defects found in the structure or related facilities, the holder will restore the facility to 

the originally constructed condition, using materials of equal or superior quality to those used in 

the original construction. 

w4 Within 30 days of completion, the holder will submit to the authorized officer as-built 

drawings and a certification of construction verifying that the facility has been constructed (and 

tested) in accordance with the design, plans, specifications, and applicable laws and regulations. 

w5 Should the holder fail to perform the required maintenance or repair within [user entry] 

days of receipt of the authorized officer’s written notification to do so, BLM may perform the 

required maintenance or repair, or at the discretion of the authorized officer, remove the facility, 

at the holder’s expense, including the administrative costs to BLM to effect any such action 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-H.23 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-H 

w6 The holder shall provide a bond in the amount of [user entry] prior to issuance of the 

grant or at such later time as the authorized officer deems necessary to ensure the proper 

maintenance of the facility. 

w7 The holder shall prepare an Emergency Action Plan in accordance with BLM standards 

for structures with a “High” or “Significant” hazard classification. The [user entry] State 

Engineer (or other appropriate state authority) will determine the hazard classification following 

an inspection of the downstream potential for property damage and/or loss of life. 

NOTE: Edit the text within parentheses as appropriate and delete this note. 

w8 The road proposed as part of this authorization shall be constructed and maintained in 

accordance with BLM standards prescribed for a [user entry] type road. 

w9 The U.S., its officers and employees shall be held harmless from and indemnified against 

any damage, injury, or liability resulting from the construction, operation, or maintenance of the 

dam and reservoir being authorized by this ROW grant; including, but not limited to, any 

liability which the U.S. may have as owner of the land which is the subject of the ROW grant. 

X. AIR QUALITY 

x1 The holder shall submit for the authorized officer’s review a technical report addressing 

criteria and methodology of how the proposed facility will be located and designed to meet 

applicable Federal, State, and local air quality standards. 

x2 The holder shall meet Federal, State, and local emission standards for air quality. 

x3 The holder shall furnish and apply water or other means satisfactory to the authorized 

officer for dust control. 

Page 2-H.24 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

LANDS PROPOSED FOR DISPOSAL, 

ALTERNATIVES A–E 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

T. 1 N., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 13, SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4. 

T. 2 N., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 2, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, and S1⁄2; 

 sec. 11, all. 

T. 4 S., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 18, lots 1 (subsurface estate), 2 (subsurface 

 estate), E1⁄2NW1⁄4 (subsurface estate). 

T. 5 S., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 1, lots 1, 2, S1⁄2NE1⁄4; 

 sec. 11, N1⁄2NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 18, lot 1, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4. 

T. 5 S., R. 11 W., 

 sec. 33, N1⁄2SE1⁄4. 

T. 6 S., R. 11 W., 

 sec. 1, E1⁄2W1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 10, N1⁄2NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 23, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 24, S1⁄2NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 25, S1⁄2 (subsurface estate); 

 sec. 27, E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 29, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-I.1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

T. 7 S., R. 11 W., 

 sec. 6, lots 1 through 7, inclusive, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 7, lots 1, 2, 3, NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 8, NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 10, S1⁄2SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 15, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 27, all (subsurface estate); 

 sec. 28, N1⁄2N1⁄2 (subsurface estate), SE1⁄4 (subsurface 

 estate); 

 sec. 30, E1⁄2SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 31, lots 3, 4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4. 

T. 3 N., R. 12 W., 

 sec. 27, W1⁄2. 

T. 6 S., R. 12 W., 

 sec. 4, lots 3, 4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 5, lots 1, 2, S1⁄2NE1⁄4; 

 sec. 9, NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 10, N1⁄2. 

T. 7 S., R. 12 W., 

 sec. 4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 5, lot 4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, E1⁄2W1⁄2NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 6, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 25, W1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 33, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 34, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2. 

T. 6 S., R. 13 W., 

 sec. 17, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 18, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 19, S1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 27, N1⁄2NW1⁄4; 

Page 2-I.2 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

 sec. 28, N1⁄2N1⁄2 

T. 7 S., R. 13 W., 

 sec. 1, lot 2, W1⁄2NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2N1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 3, lot 1, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 7, lot 4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 8, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, S1⁄2S1⁄2; 

 sec. 9, N1⁄2N1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2SW1⁄4, W1⁄2E1⁄2SW1⁄4. 

T. 6 S., R. 14 W., 

 sec. 34, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 35, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4. 

T. 7 S., R. 14 W., 

 sec. 3, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, 

 NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 sec. 4, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 5, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, N1⁄2S1⁄2; 

 sec. 13, All; 

 sec. 14, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 15, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 20, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 24, N1⁄2NW1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 15 W., 

 sec. 20, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 24, W1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 29, SW1⁄4. 

T. 4 N., R. 19 W., 

 sec. 4, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 9, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 15, E1⁄2, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, N1⁄2S1⁄2NW1⁄4, 

 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 17, All; 

 sec. 20, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-I.3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

 sec. 21, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 22, lot 1, NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 23, N1⁄2, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2S1⁄2SE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 26, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 28, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 29, W1⁄2W1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4. 

T. 3 N., R. 22 W., 

 sec. 11, lot 7 

 sec. 24, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4. 

T. 9 S., R. 22 W., 

 sec. 1, lots 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, 

 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 17, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4. 

T. 1 S., R. 23 W., 

 sec. 5, lot 8 (part). 

T. 8 S., R. 23 W., 

 sec. 34, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 (portion), W1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 

 (portion); 

 sec. 35, S1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

Page 2-I.4 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

T. 9 S., R. 23 W. 

 sec. 28, lot 2; 

 sec. 29, lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (portion), 7, 8, 

 N1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 33, W1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 28, lot 19. 

T. 9 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 8, lot 8. 

T. 11 S., R. 25 W., 

 sec. 1, lots 3, 4, 5, 11 (portion), 14, and 15, 

 W1⁄2E1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2NE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 11, lot 28; 

 sec. 12, Block 29, lots 1, 2, and 3; 

 Block 30, lots 1 to 11, inclusive; 

 Block 31, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

San Bernardino Meridian, California 

T. 9 S., R. 21 E., 

 sec. 12, lots 1, 2, NE1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 22 E., 

 sec. 24, lot 4. 

T. 9 S., R. 22 E., 

 sec. 9, lot 12. 

T. 14 S., R. 23 E., 

 sec. 1, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 (portion). 

T. 14 S., R. 23 E., 

 sec. 12, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 (portion). 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-I.5 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

T. 2 N., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 2, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, and S1⁄2; 

 sec. 11, all. 

T. 4 S., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 18, lots 1 (subsurface estate), 2 (subsurface 

 estate), E1⁄2NW1⁄4 (subsurface estate). 

T. 6 S., R. 11 W., 

 sec. 25, S1⁄2 (subsurface estate). 

T. 7 S., R. 11 W., 

 sec. 15, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 27, all (subsurface estate); 

 sec. 28, N1⁄2N1⁄2 (subsurface estate), SE1⁄4 (subsurface 

 estate); 

 sec. 30, E1⁄2SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 31, lots 3 and 4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4. 

T. 3 N., R. 12 W., 

 sec. 27, NW1⁄4. 

T. 7 S., R. 12 W., 

 sec. 4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4. 

T. 6 S., R. 13 W., 

 sec. 17, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 18, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 19, S1⁄2SE1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 15 W., 

 sec. 20, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 24, W1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 29, SW1⁄4. 

Page 2-I.6 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

T. 5 N., R. 18 W., 

 sec. 7, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2; 

 sec. 18, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2; 

 sec. 19, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2; 

 sec. 30, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2; 

 sec. 31, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2. 

T. 3 N., R. 19 W., 

 sec. 1, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 2, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 3, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 4, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 5, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 6, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4. 

T. 4 N., R. 19 W., 

 sec. 3, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 4, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 5, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2; 

 sec. 6, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 7, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2; 

 sec. 8, all; 

 sec. 9, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 10, all; 

 sec. 11, all; 

 sec. 12, all; 

 sec. 13, all; 

 sec. 14, all; 

 sec. 15, E1⁄2, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, N1⁄2S1⁄2NW1⁄4, 

 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 17, all; 

 sec. 18, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2; 

 sec. 19, lots, 1, 2, 3, and 4, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2; 

 sec. 20, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 21, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 22, lot 1, NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 23, N1⁄2, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2S1⁄2SE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-I.7 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

 E1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 24, N1⁄2, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, S1⁄2N1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 25, all; 

 sec. 26, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2; 

 sec. 28, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 29, W1⁄2W1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 30, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, NE1⁄4, E1⁄2W1⁄2, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 31, lots 1, 3, and 4, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2; 

 sec. 32, all; 

 sec. 33, all; 

 sec. 34, all; 

 sec. 35, all; 

 sec. 36, all. 

T. 5 N., R. 19 W., 

 sec. 8, all; 

 sec. 9, all; 

 sec. 10, all; 

 sec. 11, all; 

 sec. 12, all; 

 sec. 13, all; 

 sec. 14, all; 

 sec. 15, all; 

 sec. 16, all; 

 sec. 17, all; 

 sec. 20, all; 

 sec. 21, all; 

 sec. 22, all; 

 sec. 23, all; 

 sec. 24, all; 

 sec. 25, all; 

 sec. 26, all; 

 sec. 27, all; 

 sec. 28, all; 

Page 2-I.8 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

 sec. 29, all; 

 sec. 32, all; 

 sec. 33, all; 

 sec. 34, all; 

 sec. 35, all; 

 sec. 36, all. 

T. 8 S., R. 21 W., 

 sec. 28, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2; 

 sec. 33, E1⁄2, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4. 

T. 3 N., R. 22 W., 

 sec. 11, lot 7 

 sec. 24, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4. 

T. 9 S., R. 22 W., 

 sec. 1, lot 7; 

 sec. 17, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4. 

T. 1 S., R. 23 W., 

 sec. 5, lot 8 (portion). 

T. 8 S., R. 23 W., 

 sec. 34, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 (portion), W1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 

 (portion); 

 sec. 35, S1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

T. 9 S., R. 23 W. 

 sec. 28, lot 2; 

 sec. 29, lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (portion), 7, 8, 

 N1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 33, W1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 28, lot 19. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-I.9 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

T. 9 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 8, lot 8. 

T. 11 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 6, lots 7, 8, 9, and N1⁄2N1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

T. 11 S., R. 25 W., 

 sec. 1, lots 3, 4, 5, 11 (portion), 14, and 15, 

 W1⁄2E1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2NE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 11, lot 28; 

 sec. 12, Block 29, lots 1, 2, and 3; 

 Block 30, lots 1 to 11, inclusive; 

 Block 31, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

San Bernardino Meridian, California 

T. 9 S., R. 21 E., 

 sec. 12, lots 1, 2, NE1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 22 E., 

 sec. 24, lot 4. 

T. 9 S., R. 22 E., 

 sec. 9, lot 12. 

T. 14 S., R. 23 E., 

 sec. 1, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 (portion). 

T. 14 S., R. 23 E., 

 sec. 12, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 (portion). 

Page 2-I.10 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

T. 2 N., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 2, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, and S1⁄2; 

 sec. 11, all. 

T. 4 S., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 18, lots 1 (subsurface estate), 2 (subsurface 

 estate), E1⁄2NW1⁄4 (subsurface estate). 

T. 6 S., R. 11 W., 

 sec. 25, S1⁄2 (subsurface estate). 

T. 7 S., R. 11 W., 

 sec. 27, all (subsurface estate); 

 sec. 28, N1⁄2N1⁄2 (subsurface estate), SE1⁄4 (subsurface 

 estate); 

 sec. 30, E1⁄2SW1⁄4. 

T. 3 N., R. 12 W., 

 sec. 27, NW1⁄4. 

T. 7 S., R. 12 W., 

 sec. 4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 15 W., 

 sec. 20, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 24, W1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 29, SW1⁄4. 

T. 4 N., R. 19 W., 

 sec. 4, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 8, all; 

 sec. 9, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 10, all; 

 sec. 11, all; 

 sec. 14, all; 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-I.11 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

 sec. 15, E1⁄2, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, N1⁄2S1⁄2NW1⁄4, 

 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 17, all; 

 sec. 20, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 21, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 22, lot 1, NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 23, N1⁄2, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2S1⁄2SE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 26, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 28, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 

 sec. 29, W1⁄2W1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4. 

T. 9 S., R. 22 W., 

 sec. 1, lot 7; 

 sec. 17, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4. 

T. 1 S., R. 23 W., 

 sec. 5, lot 8 (portion). 

T. 8 S., R. 23 W., 

 sec. 34, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 (portion), W1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 

 (portion); 

 sec. 35, S1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

Page 2-I.12 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

T. 9 S., R. 23 W. 

 sec. 28, lot 2; 

 sec. 29, lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (portion), 7, 8, 

 N1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 33, W1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 28, lot 19. 

T. 9 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 8, lot 8. 

T. 11 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 6, lots 7, 8, 9, and N1⁄2N1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

T. 11 S., R. 25 W., 

 sec. 1, lots 3, 4, 5, 11 (portion), 14, and 15, 

 W1⁄2E1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2NE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 11, lot 28; 

 sec. 12, Block 29, lots 1, 2, and 3; 

 Block 30, lots 1 to 11, inclusive; 

 Block 31, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

T. 2 N., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 2, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, and S1⁄2; 

 sec. 11, all. 

T. 4 S., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 18, lots 1 (subsurface estate), 2 (subsurface 

 estate), E1⁄2NW1⁄2 (subsurface estate). 

T. 6 S., R. 11 W., 

 sec. 25, S1⁄2 (subsurface estate). 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-I.13 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

T. 7 S., R. 11 W., 

 sec. 15, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 27, all (subsurface estate); 

 sec. 28, N1⁄2N1⁄2 (subsurface estate), SE1⁄4 (subsurface 

 estate); 

 sec. 30, E1⁄2SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 31, lots 3, 4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4. 

T. 6 S., R. 13 W., 

 sec. 17, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 18, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 19, S1⁄2SE1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 15 W., 

 sec. 20, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 24, W1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 29, SW1⁄4. 

T. 4 N., R. 19 W., 

 sec. 4, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 9, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 15, E1⁄2, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, N1⁄2S1⁄2NW1⁄4, 

 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 17, all; 

 sec. 20, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 21, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 22, lot 1, NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 23, N1⁄2, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2S1⁄2SE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 26, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 

Page 2-I.14 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

 sec. 28, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 29, W1⁄2W1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4. 

T. 9 S., R. 22 W., 

 sec. 1, lot 7; 

 sec. 17, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4. 

T. 1 S., R. 23 W., 

 sec. 5, lot 8 (portion). 

T. 8 S., R. 23 W., 

 sec. 34, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 (portion), W1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 

 (portion); 

 sec. 35, S1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

T. 9 S., R. 23 W. 

 sec. 28, lot 2; 

 sec. 29, lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (portion), 7, 8, 

 N1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 33, W1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 28, lot 19. 

T. 9 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 8, lot 8. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-I.15 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

ALTERNATIVE E 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona 

T. 2 N., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 2, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, and S1⁄2; 

 sec. 11, all. 

T. 4 S., R. 10 W., 

 sec. 18, lots 1 (subsurface estate), 2 (subsurface 

 estate), E1⁄2NW1⁄4 (subsurface estate). 

T. 6 S., R. 11 W., 

 sec. 25, S1⁄2 (subsurface estate). 

T. 7 S., R. 11 W., 

 sec. 15, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 27, all (subsurface estate); 

 sec. 28, N1⁄2N1⁄2 (subsurface estate), SE1⁄4 (subsurface 

 estate); 

 sec. 30, E1⁄2SW1⁄4. 

T. 3 N., R. 12 W., 

 sec. 27, NW1⁄4. 

T. 7 S., R. 12 W., 

 sec. 4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4. 

T. 6 S., R. 13 W., 

 sec. 17, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 18, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 19, S1⁄2SE1⁄4. 

T. 7 S., R. 13 W., 

 sec. 3, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

T. 8 S., R. 15 W., 

 sec. 20, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

Page 2-I.16 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

 sec. 24, W1⁄2SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 29, SW1⁄4. 

T. 4 N., R. 19 W., 

 sec. 4, SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 8, all; 

 sec. 9, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 10, all; 

 sec. 11, all; 

 sec. 14, all; 

 sec. 15, E1⁄2, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, N1⁄2S1⁄2NW1⁄4, 

 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 17, all; 

 sec. 20, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 21, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 22, lot 1, NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 23, N1⁄2, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2S1⁄2SE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 26, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 

 sec. 28, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

 sec. 29, W1⁄2W1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4. 

T. 3 N., R. 22 W., 

 sec. 11, lot 7; 

 sec. 24, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4. 

T. 9 S., R. 22 W., 

 sec. 1, lot 7; 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-I.17 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

 sec. 17, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4. 

T. 1 S., R. 23 W., 

 sec. 5, lot 8 (portion). 

T. 8 S., R. 23 W., 

 sec. 34, W1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 (portion), W1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 

 (portion); 

 sec. 35, S1⁄2NW1⁄4NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

T. 9 S., R. 23 W. 

 sec. 28, lot 2; 

 sec. 29, lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (portion), 7, 8, 

 N1⁄2SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 33, W1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 28, lot 19. 

T. 9 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 8, lot 8. 

T. 11 S., R. 24 W., 

 sec. 6, lots 7, 8, 9, and N1⁄2N1⁄2SW1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 8, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2. 

T. 11 S., R. 25 W., 

 sec. 1, lots 3, 4, 5, 11 (portion), 14, and 15, 

 W1⁄2E1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

 N1⁄2NE1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

 sec. 11, lot 28; 

 sec. 12, Block 29, lots 1, 2, and 3; 

 Block 30, lots 1 to 11, inclusive; 

 Block 31, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

Page 2-I.18 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

San Bernardino Meridian, California 

T. 9 S., R. 21 E., 

 sec. 12, lots 1, 2, NE1⁄4. 

T. 8 S., R. 22 E., 

 sec. 24, lot 4. 

T. 9 S., R. 22 E., 

 sec. 9, lot 12. 

Yuma Field Office Page 2-I.19 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 2-I 

Page intentionally left blank. 

Page 2-I.20 Yuma Field Office 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 
Appendix 3-A 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-A.1 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

REASONABLE FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This appendix provides a summary of the exploration history, current lease status, and 20-year 

projections for Reasonable Foreseeable Development of leasable, locatable, and salable minerals 

in the planning area. This information is a summary of the data presented in the Mineral 

Resource Potential Report (TetraTech 2005). 

Three factors of analysis are considered when making mineral determinations in RMPs: (1) the 

potential for occurrence and development of mineral resources, (2) immediate and cumulative 

impacts due to Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) of mineral resources, and (3) the 

need to apply constraints or restrictions, known as stipulations, to the determination (BLM 

1985). The first factor, mineral resource potential, is discussed in the Mineral Resource Potential 

Report. The second factor, RFD, is discussed in this appendix. The third factor, stipulations, will 

be analyzed and considered in the RMP. 

1.2 LEASABLE MINERALS 

1.2.1 OIL AND GAS 

BLM-administered land in the planning area identified as having moderate oil and gas potential 

is 50,210 acres. There are no documented proven reserves in the planning area, and currently 

only minor leasing interest. No drilling activity has occurred since 1987. The RFD for fluid 

mineral development estimates that six exploratory wells would be drilled within the next 15 

years. An estimated one exploratory well would lead to the discovery and production of one 

small economic oil and gas field, with an average life of 20 years, resulting in approximately 

1,060 acres of disturbance. When evaluating the RFD, it was assumed that fluid mineral 

development would increase over the 15 years and advances in technology would improve the 

delineation of potential reservoir targets. A typical oil/gas drilling site is described in the Mineral 

Resource Potential Report. 

1.2.2 CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) AND HELIUM (HE) 

Areas having moderate CO2/He potential in the planning area are assumed to be correlative with 

areas of moderate oil and gas potential. So far, there has been no CO2/He exploration in the 
Appendix 3-A 

planning area and no leasing interest. The RFD for CO2/He development estimates that no oil 

and gas exploratory wells drilled in the planning area would discover CO2/He reserves, and no 

exclusively CO2/He exploratory wells would be drilled. The evaluation process for the RFD 

assumed that an increase in oil and gas drilling would result in production tests in two oil and 

gas exploratory wells without recovery of economic concentrations of CO2/He. Therefore, there 

will be no disturbance or impact in the planning area from development of a CO2/He field. 

1.2.3 GEOTHERMAL 

A total of four low-temperature geothermal resource regions in the planning area were identified 

in the Mineral Resource Potential Report. There has been significant development of those 

geothermal energy resources only for aquaculture. These low-temperature geothermal resources 

may be used for small-scale space heating and resort spas. Costs to develop low-temperature 

geothermal resources are prohibitive compared to the potential revenue generation and limited 

uses of these resources. There are no geothermal energy leases in the planning area, and no 

indications of future leasing activity. The RFD for geothermal resource development in the 

planning area expects that no leasing, exploration, or development would occur in the next 15 

years. There is no foreseeable disturbance to public lands from geothermal resource development 

in the planning area in the next 15 years. 

1.2.4 COAL 

There are no coal deposits reported in the planning area. 

1.2.5 SODIUM 

There has been no significant development of sodium resources and no indications for future leasing 

and development activity. The absence of leasing activity for sodium resources in the planning area 

is likely due to the limited demand for sodium resources and the considerable expense to explore and 

develop them. The RFD for sodium resource development expects that no leasing, exploration, or 

development will occur in the planning area in the next 15 years. There is no foreseeable disturbance 

to public lands from sodium resource development in the planning area in the next 15 years. 

1.3 LOCATABLE MINERALS 

Mineral districts in the planning area are regions of known occurrence and high potential of 

locatable metallic and nonmetallic mineral resources. The location of these mineral districts was 

identified in the Mineral Resource Potential Report. There are no active locatable mineral mines 

currently operating in the planning area (USGS 1999; Phillips, et al. 2002). 

Page 3-A.2 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Appendix 3-A 

Yuma Field Office Page 3-A.3 

PRMP/FEIS 

April 2008 

The RFD for locatable mineral resources in the planning area indicates that some exploration would 

occur in the next 15 years with two underground locatable mineral deposits and one placer deposit 

being developed. The following assumptions were considered when evaluating the RFD for 

locatable mineral resources in the planning area: 

• There would be two new locatable hard rock or lode discoveries (Verdstone and 

Copperstone) in the next 15 years and one placer gold mineral discovery. 

• Each new locatable mineral discovery would include an underground mine, occupy 

approximately 80 surface acres, and include mining waste rock piles. 

• Where applicable, commodity ore would be transported offsite via surface roads for 

processing. 

• The land surface would not be reclaimed during the life of the mine. 

There is some foreseeable disturbance due to mining activities on public lands in the planning area 

in the next 15 years. Activities associated with the two new underground mines would impact up to 

160 acres, including placement of waste rock piles. Disturbance of the land surface would require 

reclamation at the end of the mine life. 

1.4 SALABLE MINERALS 

1.4.1 AGGREGATE AND STONE 

Known occurrences (quarries and pits), prospects, and potential locations for salable mineral 

resources were identified in the Mineral Resource Potential Report. Most locations are actively used 

for aggregate for construction operations or in some cases, for decorative stone or rip rap. The 

following assumptions were considered when evaluating the RFD for salable mineral resources in 

the planning area: 

• The demand for salable minerals would increase during the next 15 years as population 

increases stimulate construction and infrastructure development. 

• Based on past experience and projected future demand, a total of 200 pits would be 

permitted/contracted in the next 15 years. Approximately 75 of these would be for new sites. 

• New quarries or pits would be between five and 10 acres in size. 

• New quarry or pit access will require new road construction. 

The RFD for salable mineral resources (mineral materials disposal) is 902,000 tons per year, for a 

total of 13,530,000 tons over 15 years. The total disturbed area over the 15 year planning period 

would be 1,500 acres with about 300 acres being disturbed during any one time. Disturbance of the 

land surface would require reclamation at the end of the life of the pits. 
Appendix 3-A 

Page intentionally left blank. 

Page 3-A.4 Yuma Field Office 

 PRMP/FEIS 

 April 2008 
Map

TMA-1

Map

TMA-2 Map

TMA-3

Map

TMA-4

Map

TMA-5

Index

Map

£¤95

§ ̈¦10 £¤95

(!78

River

Colorado

EC225

EC

EC

304

308

EC172

EC301

EC167

EC164

EC164

EC162

EC163

EC299

EC299

EC300

EC161

EC298

EC160

EC160

EC297

EC296

EC297

EC296

EC481

EC159

EC155

EC295

EC294

EC155

EC154

EC156

EC122

EC153

EC123

EC124

EC288

EC118

EC121

EC113

EC118

EC111

EC112

EC114

EC102

EC103

EC104

EC102

EC108

EC105

EC118

EC127

EC116

EC115

EC115

EC099

EC098

EC097

EC128

EC129

EC127

EC116

EC118

EC119

EC123

EC132

E

C136

EC123

EC077

EC078

EC094

EC063

EC291

EC1

35

EC292

EC293

EC291

EC150

EC286

EC128

EC128

EC105

EC107

EC106

EC115

EC117

EC116

EC128

EC287 LP407

EC096

EC095

EC284

EC285 EC283

EC282

EC281

EC280

EC280

EC279

EC250

EC277

EC272

EC271

EC269

EC264

EC265

EC268

EC266

EC270

EC273

EC274

EC275

EC278

EC263

EC262

EC261

EC276

EC267

EC227

EC242

EC243

EC227

EC226

EC234

EC482

EC483

EC289

EC290

EC291

EC154

EC156

EC158

EC

484 EC484

EC486

EC155

EC155

EC485

EC485

EC227

EC227

EC49

E

4

C495

EC496

EC497

EC498

EC499

EC500

EC501

EC502

EC503

EC576

EC577

EC578

EC579

EC582

EC580

EC581

EC583

EC584

MATCH LINE

MATCH LINE

MATCH LINE

EC250

EC700

EC122

EC699

E C 6 8 0

EC663

EC100

EC673

EC665

EC664

EC683

LP153

E

8

C694

EC706

EC686

E

C671

EC668

EC703

EC300

EC701

E C 6 7 7

EC708

EC118

EC691

EC119

EC707

EC676

EC666

EC690

EC681

EC684

EC667

E C 12 7

EC698

EC704

EC670

EC705

LP1429

E C 6 7 5

E

C693

EC685

EC709

EC682

EC662

EC695

EC 66 1

EC669

EC 672

EC710

EC702

EC287

EC689

EC674

EC097

EC122

EC107

EC696EC697 EC692

EC687

EC679

EC688

Blythe

114°30'0"W

114°30'0"W

114°37'30"W

114°37'30"W

34°0'0"N

34°0'0"N

33°52'30"N

33°52'30"N

33°45'0"N

33°45'0"N

33°37'30"N

33°37'30"N

33°30'0"N

33°30'0"N

Map TMA-1: Ehrenberg/Cibola Travel Management Area

1 0 1 2 3

Miles ¬

The Bureau of Land Management makes no

warranties, implied or expressed, with respect

to information shown on this map.

1 0 1 2 3

Kilometers

YUMA FIELD OFFICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

R 22 E

!

^(Phoenix Yuma

Planning

Area

A R I Z O N A

1:68,359

R 23 E R 24 E

T

2

S

T

3

S

T

4

S

T

5

S

T

6

S

T

7

S

T

8

S

Trigo

Mountains

Wilderness

Colorado River

Indian Reservation

T

9

S

EC448

EC453

EC448

EC452

EC406

EC447

EC446

EC445

EC443

EC421

EC407

EC

E

449

C450

EC451

EC410

EC406

EC406

EC406

EC403

EC405

EC404

EC403

EC402

EC401

EC228

EC228

EC454

EC228

EC399

EC398

EC398

EC398

EC397

EC396

EC389

EC395

E

C389

EC394

EC392

EC388

EC393

EC391

EC390

EC398

EC398

EC386

EC196

EC381

EC1

95

EC377

EC384

EC383

EC195

EC196

EC362

EC353

EC376

EC377

EC374

EC375

EC191

EC193

EC354

EC191

EC191

EC189

EC189

EC191

EC194

EC188

EC336

EC337

EC335

EC187

EC330

EC329

EC332

EC334

EC333

EC381

EC331

EC186

EC185

EC178

EC310

EC174

EC186

EC304

EC304

EC

EC308

309

EC306

EC307

EC172

EC172

EC172

EC301

EC167

EC168

EC170

EC164

EC164

(!78

(!78

EC241

EC162

EC476

EC469

EC468

EC585

EC465

EC464

EC463

EC466

EC462

EC461

EC460

EC456

EC459

EC455

EC455

EC456

E

EC457

C458

EC185

EC185

EC187

EC186

EC327

EC328

EC339

EC350

EC191

EC353

EC352

Lake Road

EC487

Cibola

EC490

EC491

EC492

EC493

EC494

EC5

EC597

96

EC242

EC587

EC588

EC601

EC

EC

600

600

EC

EC605

602

EC603

EC604

EC241

EC162

EC606

EC607

EC608

EC609

EC610

EC611

EC612

EC613

EC614

EC615

EC645

EC620

E C 6 3 8

EC647

E C 6 3 9

EC339

E C 6 5 4

EC644

EC673

EC665

EC664

E

C660

EC172

EC

671

EC630

EC668

EC663

E C 6 2 4

EC300

E C 65 1

EC431

EC666

E C 6 2 7

EC626

EC656

EC642

EC667

EC659

EC188

EC670

EC646

EC628

EC663

EC655

EC662

EC423

EC635

EC618

E C 661

EC669

EC 6 72

EC640

EC653

EC658

EC633

EC187

EC434

EC622

EC648

EC631

EC652

EC650

EC621

EC657

EC649

EC122

EC625

EC634

EC637

EC419

EC420

114°30'0"W

114°30'0"W

114°37'30"W

114°37'30"W

114°45'0"W

114°45'0"W

33°30'0"N

33°30'0"N

33°22'30"N

33°22'30"N

33°15'0"N

33°15'0"N

33°7'30"N

33°7'30"N

33°0'0"N

33°0'0"N

Little

Picacho

Wilderness

Indian

Pass

Wilderness

Palo Verde

Mountains

Wilderness

Riverside

Mountains

Wilderness

Yuma

Proving

Grounds Picacho

Peak

Wilderness

Big Maria

Mountains

Wilderness

La Paz County

Yuma County

Riverside County

Imperial County

La

Paz

County

Imperial County

Ehrenberg/Cibola Travel Management Area - North Ehrenberg/Cibola Travel Management Area - South

EC301

EC301

EC301

EC165

EC303

EC302

EC167

EC167

EC169

EC168

EC168

EC168

EC170

EC169

EC170

EC478

EC478

EC171

EC171

EC479

EC480

EC477

EC167

EC661

EC186

EC186

EC311

EC31

EC18

0

6

EC186 EC313

EC179

EC184

EC183

EC31

4

EC31

5

E EC182

EC

C312

181

EC186

EC316

EC317

EC318

EC319

EC321

EC320

EC322

EC323

EC324

EC326

EC325

EC186

EC325 Cibola

Lake

Road

Yuma Proving Grounds

Cibola Lake Road

EC189

EC192 EC

EC340

341

EC340

EC344

EC345

EC346

EC347

EC348

EC349

EC343

EC342

EC346

EC339

EC353

EC366

EC367

E

C368

EC369

EC194

EC194

EC194

EC378

EC378 EC195

EC363

EC365

EC356

EC355

EC194

EC357

EC362

EC361

EC359

EC360

EC380

EC379

EC370

EC371

EC372

EC370

EC406

EC436

EC437

EC438

EC444

EC406

EC406

EC406

EC439

EC443

EC441

EC442

EC410

EC406

EC406

EC406

EC423

EC424 EC425

EC426

EC427

EC406

EC429

EC428

EC430

EC41

E

0

C432

EC431

E

C433

EC410

EC434

EC431

EC410

EC422

EC410

EC406

EC407

EC407

EC406

EC409

EC411

EC410

EC406

EC408

EC408

EC413

EC412

EC414

EC415

EC416

EC417

EC418

EC408

EC412

Imperial National Wildlife Refuge

Cibola National

Wildlife Refuge

EC201

EC201

EC470

EC468

EC468

EC471

EC475

EC201

EC471

EC472

EC472

EC473

EC488

EC587

EC587

EC589

EC588

EC598

EC590

EC587

EC591

EC592

EC593

EC594

EC595

EC229

EC230

EC228

EC228

EC228

EC228

EC240

EC237

EC238

EC240

EC231

EC241

EC239

EC236

EC235

EC234

EC233

EC232

£¤95

EC502

EC504

EC505

EC506

EC506

EC504

EC508

EC507

EC509

EC510

EC511

EC512

EC513

EC514

EC515

E

C515

EC516

EC517

EC519 EC518

EC504

EC504

EC520

E

C521

EC522

EC523

EC524

EC525

EC530

EC531

EC531

EC504

EC527

EC526

EC528

EC529

EC531

EC533

EC535

EC534

R 21 E R 22 E R 23 E

T

7

S

T

8

S

T

8

S

T

10

S

T

11

S

T

12

S

T

13

S

T

14

S

T

10.5

S

R 23 W R 22 W R 21 W

T

1

N

T

2

N

T

3

N

T

4

N

Mohave

Drive

T

5

N

T

6

N

T

7

N

T

8

N

T

2

N

T

1

N

T

1

S

T

2

S

T

3

S

R 24 W

T

5

S

w:\projects\yfo_rmp\trans_rec\Route Inventory Ehrenberg-Cibola Map 33x44.mxd

Riverside County

Imperial County

La

Paz

County

Trigo

Mountains

Wilderness

California

Arizona

Red Township and Range is for the San Bernardino Meridian in California

Grey Township and Range is for the Gila and Salt River Meridian in Arizona

California

Arizona

Colorado

River

R 23 W

R 22 W

T 3 S

T 4 S

Area 1

EC536

EC244

EC245

EC536

EC536

EC536

EC537

EC537

EC538

EC539

EC540

EC540

EC541

EC541

EC543

EC544

EC542

EC546

EC546

EC545

EC548

EC548

EC550

EC551

EC552

EC549

EC549

EC556

EC556

EC553

EC553

EC553

EC547

EC554

EC555

EC246

EC557

EC247

EC247

EC248

EC248

EC536

EC252

EC251

EC560

EC560

EC561

EC562

EC563 EC563

EC562

EC564

EC575

EC559

EC571 EC571

EC572

EC565

EC566

EC567

EC568

EC569

EC572

EC251

EC536

Area 2

E

C242

E

C242

EC159

EC243

EC160

EC161

EC159

EC616

EC158

EC489

EC617

EC618

EC619

EC620

EC621

EC160

EC622

EC622

EC62

E

2

C623

EC623

EC624

EC625

EC626

EC627

EC627

EC628

EC629

EC634

EC635

EC636 E

C6

37

EC638

EC639

EC640

EC641

EC6

E

41

C642

EC643

EC645

EC644

EC646

EC647

EC648

EC648

EC649

EC650

EC651

EC652

EC653

EC654

EC654

EC655

EC656

EC657

EC658

EC659

EC6

EC657

60

EC661

EC662

EC663

EC664

EC665

EC666

EC666

EC666

EC667

EC668

EC669

EC670

EC671

EC671

EC671

EC680

EC679

EC677

EC678

EC676

EC675

EC672

EC673

EC674

EC617

EC681

EC682

EC683

EC684

EC685

EC686

EC687

EC688

Area 3

Legend Routes Surface Management

Yuma Field

Office Boundary

County Lines

Township and Range

Major Washes

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Reclamation

Tribal Lands

Military

State

State Wildlife

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

USFWS Wilderness

Private

Rivers and Lakes

State Lines

Routes too dense to

individually label

Ehrenberg Sandbowl

Open OHV Area

Travel Management

Area Boundaries

Preferred Alternative

OHV Closed Areas

Preferred Alternative

OHV Open Area

Bureau of Land Management

Yuma Field Office

April 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

These digitized linear features were drawn

from aerial photos and digital topographic

maps. These linear features have not been

field checked. Therefore, some of these

linear features may not exist.

Freeways

Primary Route - Paved

Primary Route - Unpaved

Secondary Route - Paved

Secondary Route - Unpaved

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500 750

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

Primitive Route

Railroad

Digitized Linear Feature **

Non-Motorized Route

** Note:

Inset Map #1

Inset

Map

#1

Inset Map #3

Inset

Map

#3

Inset Map

#4

Inset Map #4

Inset Map #2

Inset

Map

#2

Inset Map

#5

Inset Map #5

Inset Map

#6 Inset Map #6

Inset Map

#7

Inset Map

#8

Inset Map #7

Inset Map #8

Inset Map #9

Inset Map

#9

Inset Map

#10

Inset Map

#11

Inset Map #10

Inset Map #11

MATCH LINE

MATCH LINE
Map

TMA-1

Map

TMA-2 Map

TMA-3

Map

TMA-4

Map

TMA-5

Index

Map

YE009

YE010

YE011

YE012

YE006

YE240

YE202

YE203

YE210

YE209

YE208

YE0

YE515

§ ̈¦10 £¤95

LP877

LP876

LP878

LP879

£¤95

LP880

LP881

LP892

LP889

LP891

LP890

LP889

LP893

LP894

LP88

LP

1

895

LP896

LP897

LP900

LP901

LP899

LP898

LP419

LP903

LP902

LP905 LP904

LP906

LP915

LP908

LP908

LP914

LP912

LP911

LP910

LP910

LP909

LP907

LP913

LP881

LP385

LP385

LP385

LP407

LP595

LP595

LP407

LP407

Old

Yuma

Road

LP919

LP407

LP920

LP921

LP924

LP925

LP926

LP932

LP1060

LP1059

LP1058

LP1057

LP701

LP1054

LP105

LP

6

1055

LP1053

LP1052

LP1050

LP1051

LP701

§ ̈¦10

LP859

LP859

LP705

LP702

LP701

LP705

LP1

061

LP709

LP711

LP1042

LP1061

LP708

LP1049

LP104

LP

8

1047

LP1046

LP1045

LP708

LP1044

LP1043

LP711

LP458

LP998

LP997

LP452

LP455

LP464

LP464

LP1376

LP996

LP464

LP419

LP466

LP995

LP468

LP994

LP993

LP991

LP991

LP990

LP990

LP992

LP989

LP190

LP1014

LP218

LP1015

LP1016

LP470

LP470

LP207

LP1017

LP1019

LP1018

LP1032

(!72

£¤60

(!95

LP377

LP208

LP208

LP077

LP208

LP1063

LP1063

LP1063

LP1064

LP1065

LP1065

LP1070

LP1068

LP1069

LP1067

LP1067

Plomosa

Road

LP065

LP092

LP1072

LP049

LP045

LP089

LP1073

LP1075

LP1076

LP1073

LP053

LP1074

LP043

LP111

LP101

LP102

LP094

LP099

LP096

LP09

LP094

5

LP804

LP804

LP103

LP103

LP595

LP595

LP595

LP595

LP101

LP741

LP261

LP107

LP259

LP741

LP741

LP262

LP2539

LP768

LP267

LP267

LP249

LP255

LP267

LP25 93

LP2618

LP25 77

LP25 96

LP25 66

LP25 70

LP25 69

LP2541

LP2583

LP25 88

LP25 87

LP1127 LP25 32

LP1127

LP25 13

LP24 45

LP14 28

LP14 03

LP14 52

LP14 48

LP14 36

LP14 42

LP28 18

LP13 07

LP13 10

LP13 11

LP13 04

LP1290

LP1302

LP1142

LP1151

LP1150

LP1147

LP1145

LP1148

LP1146

LP1144

LP1135

LP1133

LP1132

LP1131

LP1129

LP28 08

LP28 06 LP28 01

LP28 03

LP28 02

LP28 09 LP28 05

LP27 98

LP2822

LP27 71

LP094

LP27 81

LP27 88

LP27 84

LP2811

LP2790

LP27 50

LP1073

LP27 76

LP27 55

LP27 59

LP27 68

LP27 58

LP27 37

LP27 08

LP24 66

LP23 39

LP2349

LP2352

LP22 75

LP23 50

LP23 48

LP23 40

LP22 95

LP23 00

LP23 04

LP23 14

LP22 80

LP1123

LP1026

LP1118

LP1119

LP1108

LP1110

LP1104

LP711

LP1860

LP1113

LP1106

LP1107

LP17 77

LP17 87

LP1105

LP16 01

LP1117

LP1122

LP1101

LP10 94

LP10 93

LP16 93

LP1695

LP1638

LP1638

LP1579

LP19 67

LP20 17

LP19 98

LP19 99

LP17 63

LP16 04

LP16 05

LP14 68

LP14 85

LP14 91

LP13 63

LP1350

LP1479

LP1432

LP1427

LP1435

LP1426

LP14 06

LP14 23

LP14 16

LP13 82

LP13 83

LP14 88

LP16 00

LP1632

LP1624

LP999

LP14 75

LP15 13

LP1439

LP1461

LP15 08

LP15 14

LP14 84

LP1381

LP1387

LP1438

LP13 32

LP13 70

LP14 40

LP1493

LP1490

LP1349

LP901

LP12 59

LP12 60

LP1262

LP2216

LP23 19

LP23 77

LP28 23

LP24 01

LP23 75

LP23 75

LP23 69

LP23 20

LP23 98

LP2421

LP2404

LP24 19

LP24 35

LP24 23

LP24 09

LP24 03

LP24 54

LP24 75

LP24 79

LP24 98 LP24 94

LP24 83

LP24 70

LP24 80 LP24 82

LP24 81

LP24 69

LP2489

LP25 06

LP28 49

LP25 16

LP25 50

LP25 60

LP25 30

LP25 61

LP2556

LP2574

LP26 24 LP2613

LP2673

LP28 36

LP26 52

LP2667

LP26 33

LP2655

LP2665

LP14 99

LP2549

LP27 62

LP23 21

LP23 31

LP12 57

LP12 69

LP701

LP595

LP208

LP101

LP081

LP094

LP102

LP420

LP089

LP099

LP779

LP775

LP079

LP859

LP407

LP100

LP462

LP285

LP103

LP466

LP219

LP804

LP418

LP432

LP386

LP092

LP051

LP190

LP266

LP107

LP702

LP225

LP415

LP120

LP209

LP713

LP422

LP424

LP714

LP716

LP708

LP421

LP706

LP416

LP244

LP464

LP189

LP425

LP250

LP361

LP709

LP858

LP091

LP456

LP265

LP123

LP465

LP438

LP267

LP761

LP457

LP439

LP262

LP816

LP469

LP095

LP096

LP076

LP810

LP1701

LP710

LP861

LP801

LP758

LP256

LP467

LP193

LP463

LP388

LP391

LP052

LP452

LP773

LP097

LP800

LP750

LP090

LP707

LP762

LP454

LP781

LP210

LP704

LP703

LP715

LP755

LP390

LP751

LP257

LP423

LP764

LP766

LP098

LP753

LP435

LP757

LP712

LP748

LP260

LP763

LP818

LP050

LP258

LP765

LP710

LP420

LP419

LP420

LP100

LP417

LP595

LP419

LP1931

LP716

LP207

LP249

LP421 LP1234 LP1234 LP1234

LP1234 LP1234

LP1220

LP1220

LP1220 LP1

220

LP2431

LP2431

LP2843

LP1537

LP1537

LP094 LP094

YE1049

LP1323

LP2748

LP23 49

LP1127

YE1181

LP1272

LP2764

LP2774

LP1592

LP2489

LP1538

LP1290

LP

LP1118

LP28 49

LP2345

LP1101

LP1921

LP1970

LP2613

LP2799

LP2661

LP1325

LP2594

LP2495

LP2559

LP1272

LP2736

LP875

LP1402

LP1220

LP1120

LP1474

LP1387

LP10 96

LP2795

LP900

LP1690

LP2491

LP1373

LP25 06

LP1139

LP1089

LP1486

LP1140

LP1381

LP2666

YE1036

LP1110

LP24 19

LP1254

LP2710

LP2673

LP27 50

LP781

LP2751

LP1246

LP2732

LP2780

LP2584

LP1459

LP27 98

LP2815

LP2688

LP2712

LP1263

LP2520

LP2528

LP1868

LP24 39

LP2530

LP2618

LP2791

YE

LP2490

YE206

LP27 73

LP2796

LP26 23

LP1095

LP2739

LP24 85

LP1977

LP23 68

LP26 03

LP2743

LP2575

LP25 57

LP2335

LP2749

LP26 28

LP2543

LP1534

LP2576

LP2765

LP26 50

LP27 00

LP1483

LP1458

LP2551

LP1091

LP1037

LP2678

LP1518

LP2473

LP2567

LP2413

LP1272

LP1211

LP1369

YE1213

LP1116

LP12 92

LP2509

LP1121

LP2477

LP2581

LP2367

LP24 54

LP1262

LP27 08

LP27 63

LP25 47

LP2500

LP2510

LP1088

LP2680

LP1288

LP25 37

LP43 9

LP2334

LP2684

LP052

LP1348

LP2756

LP27 04

LP2807

LP2606

LP2464

LP2544

LP1287

LP2546

LP2812

LP2548

YE1013

LP1114

LP2709

LP1265

LP1300

LP2735

LP435

LP2579

LP2797

LP13 47

LP1955

LP2580

LP1124

LP1533

LP24 22

LP2525

LP1404

LP2769

LP2431

LP27 93

LP1329

LP14 73

LP1396

LP1631

LP1245

LP25 78

LP2518

LP2604

LP17 48

LP2467

YE1211

LP23 95

LP2669

LP1756

LP2779

LP2328

LP1102

LP24 28

LP1298

LP773

LP23 36

LP2643

LP18 78

LP1342

LP2744

LP1312

LP1271

LP13 05

LP25 85

LP2662

LP1394

LP2521

LP27 03

LP18 35

LP2356

LP1637

LP1609

LP090

YE974

LP2391

LP1682

LP1282

LP1683

LP26 79

LP2365

LP2478

LP22 83

LP09 5

LP878

YE1 217

LP24 29

LP25 58

LP2553

LP1291

LP1296

LP23 33

LP1277

YE1 056

LP2782

LP27 33

LP1412

LP2346

LP12 41

LP2702

LP10 90

LP1407

LP16 33

YE123

LP2059

LP1322

LP23 87

LP2644

LP2740

LP1303

LP1465

LP1294

LP1092

LP24 27

LP21 09

LP2820

LP2564

LP13

58

LP23 92

LP2753

LP1301

LP13 89

LP1877

LP2760

LP1826

LP27 54

LP1386

LP19 75

LP2563

LP1492

LP1401

LP16 52

LP2450

LP28 10

LP1351

LP15 93

LP23 80

YE210

LP2358

LP1353

LP25 99

LP23 72

YE1227

LP27 67

LP12 84

LP25 01

LP2542

LP13 14

LP1444

LP27 46

LP1276

LP16 47

LP1

141

LP1143

LP25 40

LP24 31

LP25 07

LP1136

LP25 29

LP14 30

LP14 66

LP1293

LP25 36

LP10 97

LP13 06

LP2554

LP26 59

LP19 24

LP25 45

LP1273

LP2202

LP27 16

LP23 44

LP14 47

LP2632

LP27 47

LP15 53

YE1229

LP2110

LP19 73

LP2499

LP1270

LP1274

LP1429

LP1264

YE

LP2000

LP25 15

YE

LP2800

LP25 08

LP18 03

LP25 02

LP23 17

LP13 09

LP27 86

LP15 11

LP1213

LP18 67

YE1 048

LP15 54

LP1129

LP26 39

LP23 32

LP25 34

LP1099

LP25 68

LP13 40

LP17 95

LP422

LP27 52

LP13 77

LP24 93

LP24 65

LP27 92

LP12 81

LP27 70

LP2347

LP13 15

LP26 14

LP2

8 14

LP12 61

LP14 78

LP17 34

LP27 61

LP24 31

YE1157

LP12 18

YE1 246

LP12 75

LP25 87

LP24 49

LP24 71

YE1190

LP12 89

LP12 68

LP18 97

LP19 78

LP12 79

LP25 65

LP12 30

LP25 17

LP12 49

LP27

05

LP1128

LP27 72

LP10 42

LP24 57

LP1137

LP27 38

LP13 33

LP16 03

LP24 20

LP12 50

LP13 84

LP1109

LP12 85

LP12 86

LP1103

LP12 83

LP24 32

LP17 46

LP15 30

LP16 48

LP27 57

LP13 08

LP17 08

LP2425

LP23 94

LP13 92

LP17 00

LP27 01

YE1 228

LP13 54

LP14 37

LP23 79

LP1138

LP23 55

LP13 44

LP14 25

LP23 26

LP28 04

LP27 94

LP27 77

LP28 19

LP16 06

LP23 38

LP23 60

LP1134

LP25 32

LP12 97

LP13 17

LP24 63

YE1 225

LP17 07

LP26 48

LP1100

LP28 5

LP17 51

LP18 37

LP12 52

LP27 75

LP14 94

LP12 66

LP19 95

Y

LP25 52

LP25 27

LP23 03

LP14 77

LP17 43

LP12 02

YE1 230

LP25 38

LP15 00

LP24 17

LP13 93

YE9 90

YE6 62

LP15 65

LP14 15

LP14 55

LP14 51

LP12 51

LP1111

LP13 20

LP12 78

LP27 85

LP23 51

LP18 55

LP14 45

LP12 99

LP14 33

LP20 51

LP12 10

LP27 18

YE1167

LP14 14

LP14 21

LP12 58

LP23 29

LP24 47

YE0 06

LP24 46

LP22 36

LP24 40

LP14 17

YE1188

LP1

4 34

LP20 61

LP25 72

LP12 95

LP14 23

LP18 32

LP27 41

LP27 89

YE9 71

LP13 39

LP13 13

LP15 94

LP12 56

LP14 64

LP12 80

QUARTZSITE

113°52'30"W

113°52'30"W

114°0'0"W

114°0'0"W

114°7'30"W

114°7'30"W

114°15'0"W

114°15'0"W

114°22'30"W

114°22'30"W

113°45'0"W

33°52'30"N

33°52'30"N

33°45'0"N

33°45'0"N

33°37'30"N

33°37'30"N

33°30'0"N

33°30'0"N

33°22'30"N

33°22'30"N

33°15'0"N

33°15'0"N

33°7'30"N

33°7'30"N

Map TMA-2: La Posa Travel Management Area

1 0 1 2 3

Miles ¬

The Bureau of Land Management makes no

warranties, implied or expressed, with respect

to information shown on this map.

1 0 1 2 3

Kilometers

YUMA FIELD OFFICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

R 21 W

!

^(Phoenix Yuma

Planning

Area

A R I Z O N A

1:74,500

Inset Map #1

R 20 W R 19 W R 18 W R 17 W R 16 W R 15 W R 14 W

T

7

N

T

6

N

T

5

N

T

4

N

T

3

N

T

2

N

T

1

N

T

1

S

T

2

S

T

3

S

La Paz County

Yuma County

New Water

Mountains

Wilderness

KOFA National

Wildlife

Refuge

KOFA Refuge

Wilderness

Colorado River

Indian Reservation

Old

LaPazValley Road

Yuma

Roa

d

LP

LP

§ ̈¦10

LP2067

LP1887

LP1805

LP1812

LP1822

LP1608

LP1323

LP1411

LP1447

LP1493

LP1559

LP595

LP1850

LP561

LP2092

LP2078

LP2122

LP1887

LP2122

LP1510

LP1323

LP2067

LP1608

LP2249

LP1467

LP2003

LP1991

LP1470

LP1408

LP2163

LP1822

LP1817

LP1623

LP386

LP2120

LP1916

LP1571

LP1572

LP1441

LP1547

LP2186

LP1476

LP1469

LP1938

LP1424

LP1515

LP1495

LP1409

LP2177

LP1526

LP1582

LP1419

LP2125

LP2209

LP1502

LP1399

LP1611

LP1815

LP1949

LP1745

LP1509

LP1904

LP1585

LP1677

LP1811

LP1861

LP1805

LP1411

LP2848

LP1884

LP1899

LP1726

LP1445

LP1833

LP1581

LP1880

LP1838

LP1498

LP1456

LP1487

LP1997

LP1398

LP1843

LP1992

LP1870

LP1454

LP1804

LP2285

LP1755

LP1463

LP2220

LP2010

LP1807

LP1944

LP1602

LP1716

LP1800

LP2121

LP1890

LP1957

LP1443

LP2210

LP1862

LP1546

LP1480

LP2066

LP1854

LP1996

LP1694

LP2041

LP1813

LP950

LP1620

LP1856

LP1453

LP1733

LP1680

LP1698

LP1908

LP1966

LP2208

LP2006

LP1476

LP18 42

LP1736

LP1460

LP1462

LP1806

LP1814

LP1612

LP1808

LP13 95

LP1876

LP2056

LP1379

LP1391

LP2181

LP1759

LP2033

LP1552

LP2034

LP2054

LP625

LP1785

LP1881

LP2837

LP18 09

LP21 61

LP2250

LP1976

LP22 39

LP18 20

LP22 33

LP1482

LP18 19

LP18 63

LP22 41

LP21 87

LP22 60

LP22 53

LP18 66

LP2025

LP16 17

LP13 97

LP14 49

LP20 12

LP14 00

LP13 85

LP22 37

LP13 88

LP14 20

LP18 94

LP14 46

LP21 68

LP22 18

LP28 38

LP14 72

LP14 31

LP20 32

LP14 57

LP14 81

LP14 89

LP18 74

LP14 10

LP18 21

LP21 82

LP595

LP227

LP625

LP417

LP356

LP625

LP384

LP356

LP629

LP619

LP229

LP356

LP595

LP356

LP228

LP629

LP284

LP357

LP554

LP392

LP391

LP282

LP351

LP394

LP228

LP553

LP392

LP399

LP386

LP229

LP549

LP630

LP227

LP628

LP62 9

LP63 0

LP933

LP407

LP928

LP927

LP922

LP595

LP921

LP927

LP963

LP961

LP918

LP1062

LP595

LP930

LP966

LP929

LP931

LP923

LP384

LP933

LP385

LP669

LP385

LP382

LP382

LP383

LP383

LP938

LP939

LP669

LP934

LP93

LP936

5

LP937

LP935

LP938

LP946

LP944

LP943

LP381

LP933

LP933

LP380

LP950

LP366

LP366

LP377

LP948

LP947

LP949

LP366

LP375

LP376

LP941

LP941

LP945

LP942

LP366

LP343

LP951

LP374

LP952

LP953

LP370

LP372

LP373

LP371

LP654

LP369

LP371

LP369

LP375

LP654

LP934

LP379

LP366

Chol a

Road

LP657

LP654

LP655

LP656

L

LP650

P343

LP366

LP340

LP333

LP738

LP341

LP339

LP339

LP350

LP652

LP921

LP350

LP368

LP367

LP365

LP365

LP366

LP366

LP369

LP368

LP350

LP955

LP954

LP956

LP957

LP364

LP363

LP364

LP342

LP350

LP342

LP343

LP338

LP344

LP338

LP362

LP321

LP333

LP333

Dome

Rock

Road

LP350

LP921

LP324

LP324

LP633

LP330

LP738

LP335

LP337

LP336

LP336

LP332

LP332

LP331

LP331

LP324

LP637

LP638

LP639

LP324

L

LP329

P330

LP327

LP325

LP325

LP326

LP285

LP285

LP273

LP281

LP284

LP285

LP284

LP282

LP286

LP286

LP282

LP286

LP297

LP293

LP293

LP287

LP287

LP289

LP299

LP282

PL282

LP299

LP30

LP3

0

00

LP303

LP282

LP302

LP300

LP301

LP300

LP291

LP734

LP282

LP282

LP282

LP304

LP282

LP733

LP305

LP306

LP305

LP307

LP307

LP305

LP305

LP305

LP282

LP305

LP310

LP310

LP305

LP312

LP308

LP309

LP32

L

0

P318

LP29

L

6

P297

LP295

LP294

LP308 LP308

LP292

LP308

LP317

LP318

LP311

LP731

LP731

LP315

LP730

LP315

LP314

LP313

LP316

LP315

LP316

LP313

§ ̈¦10

£¤95

LP2212

LP946

LP384

LP1645

LP1674

LP1642

LP2835

LP1675

LP1676

LP1733

LP1635

LP1595

LP1686

LP1721

LP1635

LP1747

LP1910

LP1871

LP351

LP352

LP1635

LP1966

LP1944

LP1733

LP1954

LP2100

LP1680

LP1741

LP1697

LP2211

LP2174

LP1126

LP1517

LP2249

LP2184

LP384

LP1698

LP1517

LP1659

LP1721

LP1548

LP2393

LP1691

LP946

LP2221

LP1595

LP1628

LP2234

LP1623

LP1951

LP1713

LP2055

LP1578

LP1946

LP1771

LP2169

LP335

LP938

LP1608

LP1686

LP1754

LP1661

LP1687

LP1642

LP1775

LP289

LP1669

LP1786

LP1613

LP1540

LP1831

LP744

LP1779

LP1709

LP2260

LP2153

LP2297

LP2258

LP1789

LP2264

LP2265

LP950

LP1688

LP1596

LP2128

LP1636

LP1531

LP1772

LP1759

LP1757

LP1711

LP376

LP1907

LP1885

LP1862

LP1495

LP1668

LP1620

LP1728

LP1932

LP2414

LP1982

LP1879

LP2065

LP2279

LP1829

LP1619

LP1512

LP2022

LP1678

LP2411

LP1714

LP1612

LP1651

LP2242

LP1519

LP1736

LP2223

LP1654

LP1742

LP625

LP1653

LP1915

LP1760

LP2014

LP1956

LP1768

LP2287

LP1882

LP1525

LP2251

LP1750

LP1587

LP1889

LP325

LP2101

LP2341

LP944

LP1610

LP1864

LP1641

LP1764

LP1640

LP1560

LP1667

LP2074

LP1662

LP1730

LP337

LP1883

LP1664

LP1673

LP2281

LP1516

LP287

LP1732

LP1791

LP1618

LP2123

LP362

LP1909

LP2253

LP1774

LP1903

LP2298

LP1737

LP2361

LP1681

LP1655

LP2004

LP1980

LP1963

LP2834

LP1712

LP1689

LP1896

LP1663

LP1962

LP1696

LP1621

LP1562

LP1671

LP2248

LP2231

LP1769

LP2386

LP1630

LP1550

LP1614

£¤§ ̈¦10 95

LP233

LP234

LP234

LP234

LP285

LP269

LP270

LP274

LP273

LP282

LP233

LP233

LP282

LP282

LP282

LP236

LP235

LP238

LP237

LP241

LP23

LP

4

240

LP239

LP283

LP284

LP284

LP282

LP285

LP271

LP272

LP270

LP251

LP232

LP274

LP232

LP276

LP277

LP277

LP273

LP281

LP280

LP278

LP737

LP277

LP285

LP284

LP256

LP255

LP254

LP262

LP321

LP252

LP255

LP253

LP273

LP275

LP253

LP253

LP255

LP257

LP267

LP255

LP230 LP1077 LP1077

LP1077

LP1126

LP2411

LP1128

LP2415

LP737

LP232

L P2 39 0

LP1126

LP1077

LP2354

LP2397

LP2418

LP2315

LP2359

LP2323

LP2249

LP2249

LP2455

LP1127

LP2453

LP2343

LP2459

LP2411

LP2342

LP2426

LP2260

LP2816

LP2473

LP2357

LP2396

LP2363

LP2817

LP2370

LP2383

LP2414

LP2285

LP2416

LP2381

LP2468

LP2366

LP2284

LP2443

LP2385

LP2405

LP2253

LP2436

LP2264

LP2297

LP2337

LP275

LP2389

LP2341

LP2485

LP2282

LP2337

LP2373

LP2374

LP2250

LP 2 2 90

LP206 7

LP253

L P 2 36 2

LP2 324

LP23 99

LP 24 0 2

LP1022

LP1031

LP1030

LP1022

LP1025

LP1026

LP1025

LP1024

LP1022

LP1029

LP1022

LP1027

LP470

LP1

037

LP

1037

LP1039

LP470

LP1038

LP1040

LP470

LP470

LP1041

LP462

LP459

LP459

LP48

LP

8

458

LP458

LP1038

LP1017

LP1018

LP1018

LP1022

LP1023

LP1020

LP1

020

LP1017

LP1021

LP1017

LP1017

LP1017

LP1017

LP1033

LP1034

LP1035

LP1846

LP2215

LP2214

LP1918

LP2224

LP1112

LP2008

LP1037

LP1900

LP2275

LP1914

LP1934

LP1965

LP1830

LP2213

LP1030

LP1020

LP1979

LP1933

LP2002

LP1901

LP2228

LP2238

LP1000

LP1087

LP190

LP1013

LP193

LP1011

LP1012

LP1011

LP1009

LP100

LP

8

1010

LP1008

LP1007

LP1007

LP1001

LP1002

LP1001

LP193

LP193

LP1004

LP1005

LP1003

LP1006

LP1003

LP1004

LP1936

LP1878

LP1941

LP1095

LP2015

LP1858

LP1835

LP1993

LP1922

LP1919

LP1895

LP1955

LP1947

LP1690

LP2016

LP293

LP744

LP293

LP293

LP742

LP741

LP747

LP743

LP745

LP746

LP742

LP746

LP747

LP746

LP2437

LP2467

LP744

LP2464

LP2452

LP2474

Yuma Proving Grounds

LP215

LP217

LP207

LP207

LP1085

LP1079

LP1078

LP1078

LP1080

LP1080

LP1082

LP1081

LP216

LP217

§ ̈¦10

LP2825

LP2270

LP2272

LP2267

LP2271

LP2277

LP2299

Inset Map #2

Inset Map #3

Inset Map

#4

Inset

Map

#5

Inset Map

#6

Inset Map

#7

Inset Map #1

Inset Map #2

Inset Map #3

Inset Map #4

Inset Map #5

Inset Map #6

Inset Map #7

T

4

S

T

5

S

T 4 N

T 3 N

R 20 WR 19 W

T 4 N

T 3 N

T 4 N

T 3 N

w:\projects\yfo_rmp\trans_rec\Route Inventory La Posa Map 33x56.mxd

Vicksburg Road

Dripping Springs OHV Closed Area

La Paz Valley OHV Closed Area

La Paz Valley OHV Closed Area

Bureau of Land Management

Yuma Field Office

April 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Legend

Routes Yuma Field Office Boundary

County Lines

Township and Range

Major Washes

Freeways

Primary Route - Paved

Primary Route - Unpaved

Secondary Route - Paved

Secondary Route - Unpaved

Rivers and Lakes

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Reclamation

Tribal Lands

Military

State

State Wildlife

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

USFWS Wilderness

Private

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

LP1184

LP1158

LP1142

LP881

LP881

LP881

LP1142

LP1

142

LP1

158

LP1184

LP1170

LP1174

LP1167

LP1168

LP1188

LP1173

LP1159

LP1178

LP1182

LP1

152

LP1189

LP1169

LP434

LP1194

LP1156

LP1166

LP1183

LP1179

LP1161

LP1187

LP1192

LP1180

LP1165

LP1164

LP1163

LP1154

LP1162

LP1157

LP1153

LP1155

LP1181

LP1175

LP1160

LP2845

LP1186

LP1185

LP1172

LP432

LP1190

LP1171

LP1177

LP1176

LP430

LP1191

LP429

LP022

LP434

LP431

LP433

LP432

LP430

LP2658

LP2654

LP2729

LP2722

LP2675

LP2591

LP2646

LP2726

LP079

LP078

LP081

LP077

LP073

LP077

LP875

LP081

LP080

LP077

LP076

LP080

LP079

LP1071

LP081

LP2722

LP2591

LP2592

LP2675

LP2658

LP2661

LP2682

LP2646

LP2715

LP2657

LP2726

LP2681

LP2654

LP2714

LP2696

LP2729

LP2690

LP2697

LP2724

LP2699

LP2694

LP2727

LP2723

LP2717

LP2698

LP2691

LP2720

LP2670

LP2656

LP2695

LP2693

LP2590 LP2687

LP2719

LP2683

LP2731

LP2647

LP2685

LP2736

LP2689

LP2595

LP2649

LP2664

LP2663

LP2634

LP2721

LP2622

LP2707

LP2686

LP2692

LP2730

LP2712

LP2676

LP2731

LP2725

LP2688

LP2728

LP2672

LP2726

LP2734

LP2378

LP2378

LP2438

LP2456

LP2495

LP2496

LP2451

LP2638

LP2571

LP2488

LP775

LP875

LP077

LP078

LP875

LP817

LP778

LP777

LP2488

LP2378

LP2406

LP2456

LP2592

LP2496

LP2523

LP2438

LP2448

LP244

LP2512

LP2635

LP2571

LP2495

LP2503

LP2441

LP2476

LP2573

LP2489

LP2451

LP2603

LP2484

LP2531

LP2375

LP2642

LP2424

LP2476

LP2469

LP2444

LP2460

LP2537

LP2461

LP2658

LP2585

LP2458

LP2638

LP2407

LP2492

LP2589

LP2462

LP2412

LP2651

LP2434

LP2384

LP2582

LP2522

LP2624

LP2637

LP2590

LP2661

LP2430

LP2640

LP2382

LP2597

LP2617

LP2408

LP2478

LP2543

LP2540

LP2677

LP2612

LP2670

LP2621

LP2657

LP2514

LP2422

LP2526

LP2529

LP2442

LP2671

LP2562

LP2668

LP2410

LP2843

LP2843 LP2843

LP917

LP908

LP916

LP918

LP913

LP407

LP923

LP922

LP418

LP417

LP2843

LP1328

LP1357

LP1331

LP1409

LP1334

LP1234

LP1380

LP1318

LP2842

LP1321

LP1335

LP1336

LP1319

LP1359

LP1355

LP1364

LP1347

LP1408

LP1411

LP1325

LP1374

LP1348

LP2844

LP1343

LP1379

LP1341

LP1346

LP1352

LP1342

LP1316

LP1365

LP1375

LP1338

LP1356

LP1326

LP1366

LP1324

LP1367

LP1345

LP1371

LP1368

LP1372

LP1385

LP1378

LP1390

LP1410

LP1360

Inset Map

#11

Inset Map

#9

Inset Map #9

Inset Map #10

Inset Map

#10

Inset Map #8

Inset Map #11

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

Inset Map

#8

LP921

LP2198

LP2111

LP2036

LP921

LP323

LP321

LP320

LP320

LP2111

LP2198

LP2036

LP2157

LP2133

LP2174

LP2203

LP2200

LP218

LP

8

2206

LP2190

LP2180

LP2068

LP2149

LP2199

LP2117

LP2076

Inset Map #12

Inset

Map

#12

0 500 1,000

Meters

LP1226

LP1227

LP881

LP1220

LP1234

LP1207

LP1207

LP096

LP881

LP1197

LP1205

LP881

LP888

LP884

LP886

LP887

LP881

LP885

LP883

LP428

LP420

LP436

LP096

LP1207

LP1220

LP1205

LP1215

LP1234

LP1227

LP1226

LP1229

LP1209

LP1240

LP096

LP1214

LP1193

LP1216

LP1199

LP1188

LP1232

LP1198

LP1211

LP1243

LP1208

LP1219

LP1224

LP1203

LP1237

LP1217

LP1223

LP1239

LP1241

LP885

LP1222

LP1238

LP1212

LP1235

LP1200

LP1142

LP1233

LP2821

LP1231

LP1221

LP1206

LP2847

LP1244

LP1201

LP1195

LP1228

LP1194

LP1242

LP1196

LP1236

LP1225

LP1204

LP1215

0 500 1,000

Meters

Inset Map #13

Inset Map

#13

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

Travel Management

Area Boundaries

Preferred Alternative

OHV Closed Areas

14-Day Camping

Area/Long-term

Routes Too Dense to Visitor Area

Individually Label

Primitive Route

Railroad

Digitized Linear Feature **

Non-Motorized Route

These digitized linear features were drawn

from aerial photos and digital topographic

maps. These linear features have not been

field checked. Therefore, some of these

linear features may not exist.

** Note:
Map TMA-3:

§ ̈¦10

YE001

YE004

YE00

YE0

7

08

YE009

YE010

YE011

YE013

YE003

YE012

YE016

YE005

YE022

YE001

YE024

YE044

YE025

YE032

YE028

YE027

YE009

YE014

YE047

YE049

YE050

YE078

Y

E072

YE080

YE051 YE052

YE072

YE264

YE013

YE267

YE268

YE271

Y

YE276

E275

YE273

YE272

YE269

YE274

YE270

YE266

YE281

YE049

YE293

YE059

YE289

YE290

YE006

YE286

YE282

YE284

YE032

YE285

YE287

YE288

YE020

YE020

YE416

YE405

YE415

YE020

YE416

YE408

YE006

YE025

YE006

YE006

YE407

YE425

YE426

YE382

YE043

YE398

YE380

YE336

Y

E332

YE329

YE328

YE3

Y

30

E33

YE

1

333

YE335

YE334

YE025

YE010

YE043

YE230

YE063

YE252

YE251

YE244

YE249

YE250

YE244

YE245

YE246

YE247

YE063

YE245

YE249

YE248

YE413

YE412

YE410

YE006

YE242

YE241

YE008

YE238

YE236

YE235

YE089

YE233

YE234

YE237

YE006

YE065

YE386

YE240

YE211

YE223

YE385

YE387

YE385

YE383 YE089

YE427

YE001

YE001

YE077 YE077

YE035

YE033

YE033

YE079

YE080

YE081

YE082

YE

073 YE074

YE075

YE037

YE226

YE225

YE428

YE093

YE093

YE092

YE085

YE090

YE089 YE088

YE086

YE086

YE087

YE091

YE090

YE094

YE037

YE095

YE095

YE202

YE203

YE210

YE209

YE207

YE208

YE215

YE214

YE212

YE205

YE204

YE206

YE213

YE089

YE219

YE220

YE201

YE097

YE221

YE223

YE200

YE099

YE098

YE001

YE072

YE076

YE070

YE029

YE429

YE430

YE003

YE025

YE056

YE031

YE004

YE004

YE069

YE064

YE229

YE031

YE060

YE227

YE325

YE324

YE323

YE322

YE321

YE321

YE320

YE319

YE315

YE025

YE397

YE318

Y

E3

Y

16

E

031

YE432

YE431

YE058

YE061

YE06

YE

3

226

YE065

YE066

YE068

YE067

YE059

YE062

YE3

YE312 11

YE310

YE049

YE301

YE051

YE300

YE051

YE303

YE306

YE051

YE299

YE307

YE010

YE304

YE308

YE053

YE305

YE310

Y

E213

YE214

YE310

YE052

YE308

YE010

YE423

YE417

YE416

YE416

YE418

YE008

YE025

YE025

YE069

YE043

YE047

YE083

YE077

YE077

YE081

YE079

YE089

YE067

YE014

YE012

YE014

YE014

YE012

YE016

YE016

YE008

YE065

YE043

YE008

YE390

YE393

YE396

YE394

YE395

YE392

YE389

YE009

YE009

YE009

YE433

YE044

YE457

YE450

YE456

YE450

YE452

YE453

YE451

YE451

YE450

YE454

YE455

YE450

YE458

YE459

YE460

YE461 YE461

YE47

Y

1

E470

YE472

YE472

YE473

YE504

YE516

YE533

YE087

YE535

YE540

YE541

YE537

YE539

YE537

YE538

YE069

YE542

YE553

YE556

YE077

YE562

YE571 YE571

YE574

YE581

YE583

YE582

YE025

YE589

YE590

YE591

YE595

YE599

YE599

YE598

YE598

YE598

YE598

YE598

YE010

YE408

YE598

YE049

YE600

YE213

YE600

YE049

YE601

YE213

YE053

YE051

YE052

YE052

YE606

YE607

GR376

GR377

YE616

YE768

YE709

YE709

YE709

YE709

YE709

YE709

YE709

YE750

YE750 YE750

YE750

YE738

YE738

YE738

YE738

YE738

YE742

YE742

YE742

YE742

YE416

YE416

YE416

YE416

YE626

YE626

YE626

YE701

YE701

YE701

YE710

YE710

LP1537

YE632

YE632

YE708

YE708

YE707

YE707

YE743

YE743

YE1079

YE1079

YE043

YE043

YE720

YE639

YE740

YE638

YE611

YE610

YE448

YE633

YE742

YE776

YE778

YE621

YE643

YE631

YE1049

YE828

YE650

YE736

YE408

YE1239

YE716

YE532

YE744

YE1253

YE1251

YE753

YE630

YE1

181

YE089

YE622

YE652

YE1054

YE673

YE1097

YE739

YE025

YE320

YE766

YE733

YE1150

YE752

YE877

YE642

YE680

YE387

YE777

LP1058

YE612

YE627

YE637

YE748

YE1247

YE1247

YE1247 YE737

YE623

YE728

YE665

YE083

YE1050

YE628

YE794

YE1107

YE640

YE636

YE1236

YE675

YE676

GR109

YE773

YE713

YE663

YE1044

YE669

YE695

YE641

YE772

YE685

YE711

YE705

YE75

YE

1

1248

YE1248

YE863

YE679

YE821

YE634

YE1054

YE664

YE049

YE698

YE768

YE058

YE1032

YE882

LP1373

YE803

YE715

LP1089

YE647

LP1486

YE667

YE860

YE869

YE1252

YE651

YE902

YE1036

YE687

YE697

YE769

GR340

YE646

YE894

YE765

YE761

YE732

YE083

YE668

YE615

YE712

YE683

YE884

YE654

YE755

YE1201

YE729

YE1249

YE1160

YE717

YE003

YE875

YE655

YE764

GR110

YE1255

YE719

YE1035

GR332

GR364

YE206

YE012

YE834

YE681

YE703

GR335

YE730

YE1142

YE1147

YE964

YE595

YE804

YE1101

YE734

YE081

LP1483

YE950

YE653

YE1255

YE818

YE722

YE933

YE1006

YE614

YE1252

GR346

YE677

YE595

YE1088

YE858

YE853

GR371

YE861

LP1369

YE1213

YE645

YE1007

YE1146

YE799

YE718

YE644

YE461

YE1034

YE725

YE625

YE1143

LP1868

YE1250

YE1250

YE856

YE595

YE1042

YE968

YE812

YE1191

YE770

YE1223

YE624

YE666

YE970

GR359

YE819

YE735

YE079

YE1013

YE981

YE754

YE885

YE1072

YE862

YE699

YE1204

YE867

YE892

YE1029

YE1012

GR374

YE676

YE1119

GR349

GR012

LP1404

YE7

67

YE619

YE904

YE1127

YE078

YE1086

YE775

YE1051

LP1

631

GR351

YE936

YE985

GR334

YE678

YE1211

YE774

YE888

GR331

YE851

YE1219

YE906

YE670

LP1756

YE1045

YE929

YE275

YE684

YE826

YE724

YE975

YE999

YE827

YE236

YE1027

YE1126

YE727

YE816

GR367

YE868

YE781

YE806

YE974

YE486

YE574

YE836

GR107

YE823

YE249

YE1235

YE802

YE1217 YE1217

GR357

GR365

YE801

YE1233

YE789

YE686

YE938

YE690

YE454

YE796

YE901

YE1056

LP1405

YE1076

YE837

YE900

YE958

YE706

YE1028

LP1090

LP1407

YE982

YE1139

YE746

YE920

YE1231

YE871

YE865

YE1067

YE014

YE576

GR355

YE672

YE635

YE783

YE1

011

YE849

YE629

YE962

YE954

GR372

YE1025

YE1198

YE790

YE1199

YE880

YE1141

LP1386

YE850

YE1058

LP1492

LP1471

LP1401

LP1652

YE798

YE1024

LP1351

LP1593

YE857

YE987

YE749

YE832

YE210

YE723

YE848

LP1353

YE1041

YE1080

YE830

YE083

LP1468

YE1227

YE1135

YE1177

YE1016

YE661

YE1001

YE762

YE847

YE1094

YE1129

YE859

LP1350

YE1009

LP1647

YE866

YE825

YE1071

YE1245

YE671

GR358

YE959

YE996

YE1026

YE1010

LP1479

YE891

GR354

YE994

YE1052

YE1187

YE842

YE797

YE

808

GR338

YE696

YE788

YE978

YE846

YE1043

YE813

YE1068

YE903

YE793

YE841

YE864

YE1053

YE1113

YE852

YE1003

LP1763

YE1203

GR010

YE843

YE016

YE1095

GR369

GR373

YE1229

YE1118

YE776

YE714

YE893

YE1116

YE951

YE674

YE760

YE556

YE845

YE662

YE1242

YE003

LP1432

YE1098

YE983

YE1019

YE1133

YE013

YE1037

YE782

YE704

YE835

YE984

YE838

YE779

YE918

LP1569

YE1144

GR345

YE822

YE1132

YE879

YE824

YE731

YE809

YE909

YE1048

LP1605

YE927

YE876

GR344

LP16

04

YE943

YE874

YE741

YE662

YE264

YE648

YE811

YE1030

GR337

GR368

YE051

YE928

YE839

YE792

LP1734

YE1157

GR339

YE923

YE965

YE1246

YE1243

YE1190

YE1179

YE1031

YE785

YE991

YE773

YE1018

YE800

YE814

YE1023

YE872

YE1038

YE700

YE771

YE1022

YE795

YE537

YE1149

YE989

YE695

YE649

YE1256

YE1140

YE973

LP1648

GR356

LP1708

YE1194

YE737

YE745

YE992

YE308

YE1228

LP1354

YE1137

YE921

YE805

YE1106

YE956

YE1020

GR352

YE1202

LP1425

YE961

YE1128

YE945

YE1225

YE986

YE791

LP1751

YE977

YE1014

YE997

YE308

YE1017

YE1057

YE1117

YE268

YE1122

GR366

YE969

YE914

YE1230

YE960

YE972

GR333

YE905

YE702

YE787

LP1393

YE990

YE931

YE1120

YE886

YE1002

YE1073

YE1115

LP1579

YE854

GR343

YE949

YE899

YE896

YE820

YE1035

YE1078

YE1123

GR348

YE1033

GR347

YE1121

YE895

YE1066

YE1112

YE1070

YE924

LP1363

YE1069

YE1064

GR112 YE1063

YE1075

YE780

GR360

YE106

Y

5

E1062

YE013

YE1082

GR361

YE897

YE1083

YE1167

YE1077

YE915

LP1491

LP1362

YE006

YE786

YE833

GR362

YE1111

YE1212

YE1138

YE993

YE995

YE1110

YE1015

LP1361

LP1695

YE855

YE1188

GR353

YE1060

YE1108

YE1109

YE930

YE1124

YE963

YE1047

GR330

GR341

YE948

YE1238

YE980

YE957

YE1005

YE807

YE971

YE844

YE784

YE025

GR350

GR375

YE1240

YE988

YE250

GR370

YE1009

YE1097

YE1130

YE1131

YE1244

YE881

YE883

YE887

YE1247

YE633

YE721

YE726

YE810

YE870

YE878

YE1257

113°15'0"W

113°15'0"W

113°22'30"W

113°22'30"W

113°30'0"W

113°30'0"W

113°37'30"W

113°37'30"W

113°45'0"W

113°45'0"W

113°52'30"W

113°52'30"W

33°37'30"N

33°37'30"N

33°30'0"N

33°30'0"N

33°22'30"N

33°22'30"N

33°15'0"N

33°15'0"N

33°7'30"N

33°7'30"N

33°0'0"N

33°0'0"N

Yuma East Travel Management Area

1 0 1 2 3

Miles ¬

The Bureau of Land Management makes no

warranties, implied or expressed, with respect

to information shown on this map.

1 0 1 2 3

Kilometers

YUMA FIELD OFFICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

R 16 W

1:80,000

YE005

§ ̈¦10

YE024

YE003

YE003

YE446

YE024

YE451

YE015

YE003

YE450

YE448

YE043

YE449

YE034

YE035

YE435

YE003

YE003

YE437

YE017

YE436

YE434

YE019

YE001

YE001

YE014

YE019

YE016

YE014

YE026

YE025

YE024

YE040

YE020

YE447

YE445 YE439

YE439

YE440

YE438

YE039

YE038

YE038

YE037

YE02

YE022

1

YE023

YE447

YE443

YE44

YE44

1

2

YE1218

YE680

YE035

YE1176

YE1201

YE1160

Y

E1171

YE1090

YE688

YE1158

YE689

YE682

YE1219

YE118

5

YE1153

YE1175

YE1170

YE1195

YE448

YE1184

YE690

YE1164

YE1199

YE116

6

YE1180

Y

E12

0

8

YE1148

YE1134

YE434

YE1173

YE682

YE1071

YE1151

YE1206

YE1168

YE1104

YE1145

YE 1186

YE018

YE1156

226

YE1178

YE1152

YE1 085

YE439

YE1172

YE1092

YE1089

Y

E1096

Y

E1102

YE1083

Y

E1103

YE1084

Y

E1091

YE1087

YE1081

YE1165

Y

E1093

YE1099

YE1154

YE1237

YE1174

YE1105

YE1189

Y

E1100

YE1205

YE682

YE1207

YE1155

YE1159

YE1169

YE444

YE1163

YE1162

YE1161

YE1182

YE1183

YE1220

YE1221

YE1224

YE1222

YE1200

YE1196

YE1210

YE1214

YE1215

YE488

YE488

YE499

YE485

YE486

YE486

YE020

YE028

YE006

YE476

Y

E4

81

YE476

YE476

YE020

YE416

YE020

YE424

YE488

YE487

YE484

YE482

YE028

YE487

YE486

YE490

YE491

YE492

YE493

YE494

YE497

YE496

YE488

YE487

YE020

YE501

YE604

YE1241

YE751

YE769

YE657

E933

YE955

Y

YE908

YE757

YE946

YE947

YE937

YE952

YE658

YE604

YE660

YE953

YE488

YE1254

YE911

YE922

YE759

YE756

YE916

YE912

YE758

YE656

YE495

YE490

YE941

YE925

YE917

YE907

YE898

YE939

YE961

YE657

YE935

YE450

YE450

YE052

YE072

YE456

YE456

YE259

YE258

YE263

YE262

YE070

YE261

YE609

YE253

YE609

YE608

YE608

YE608

YE255

YE256

YE070

YE256

YE257

YE257

YE1032

YE1039

YE1040

YE1046

Inset Map #1

Inset Map #2

Inset Map #3

Inset Map #3

Inset Map #2

Inset Map

#1

T 1 S

T 2 S

R 15 W R 14 W R 13 W R 12 W R 11 W R 10 W R 9 W

T

4

N

T

3

N

T

2

N

T

1

N

T

1

S

T

2

S

T

3

S

T

4

S

T

5

S

T

6

S

T 3 N

T 2 N

Gila River

La Paz County

Yuma County

Marico

pa C

o

unty

Eagletail Mountains Wilderness

New Water

Mountains

Wilderness

KOFA National

Wildlife

Refuge

KOFA Refuge

Wilderness

Vicksburg Road

w:\projects\yfo_rmp\trans_rec\Route Inventory Yuma East Map 33x44.mxd

Map

TMA-1

Map

TMA-2 Map

TMA-3

Map

TMA-4

Map

TMA-5

Index

Map

!

^(Phoenix Yuma

Planning

Area

A R I Z O N A Bureau of Land Management

Yuma Field Office

April 2008

Legend U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Yuma Field Office Boundary

County Lines

Township and Range

Major Washes

Rivers and Lakes

Routes

Freeways

Primary Route - Paved

Primary Route - Unpaved

Secondary Route - Paved

Secondary Route - Unpaved

Railroad

Primitive Route

Non-Motorized Route

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

These digitized linear features were drawn

from aerial photos and digital topographic

maps. These linear features have not been

field checked. Therefore, some of these

linear features may not exist.

** Note:

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Reclamation

Tribal Lands

Military

State

State Wildlife

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

USFWS Wilderness

Private

Digitized Linear Feature **

Travel Management

Area Boundaries

Preferred Alternative

OHV Closed Areas
Map

TMA-1

Map

TMA-2 Map

TMA-3

Map

TMA-4

Map

TMA-5

Index

Map

Y

E025

YE083

YE077

YE077

YE081

YE079

E089

E546

YE077

YE562

YE571 YE571

YE572

YE576

YE583

YE582

YE025

YE589

YE590

YE591

YE4

16

92

YE594

YE594

YE596

GR001

GR003

GR003

GR004

GR002

GR005

GR010

GR007

GR008

GR007

GR011

GR006

GR012

GR013

GR027

GR027

GR027

GR016

GR014

G

R015 GR017

GR030

GR031

GR031

GR035

GR036

G

R036

GR036

GR036

GR037

GR038

GR0

GR039

38

GR040

GR041

G

R039

G

R032

GR033

G

R034

GR032

GR091

GR090

GR093

GR090

GR091

GR090

GR0

79

GR079

GR089

GR092

GR091

GR089

GR088

GR080

GR090

GR079

GR079

GR073

GR073

GR073

GR073

G

R081

GR080

GR068

GR081

GR

072

GR078

GR074

GR075

GR076

GR

077

GR055

GR067

GR065

GR064

GR060

GR063

GR062

GR061

GR066

G

R043

GR042

GR044

GR044

G

R054

§ ̈¦8

§ ̈¦8

GR074

GR074

GR074

GR074

GR074

GR096

GR029

GR098

GR076

GR099

GR100

GR078

GR101

GR082

GY030

GY059

GR313

GR317GR323

GR310

GR294

GR298

GR297

GR296

GR251

GR265

GY890

GR127

GR131

GR134

GR114 GR120

GR120

GR360

GR362

GR363

YE709

YE701

YE709

YE710

YE707

YE750

YE61

Y

3

E611

YE738 YE610

YE621

YE616

YE716

YE089

YE708

YE612

GR110

YE083

YE794

GR109

YE713

YE695

YE711

YE828

YE705

YE698

YE803

YE715

YE720 YE697

GY890

GY945

GR121

GR114

YE083

YE617

YE615

YE712

YE717

GR239

GR302

YE719

YE1247

GR364

YE416

YE703

GR314

YE804

YE081

YE721

GR104

GR108

GR293

YE614

YE595

GR371

YE799

YE718

GR307

YE812

GR115

YE620 YE618

GR054

GR169

GR246

GR359

YE079

GR323

YE699

GR105

GR374

YE722

GR349

GR116

GR012

GR130

GY753

YE619

GR268

GR216

GR310

GY574

GR367

GR137

GR321

YE806

YE816

GR135

YE574

GR311

GR106

GR107

GR314

YE802

GY547

GR357

GR365

YE801

YE1233

YE789

YE796

GR304

GR035

YE706

GY958

YE576

YE783

GR280

Y

GR372

E790

GR266

GY535

GR111

YE798

GR117

YE723

YE725

GR118

GY752

GR119

GR309

GR113

YE724

GR358

GR288

YE821

YE797

GR319

YE808

YE696

GY898

YE788

YE813

YE793

GR248

GR179

GR369

GY607

GR373

YE714

GR324

GR292

GR133

YE782

GR306

YE704

GR316

GY567

YE779

YE809

GR299

GR326

GR122

GR250

GR290

GY881

GR253

YE819

YE811

GR308

GR368

YE792

GR325

GR128

GR322

YE800

YE814

GR230

YE700

GR318

GY564

YE795

GR261

GR184

YE695

GR301

GR218

YE582

GR206

YE805

GR240

GY940

YE791

GR281

GR366

GY918

YE702

YE810

GR320

GR132

YE787

GR291

YE1234

GR213

GY936

GR112

GR233

GR129

GR252

GR231

GR361

YE817

GR295

GR315

GY954

YE786

GR279

GR126

GR305

GR125

GR256

GR244

GR124

GR123

YE1238

GY777

GR136

YE807

YE083

GR287

YE784

YE025

GY059

YE1232

GR237

GR375

GR254

YE595

GR377

GR272

GR312

GR257

GR370

GR376

GR255

GY978

GR241

YE815

GR303

YE574

YE781

YE581

YE580

GR381

DATELAND

113°15'0"W

113°15'0"W

113°22'30"W

113°22'30"W

113°30'0"W

113°30'0"W

113°37'30"W

113°37'30"W

113°45'0"W

113°45'0"W

113°52'30"W

113°52'30"W

114°0'0"W

114°0'0"W

33°0'0"N

33°0'0"N

32°52'30"N

32°52'30"N

32°45'0"N

32°45'0"N

32°37'30"N

32°37'30"N

Map TMA-4: Gila River Valley Travel Management Area

1 0 1 2 3

Miles

¬

The Bureau of Land Management makes no

warranties, implied or expressed, with respect

to information shown on this map.

1 0 1 2 3

Kilometers

YUMA FIELD OFFICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

R 18 W

!

^(

Yuma

Phoenix

Planning

Area

A R I Z O N A

1:75,000

R 17 W R 16 W R 15 W R 14 W R 13 W R 12 W

T

4

S

T

5

S

T

6

S

T

7

S

T

8

S

T

9

S

T

10

S

Gila River

KOFA National

Wildlife

Refuge

KOFA Refuge

Wilderness

R 11 W R 10 W R 9 W

Yuma Proving

Grounds

Barry M. Goldwater

Airforce Range

Yum

a

C

ounty

M

aricopa

C

ount

y

GR340

GR343

GR340

GR340

GR332

GR335

GR346

GR334

GR331

GR338

GR330

GR328

GR337

GR327

GR349

GR339

GR345

GR352

GR333

GR343

GR348

GR347

GR353

GR329

GR342

GR341

GR350

GR336

GR346

GR027

GR021

GR019

GR021

GR018

GR025

GR022

G

R023

GR024

GR028

GR020

GR023

Sears Point OHV Closed Area

Legend Routes Surface Management

Yuma Field Office Boundary

County Lines

Township and Range

Major Washes

Freeways

Primary Route - Paved

Primary Route - Unpaved

Secondary Route - Paved

Secondary Route - Unpaved

Primitive Route

Railroad

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Reclamation

Tribal Lands

Military

State

State Wildlife

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

USFWS Wilderness

Private

Rivers and Lakes

Travel Management Area Boundaries

Preferred Alternative OHV Closed Areas

Bureau of Land Management

Yuma Field Office

April 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

0 500 1,000

Meters

GR222

GR228

GR217

GR198

GR225

GR219

GR204

GR221

GR197

GR224

GR189

GR229

GR194

GR1

91

GR234

GR223

GR378

GR226

GR227

GR220

GR190

GR379

GR232

GR055

GR095

GR209

GR238

GR058

GR095

GR044

GR083

GR056

G

R097

GR055

GR059

G

R057

G

R055

GR071

G

R069

GR055

GR070

GR094

GR205

GR215

GR155

GR170

GR188

GR199 GR193

GR186

GR084

GR203

GR178

GR176

GR201

GR195

GR177

GR214

GR175

GR196

GR200

GR204

GR173

GR183

GR212

GR180

GR181

GR

191

GR168

GR197

GR192

GR194

GR211

G

R190

GR202

GR172

GR187

GR185

GR171

GR208

GR095

GR174

GR

182

GR207

GR083

GR094

GR084

GR102

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

GR155

GR140

GR159

GR142

GR150

GR157

GR149

GR161

GR143

GR167

GR158

GR152

GR156

GR160

GR165

GR163

GR148

GR138

GR162

GR164

GR145

GR083

GR154

GR141

GR139

GR166

GR151

GR146

GR147

GR144

GR153

GR083

GR085

GR088

GR086

GR087

GR087

G

R103

GR273

GR275

GR242

GR258

GR276

GR247

GR282

GR235

GR264

GR249

GR269

GR236

GR380

GR271

GR050

GR286

GR285

GR283

GR263

GR284

GR259

GR051

GR274

GR278

GR270

GR044

GR041

GR050 GR046

GR051

GR053

GR052

GR048

GR047

GR049

GR045

GR051

GR050

GR052

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

Inset Map

#5

Inset Map

#4

Inset Map

#3

Inset Map

#2

Inset Map

#1

Inset Map #2

Inset Map #1

Inset Map #3

Inset Map #4

Inset Map #5

These digitized linear features were drawn from

aerial photos and digital topographic maps.

These linear features have not been field

checked. Therefore, some of these linear

features may not exist.

** Note:

Digitized Linear Feature **

Non-Motorized Route
Map

TMA-1

Map

TMA-2 Map

TMA-3

Map

TMA-4

Map

TMA-5

Index

Map

GR0

§ ̈¦8

GR089

GR080

GY385

GY384

GY384

GY383

GY382

GY381

GY383

GY001

GY011

G

Y024

GY005

GY030

GY031

GY026

GY029

GY032

GY031

GY033

GY034

GY035

GY042

GY041

GY039

GY050

GY053

GY057

GY035

GY051

GY05

G

6

Y058

GY055

G

Y035

GY052

GY030

GY045

GY088

GY059

GY059

G

GY059

Y063

GY062

GY062

GY069

GY068

GY065

GY066

GY060

GY064

G

Y061

GY061

GY067

GY077

GY107

GY105

GY112

GY115

GY118

GY386

GY112

GY114

GY114

GY116

GY113

GY117

GY1

G

56

Y170

G

Y070

GY083

GY084

GY089

GY090

GY084

GY054

GY

G

086

Y087

GY085

GY204

GY087

GY086

GY084

GY085

GY181

GY223

GY220

GY085

GY084

GY224 GY054

GY284

GY303

GY30

G

0

Y298

£¤95

GY371

GY363

GY379

GY380

GY378

GY357

GY360

GY362

GY359

GY356

GY355

GY361

GY360

GY357

GY387

GY360

GY388

GY391

GY390

GY389

GY180

GY173

G GY200

Y200

GY195

GY197

GY201

GY196

GY203

GY392

GY201

§ ̈¦8

£¤95

GY394 GY395

GY395

Co. 24th Street

Co. 23th StreetAvenue F Avenue F

Avenue E

Avenue D

GY393

GY421

GY422

GY423

GY424

GY425

GY426

GY430

GY427 GY428

GY429

GY431

GY432

GY432

GY433

GY434

GY435

GY436

GY437

GY440

GY439

GY442

GY438

GY443

GY444

GY445

GY662

GY474

GY503

GY555

GY779

GY890

GY850

GY044

GY644

GY617

GY1084

GY460

G

Y454

GY514

GY1090

GY645

GY778

G Y 4 98

GY484

GY536

G

Y810

GY717

GY550

GY774

GY946

G

R169

GY508

GY769

G Y6 38

GY871

GY535

G

Y858

GY482

GR130

GY753

GY971

GY459

GY707

GY816

G

Y489

G

Y501

GY1086

GY1093

GY1242

GY544

GY932

GY651

GY574

GY519

G Y 465

GY682

GY1085

GY495

GY895

GY794

GY 922

GY468

GY547

GY487

GY656

GY470

GY899

GY764

GY564

GY949

GY1094

GY562

GY958

GY668

G

Y504

GY962

G Y 5 56

GY526

G

Y1092

GY483

G Y 7 10

GY469

GY766

GY471

GY687

GY502

GY752

G

Y531

G

R113

GY767

GY478

GY089

GY863

GY567

GY604

G

Y513

G

Y783

GY1 095

GY467

GY980

GY614

GY701

G

Y491

GY898

G Y 8 60

GY1034

GR179

GY557

GY607

GY524

GY466

GY477

GY488

GY787

G

R 1 33

GY494

GY1242

GY1005

G Y737

G Y528

GY755

G Y6 60

G Y6 11

G Y9 38

G Y 4 8 1

GY523

GY757

GY529

GY945

GY784

GY545

GY570

G Y 6 7 4

GY975

GY522

GY702

GY838

GY1091

GY591

GY533

GY881

GY615

GY111

GY809

GY532

GY952

GY585

GY542

GY476

GY475

GY552

GY473

GY919

GY511

GY486

GY671

GY763

GY768

GY696

GR122

GY873

GY880

GY728

GY642

GR184

GY681

GY936

GY759

GY540

GY959

GY560

GY548

GY515

GY669

GY756

GY465

GY859

GY928

GY941

GY793

GY1021

GY678

GY842

GY799

GY646

GY1089

GY600

GY472

GY738

GY652

GY1177

GY633

GY865

GY762

GY534

GY632

GY857

GY634

GY741

GY918

GY743

GY705

GY972

GY911

GY616

GY877

GR132

GY826

GY655

GY982

GY849

GY455

GY796

GY685

GY708

GY844

GY979

GY989

GY802

GY782

GY665

GR129

GY068

GY973

GY541

GY744

GR126

GY699

GR125

GY822

GY1231

GY493

GY788

GY1222

GR124

GY773

GY700

GY734

GY546

GY780

GY539

GY751

GR136

GY509

GY059

GY879

GY781

GY485

GY623

GY974

GY518

GY680

GY984

GY933

GY760

GY599

GY664

GY789

GY496

GY601

GY527

GY870

GY610

GY608

GY492

GY896

GY718

GY592

GY517

GY202

GY690

GY688

GY673

GY677

GY832

GY786

GY1011

GY1012

GY1023

GY775

GY035

GY772

GY770

GY771

GY765

GY014

GY635

GY679

GY670

GY661

GY736

GY195

GY761

GY730

GY725

GY749

GY747

YUMA

WELLTON

SAN LUIS

SOMERTON

114°7'30"W

114°7'30"W

114°15'0"W

114°15'0"W

114°22'30"W

114°22'30"W

114°30'0"W

114°30'0"W

114°37'30"W

114°37'30"W

114°45'0"W

114°45'0"W

114°52'30"W

114°52'30"W

33°0'0"N

32°52'30"N

32°52'30"N

32°45'0"N

32°45'0"N

32°37'30"N

32°37'30"N

32°30'0"N

32°30'0"N

Map TMA-5: Greater Yuma Travel Management Area

1 0 1 2 3

Miles ¬

The Bureau of Land Management makes no

warranties, implied or expressed, with respect

to information shown on this map.

1 0 1 2 3

Kilometers

YUMA FIELD OFFICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

R 19 E

!

^(

Yuma

Phoenix

Planning

Area

A R I Z O N A

1:79,080

Inset Map #1

R 20 E R 21 E R 22 E R 23 E R 24 E

T

5

S

T

6

S

T

7

S

T

8

S

T

9

S

T

10

S

T

11

S

Gila River

Fort Yuma

Indian

Reservation

Muggins

Mountain

Wilderness

KOFA National

Wildlife

Refuge

KOFA Refuge

Wilderness

Yuma Proving

Grounds

Barry M. Goldwater Airforce Range

Little

Picacho

Wilderness

Picacho

Peak

Wilderness

Cocopah

Indian

Reservation

Cocopah

Indian

Reservation

R 25 W

R 24 W

R 22 W R 21 W R 20 W R 19 W R 18 W R 17 W

MEXICO

MEXICO

CALIFORNIA

T

13

S

T

14

S

T

15

S

T

16

S

Red Township and Range is for the San Bernardino Meridian in California

Grey Township and Range is for the Gila and Salt River Meridian in Arizona

R 23 W

039

GY035

GY035

GY029

GY026

GY026

GY036

GY038

GY037

GY040

GY039

GY039

GY027

GY027

GY028

GY013

GY013

GY025

GY023

GY023

GY024

G

Y024

GY020

GY019

GY

018

GY014

GY012

GY009

GY004

GY007

GY013

GY011

GY008

GY010

GY010

GY015

GY015

GY021

GY017

GY016

GY014

GY002

GY011

GY002

GY007

GY004

GY003

GY005

GR080

GY005

GY001

GY036

GY006

GY022

GY013

GY002

GY037

GY889

GY458

GY778

GY935

GY841

GY897

GY812

G

Y824

GY886

G

Y851

GY905

GY827

G

Y848

GY846

G Y 944

GY980

GY935

GY831

GY904

GY798

G

Y947

GY805

G Y80 6

GY814

G

Y817

GY790

GY457

GY813

GY801

GY1228

GY823

GY9 37

GY940

GY815

GY882

GY819

GY955

GY948

GY811

GY907

GY936

GY845

GY012

GY818

GY892

GY931

GY888

GY938

GY914

GY821

GY821

GY1227

GY092

GY062

GY092

Old Highway 80

§ ̈¦8

GY070

GY074

GY068

GY062

GY070

GY062

GY069

GY062

GY062

GY095

GY095

GY072

GY093

GY091

G

Y078

GY080

GY077

GY081

GY082

GY082

GY099

GY096

GY077

GY101

GY098

GY102

GY101 GY097

GY092

GY079

GY072

GY072

GY076

GY072

GY070

GY109

GY110

GY105

GY105

GY107

GY108

GY095

GY108

GY107

GY077

GY077

GY095

GY106

GY077

GY104 GY077

GY108

GY077

GY077

GY095

GY077

GY075

GY075

GY071

GY073

GY071

GY062

GY069

GY107

GY078

GY092

GY092

GY097

GY103

GY099

GY099

GY

G

097

Y100

R 20 W

R 19 W

GY558

GY583

G

Y526

GY566

GY538

GY565

GY528

GY575

GY559

GY577

GY107

GY089

GY595

G Y543

GY568

GY605

GY537

GY569

GY602

GY563

GY571

GY590

GY579

GY549

GY589

OLD Highway

80

§ ̈¦I-8

GY141

GY109

GY143

GY141

GY142

GY109 GY109

GY109

GY109

GY12

G

2

Y109

GY127

GY130

GY139

GY140

G

GY144

Y141

GY144

GY144

GY145

GY142

GY140

GY139

GY121

GY127

GY122

G

Y125

GY125

GY123

GY126

GY128

GY129

GY096

GY099

GY127

GY090

GY133

GY137

GY134

GY134

GY

G

099

Y132

GY135

GY130

GY131

GY130

GY136

GY133

GY127

GY130

G

Y138

GY142

GY139

GY146

GY118

GY146

GY155

GY122

GY127

GY127

GY123

GY124

GY122

GY122

GY122

GY121

GY120

GY121

GY118

GY120

119

GY154

GY153

GY153

GY152

GY151

GY151

GY139

GY139

GY147

GY148

GY149

GY118

GY147

GY155

GY

GY

154

153

GY150

GY139

GY576

GY598

GY596

GY609

GY612

GY578

GY572

GY573

GY615

GY606

GY588

GY581

GY616

GY593

GY1223

GY587

GY124

GY111

GY594

GY613

GY644

GY 597

G Y128

GY184

GY181

GY181

GY182

GY184

GY182

GY182

GY183

GY159

GY162

GY162

GY163

GY164

GY166

GY167

GY160

GY167

GY164

GY163

GY165

GY162

GY161

GY160

GY156

GY160

GY156

GY178

GY158

GY156

GY162

GY156

GY156

GY156

GY157

GY170

GY169

GY168

GY167

GY

GY1

177

79

GY176

GY176

GY176

GY177

GY175

GY174

GY173

GY167

GY170

GY16GY1

8

72

GY172

GY167

GY171

GY168

GY584

GY580

GY582

GY225

GY226

GY250

GY246

GY249

GY246

GY242

GY247

GY248

GY245

GY244

GY243

GY241

GY242

GY241

GY239

GY239

GY238

GY237

GY230

GY235

GY235

GY230

GY229

GY228

GY228

GY227

GY231

GY225

GY232

GY233

GY234

GY224

GY253

GY227

GY252

GY254

GY227

GY227

GY258

GY257

GY256

GY240

GY236

GY230

GY237

GY238

GY243

GY244

GY225

GY225

GY226

GY255

GY251

GY251

GY250

GY255

GY260

GY260

GY226

GY226

GY226

GY262

GY263

GY263

GY264

GY256

GY

GY265

266

GY268

GY259

GY256

GY256

GY267

GY225

GY226

GY225

GY278

GY279

GY269

GY280

GY281

GY283

GY226

GY282

GY278

GY281

GY278

GY275

GY256

GY270

GY270

GY271

GY270

GY274

GY275

GY270

GY270

GY285

GY288

G

GY285 Y286

GY287

GY292

GY292

GY284

GY287

GY

272

GY273

GY275

GY272

GY271

GY272

GY275

GY277

GY275

GY276

GY275

GY275

GY277

GY277

GY302

GY284

GY272

GY289

GY291

GY285

Mittry Lake

Colorado

River

GY293

GY294

GY298

GY300

GY300

GY300

GY284

GY284

GY301

GY295

GY393

GY297

GY450

GY1056

GY1058

GY993

GY1081

GY1080

GY1077

GY1079

GY906

GY950

GY303

GY957

GY1025

GY1065 GY1069

GY1068

GY960

GY939

GY961

GY1072

GY1084

GY1031

GY1020

GY1002

GY1075

GY988

GY1036

GY1063

GY1235

GY963

GY298

GY1046

GY1076

GY942

GY853

GY878

GY986

GY1022

GY983

GY1042

GY1082

GY1016

GY883

GY1026

GY994

GY966

GY1049

GY1041

GY1062

GY256

GY1052

GY1038

GY1054

GY1024

GY1030

GY902

GY1006

GY895

GY998

GY10 83

GY1032

GY1044

G

Y894

GY924

GY987

GY1085

GY1008

GY290

G

Y951

G

Y1059

GY1048

GY869

GY1045

G

Y1067

GY1073

GY926

GY1066

G Y1 0 61

GY1232

GY967

GY1009

GY1050

GY1074

GY985

GY1040

GY1060

GY855

GY1010

GY1019

GY1070

GY 9 2 9

GY1078

GY997

GY913

GY1071

GY930

GY912

GY992

GY965

GY876

GY1003

GY1037

GY1017

GY953

GY269

G Y8 39

GY976

GY1033

GY296

GY866

GY230

GY1043

GY10 13

GY861

GY1055

GY1004

GY829

GY872

GY1051

GY290

GY1039

GY1064

GY901

GY981

GY995

GY1029

GY996

GY239

GY1057

GY915

GY1000

GY1018

GY1053

GY225

GY1047

GY1234

GY97

GY304

GY284

GY324

GY328

GY322

GY327

GY325

GY324

GY324

GY323

GY315

GY314

GY313

GY306

GY309

GY314

GY307

GY308

GY312

GY322

GY319

GY318

GY305

GY325

GY315

GY320

GY1110

GY308

GY304

GY304

GY302

GY1098

GY311

GY321

GY311

GY1101

GY1109

G

Y1097

GY1104

GY1108

GY316

GY310

GY1105

GY1106

GY123

G

7

Y1107

GY317

GY1102

GY1111

GY1099

GY1103

GY1100

GY084

GY085

GY085

GY218

GY222

GY221

GY218

GY220

GY220

GY219

GY219

GY215

GY206

GY205

GY207

GY208

GY210

GY206

GY211

GY211

GY211

GY213

GY216

GY217

GY205

GY208

GY209

GY08

GY054

6

GY850

GY862

GY215

GY854

GY218

GY891

GY910

GY909

G

Y868 GY850

GY212

GY864

GY816

GY852

G Y908

GY875

GY850

GY835

GY836

GY867

GY1229

GY843

G Y893

G Y 9 3 2

GY847

GY903

G Y206

GY1241

GY952

GY887

GY900

GY369

GY368

GY363

GY369

GY373

GY373

GY373

GY373

GY371

GY371

GY371

GY373

GY373

GY373

GY377

GY376

GY375

GY375

GY374

GY369

GY357

GY357

GY363

GY363

GY

364

GY368

GY364

GY367

GY365

GY366

GY369

GY369

GY370

GY370

GY362

GY363

GY363

GY363

GY371

GY372

GY372

GY372

West Pond

Imperial

Reservoir

Colorado

River

GY371

GY371

(!24

GY396

GY397

GY398

GY399

GY400

GY401

GY402

GY403

G

G

Y404

Y405

GY406

GY407

GY408

GY408

GY409

GY410

GY411

GY413

GY412

GY415

GY414

GY416

GY417

GY418

GY419

GY420

GY184

GY184

GY185

GY187

GY188

GY189

GY189

GY193

GY192

GY190

GY191

GY186

GY

185

GY187

GY188

GY184

GY190

GY192

GY192

GY194

GY591

GY600

GY608

Inset Map #1

Inset Map #2

Inset Map #3

Inset Map #4

Inset Map #7

Inset Map #10

Inset Map #9

Inset

Map

#2

Inset Map

#3

Inset

Map

#4

Inset Map

#5

Inset Map #6

Inset Map #5

Inset Map

#6

Inset Map

#7

Inset Map

#8

Inset Map

#9

GY339

GY341

GY338

GY336

GY338

GY336

GY337

GY3

31

GY333

GY334

GY333 GY332

GY331

GY330

GY329 GY324

GY324

GY328

GY322

GY327

GY336

GY335

GY344

GY338

GY344

GY347

GY346

GY344

GY345

GY344

GY341

GY342

GY343 GY338

GY348

GY338

GY338

GY354

GY338

GY353

GY349

GY350

GY350

GY352

GY351

GY1173

GY1169

GY1176

GY1132

GY1158

GY1240

GY1116

GY1132

GY11 42

GY1173

GY1176

G

Y1239

GY1197

GY1207

GY1171

GY1188

GY1131

GY1123

GY1162

GY1168

GY1216

GY1144

GY1186

GY1157

GY1170

GY1140

GY1238

GY462

GY1117

GY1151

GY1189

GY1154

GY1212

GY113 7

GY461

GY1180

GY1149

GY46 3

GY464

GY1127

GY1164

GY1191

GY1181

GY1122

GY1214

GY1129

GY1161

GY1172

GY1190

GY1198

G

Y1196

GY1211

GY1160

GY1218

G

Y1213

GY1 215

GY1145

GY1112

GY1139

GY1111

GY1133

G

Y 1238

GY1155

GY1209

GY1113

GY1204

GY1183

GY1163

GY1134

GY1184

GY1195 GY1167

GY1239

G Y 11 3 5

GY11 93

G Y11 78

G Y1118

GY114

G

7

Y1146

GY1175

GY1119

GY1166

GY1200

GY1174

GY1130

GY1219

GY1240

GY1179

GY1125

GY1153

GY1110

GY1124

GY1210

GY1205

GY1152

GY1206

GY1187

GY1141

GY1208

GY1185

GY1182

G Y1201

GY1120

GY1148

GY1126

GY1203

GY1236

GY1143

GY1115

GY1121

GY1220

GY1136

GY1194

GY1114

GY1202

GY1199

GY1217

G Y119 2

GY1128

GY1109

Inset Map #8

Inset Map

#10

GY005

GY030

GY041

GY046

GY045

G

Y049

GY048

GY043

GY640

GY657

GY658

GY627

GY6 41

GY1224

GY620

GY622

GY636

GY659

GY618

GY626

GY6 48

GY049

GY448

GY628

GY621

GY625

GY695

GY639

GY643

GY663

GY754

GY1225

GY624

Inset Map #11

Inset Map #11

GY715

GY724

GY722

GY727

GY729

GY723

GY726

GY706

GY731

G

Y728

GY694

GY704

GY698

GY721

GY703

GY200

GY392

Inset Map #12

Inset Map

#12

Travel Management Area Boundaries

Preferred Alternative OHV Closed Areas

Legend

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Reclamation

Tribal Lands

Military

State

State Wildlife

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

USFWS Wilderness

Private Yuma Field Office Boundary

County Lines

Township and Range

Major Washes

Rivers and Lakes

Routes too dense to

individually Label

Muggins Mountain OHV Closed Area

Fortuna Wash

OHV Closed Area

Bureau of Land Management

Yuma Field Office

April 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Routes

Freeways

Primary Route - Paved

Primary Route - Unpaved

Secondary Route - Paved

Secondary Route - Unpaved

Primitive Route

Railroad

Hiking Trail

0 250 500

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

Digitized Linear Feature **

Non-Motorized Route

These digitized linear features were drawn from

aerial photos and digital topographic maps.

These linear features have not been field

checked. Therefore, some of these linear

features may not exist.

** Note:
Map

TMA-1

Map

TMA-2 Map

TMA-3

Map

TMA-4

Map

TMA-5

Index

Map

£¤95

§ ̈¦10 £¤95

(!78

River

Colorado

EC225

EC

EC

304

308

EC172

EC301

EC167

EC164

EC164

EC162

EC163

EC299

EC299

EC300

EC161

EC298

EC160

EC160

EC297

EC296

EC297

EC296

EC481

EC159

EC155

EC295

EC294

EC155

EC154

EC156

EC122

EC153

EC123

EC124

EC288

EC118

EC121

EC113

EC118

EC111

EC112

EC114

EC102

EC103

EC104

EC102

EC108

EC105

EC118

EC127

EC116

EC115

EC115

EC099

EC098

EC097

EC128

EC129

EC127

EC116

EC118

EC119

EC123

EC132

E

C136

EC123

EC077

EC078

EC094

EC063

EC291

EC1

35

EC292

EC293

EC291

EC150

EC286

EC128

EC128

EC105

EC107

EC106

EC115

EC117

EC116

EC128

EC287 LP407

EC096

EC095

EC284

EC285 EC283

EC282

EC281

EC280

EC280

EC279

EC250

EC277

EC272

EC271

EC269

EC264

EC265

EC268

EC266

EC270

EC273

EC274

EC275

EC278

EC263

EC262

EC261

EC276

EC267

EC227

EC242

EC243

EC227

EC226

EC234

EC482

EC483

EC289

EC290

EC291

EC154

EC156

EC158

EC

484 EC484

EC486

EC155

EC155

EC485

EC485

EC227

EC227

EC49

E

4

C495

EC496

EC497

EC498

EC499

EC500

EC501

EC502

EC503

EC576

EC577

EC578

EC579

EC582

EC580

EC581

EC583

EC584

MATCH LINE

MATCH LINE

MATCH LINE

EC250

EC700

EC122

EC699

E C 6 8 0

EC663

EC100

EC673

EC665

EC664

EC683

LP153

E

8

C694

EC706

EC686

E

C671

EC668

EC703

EC300

EC701

E C 6 7 7

EC708

EC118

EC691

EC119

EC707

EC676

EC666

EC690

EC681

EC684

EC667

E C 12 7

EC698

EC704

EC670

EC705

LP1429

E C 6 7 5

E

C693

EC685

EC709

EC682

EC662

EC695

EC 66 1

EC669

EC 672

EC710

EC702

EC287

EC689

EC674

EC097

EC122

EC107

EC696EC697 EC692

EC687

EC679

EC688

Blythe

114°30'0"W

114°30'0"W

114°37'30"W

114°37'30"W

34°0'0"N

34°0'0"N

33°52'30"N

33°52'30"N

33°45'0"N

33°45'0"N

33°37'30"N

33°37'30"N

33°30'0"N

33°30'0"N

Map TMA-1: Ehrenberg/Cibola Travel Management Area

1 0 1 2 3

Miles ¬

The Bureau of Land Management makes no

warranties, implied or expressed, with respect

to information shown on this map.

1 0 1 2 3

Kilometers

YUMA FIELD OFFICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

R 22 E

!

^(Phoenix Yuma

Planning

Area

A R I Z O N A

1:68,359

R 23 E R 24 E

T

2

S

T

3

S

T

4

S

T

5

S

T

6

S

T

7

S

T

8

S

Trigo

Mountains

Wilderness

Colorado River

Indian Reservation

T

9

S

EC448

EC453

EC448

EC452

EC406

EC447

EC446

EC445

EC443

EC421

EC407

EC

E

449

C450

EC451

EC410

EC406

EC406

EC406

EC403

EC405

EC404

EC403

EC402

EC401

EC228

EC228

EC454

EC228

EC399

EC398

EC398

EC398

EC397

EC396

EC389

EC395

E

C389

EC394

EC392

EC388

EC393

EC391

EC390

EC398

EC398

EC386

EC196

EC381

EC1

95

EC377

EC384

EC383

EC195

EC196

EC362

EC353

EC376

EC377

EC374

EC375

EC191

EC193

EC354

EC191

EC191

EC189

EC189

EC191

EC194

EC188

EC336

EC337

EC335

EC187

EC330

EC329

EC332

EC334

EC333

EC381

EC331

EC186

EC185

EC178

EC310

EC174

EC186

EC304

EC304

EC

EC308

309

EC306

EC307

EC172

EC172

EC172

EC301

EC167

EC168

EC170

EC164

EC164

(!78

(!78

EC241

EC162

EC476

EC469

EC468

EC585

EC465

EC464

EC463

EC466

EC462

EC461

EC460

EC456

EC459

EC455

EC455

EC456

E

EC457

C458

EC185

EC185

EC187

EC186

EC327

EC328

EC339

EC350

EC191

EC353

EC352

Lake Road

EC487

Cibola

EC490

EC491

EC492

EC493

EC494

EC5

EC597

96

EC242

EC587

EC588

EC601

EC

EC

600

600

EC

EC605

602

EC603

EC604

EC241

EC162

EC606

EC607

EC608

EC609

EC610

EC611

EC612

EC613

EC614

EC615

EC645

EC620

E C 6 3 8

EC647

E C 6 3 9

EC339

E C 6 5 4

EC644

EC673

EC665

EC664

E

C660

EC172

EC

671

EC630

EC668

EC663

E C 6 2 4

EC300

E C 65 1

EC431

EC666

E C 6 2 7

EC626

EC656

EC642

EC667

EC659

EC188

EC670

EC646

EC628

EC663

EC655

EC662

EC423

EC635

EC618

E C 661

EC669

EC 6 72

EC640

EC653

EC658

EC633

EC187

EC434

EC622

EC648

EC631

EC652

EC650

EC621

EC657

EC649

EC122

EC625

EC634

EC637

EC419

EC420

114°30'0"W

114°30'0"W

114°37'30"W

114°37'30"W

114°45'0"W

114°45'0"W

33°30'0"N

33°30'0"N

33°22'30"N

33°22'30"N

33°15'0"N

33°15'0"N

33°7'30"N

33°7'30"N

33°0'0"N

33°0'0"N

Little

Picacho

Wilderness

Indian

Pass

Wilderness

Palo Verde

Mountains

Wilderness

Riverside

Mountains

Wilderness

Yuma

Proving

Grounds Picacho

Peak

Wilderness

Big Maria

Mountains

Wilderness

La Paz County

Yuma County

Riverside County

Imperial County

La

Paz

County

Imperial County

Ehrenberg/Cibola Travel Management Area - North Ehrenberg/Cibola Travel Management Area - South

EC301

EC301

EC301

EC165

EC303

EC302

EC167

EC167

EC169

EC168

EC168

EC168

EC170

EC169

EC170

EC478

EC478

EC171

EC171

EC479

EC480

EC477

EC167

EC661

EC186

EC186

EC311

EC31

EC18

0

6

EC186 EC313

EC179

EC184

EC183

EC31

4

EC31

5

E EC182

EC

C312

181

EC186

EC316

EC317

EC318

EC319

EC321

EC320

EC322

EC323

EC324

EC326

EC325

EC186

EC325 Cibola

Lake

Road

Yuma Proving Grounds

Cibola Lake Road

EC189

EC192 EC

EC340

341

EC340

EC344

EC345

EC346

EC347

EC348

EC349

EC343

EC342

EC346

EC339

EC353

EC366

EC367

E

C368

EC369

EC194

EC194

EC194

EC378

EC378 EC195

EC363

EC365

EC356

EC355

EC194

EC357

EC362

EC361

EC359

EC360

EC380

EC379

EC370

EC371

EC372

EC370

EC406

EC436

EC437

EC438

EC444

EC406

EC406

EC406

EC439

EC443

EC441

EC442

EC410

EC406

EC406

EC406

EC423

EC424 EC425

EC426

EC427

EC406

EC429

EC428

EC430

EC41

E

0

C432

EC431

E

C433

EC410

EC434

EC431

EC410

EC422

EC410

EC406

EC407

EC407

EC406

EC409

EC411

EC410

EC406

EC408

EC408

EC413

EC412

EC414

EC415

EC416

EC417

EC418

EC408

EC412

Imperial National Wildlife Refuge

Cibola National

Wildlife Refuge

EC201

EC201

EC470

EC468

EC468

EC471

EC475

EC201

EC471

EC472

EC472

EC473

EC488

EC587

EC587

EC589

EC588

EC598

EC590

EC587

EC591

EC592

EC593

EC594

EC595

EC229

EC230

EC228

EC228

EC228

EC228

EC240

EC237

EC238

EC240

EC231

EC241

EC239

EC236

EC235

EC234

EC233

EC232

£¤95

EC502

EC504

EC505

EC506

EC506

EC504

EC508

EC507

EC509

EC510

EC511

EC512

EC513

EC514

EC515

E

C515

EC516

EC517

EC519 EC518

EC504

EC504

EC520

E

C521

EC522

EC523

EC524

EC525

EC530

EC531

EC531

EC504

EC527

EC526

EC528

EC529

EC531

EC533

EC535

EC534

R 21 E R 22 E R 23 E

T

7

S

T

8

S

T

8

S

T

10

S

T

11

S

T

12

S

T

13

S

T

14

S

T

10.5

S

R 23 W R 22 W R 21 W

T

1

N

T

2

N

T

3

N

T

4

N

Mohave

Drive

T

5

N

T

6

N

T

7

N

T

8

N

T

2

N

T

1

N

T

1

S

T

2

S

T

3

S

R 24 W

T

5

S

w:\projects\yfo_rmp\trans_rec\Route Inventory Ehrenberg-Cibola Map 33x44.mxd

Riverside County

Imperial County

La

Paz

County

Trigo

Mountains

Wilderness

California

Arizona

Red Township and Range is for the San Bernardino Meridian in California

Grey Township and Range is for the Gila and Salt River Meridian in Arizona

California

Arizona

Colorado

River

R 23 W

R 22 W

T 3 S

T 4 S

Area 1

EC536

EC244

EC245

EC536

EC536

EC536

EC537

EC537

EC538

EC539

EC540

EC540

EC541

EC541

EC543

EC544

EC542

EC546

EC546

EC545

EC548

EC548

EC550

EC551

EC552

EC549

EC549

EC556

EC556

EC553

EC553

EC553

EC547

EC554

EC555

EC246

EC557

EC247

EC247

EC248

EC248

EC536

EC252

EC251

EC560

EC560

EC561

EC562

EC563 EC563

EC562

EC564

EC575

EC559

EC571 EC571

EC572

EC565

EC566

EC567

EC568

EC569

EC572

EC251

EC536

Area 2

E

C242

E

C242

EC159

EC243

EC160

EC161

EC159

EC616

EC158

EC489

EC617

EC618

EC619

EC620

EC621

EC160

EC622

EC622

EC62

E

2

C623

EC623

EC624

EC625

EC626

EC627

EC627

EC628

EC629

EC634

EC635

EC636 E

C6

37

EC638

EC639

EC640

EC641

EC6

E

41

C642

EC643

EC645

EC644

EC646

EC647

EC648

EC648

EC649

EC650

EC651

EC652

EC653

EC654

EC654

EC655

EC656

EC657

EC658

EC659

EC6

EC657

60

EC661

EC662

EC663

EC664

EC665

EC666

EC666

EC666

EC667

EC668

EC669

EC670

EC671

EC671

EC671

EC680

EC679

EC677

EC678

EC676

EC675

EC672

EC673

EC674

EC617

EC681

EC682

EC683

EC684

EC685

EC686

EC687

EC688

Area 3

Legend Routes Surface Management

Yuma Field

Office Boundary

County Lines

Township and Range

Major Washes

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Reclamation

Tribal Lands

Military

State

State Wildlife

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

USFWS Wilderness

Private

Rivers and Lakes

State Lines

Routes too dense to

individually label

Ehrenberg Sandbowl

Open OHV Area

Travel Management

Area Boundaries

Preferred Alternative

OHV Closed Areas

Preferred Alternative

OHV Open Area

Bureau of Land Management

Yuma Field Office

April 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

These digitized linear features were drawn

from aerial photos and digital topographic

maps. These linear features have not been

field checked. Therefore, some of these

linear features may not exist.

Freeways

Primary Route - Paved

Primary Route - Unpaved

Secondary Route - Paved

Secondary Route - Unpaved

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500 750

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

Primitive Route

Railroad

Digitized Linear Feature **

Non-Motorized Route

** Note:

Inset Map #1

Inset

Map

#1

Inset Map #3

Inset

Map

#3

Inset Map

#4

Inset Map #4

Inset Map #2

Inset

Map

#2

Inset Map

#5

Inset Map #5

Inset Map

#6 Inset Map #6

Inset Map

#7

Inset Map

#8

Inset Map #7

Inset Map #8

Inset Map #9

Inset Map

#9

Inset Map

#10

Inset Map

#11

Inset Map #10

Inset Map #11

MATCH LINE

MATCH LINE
Map

TMA-1

Map

TMA-2 Map

TMA-3

Map

TMA-4

Map

TMA-5

Index

Map

YE009

YE010

YE011

YE012

YE006

YE240

YE202

YE203

YE210

YE209

YE208

YE0

YE515

§ ̈¦10 £¤95

LP877

LP876

LP878

LP879

£¤95

LP880

LP881

LP892

LP889

LP891

LP890

LP889

LP893

LP894

LP88

LP

1

895

LP896

LP897

LP900

LP901

LP899

LP898

LP419

LP903

LP902

LP905 LP904

LP906

LP915

LP908

LP908

LP914

LP912

LP911

LP910

LP910

LP909

LP907

LP913

LP881

LP385

LP385

LP385

LP407

LP595

LP595

LP407

LP407

Old

Yuma

Road

LP919

LP407

LP920

LP921

LP924

LP925

LP926

LP932

LP1060

LP1059

LP1058

LP1057

LP701

LP1054

LP105

LP

6

1055

LP1053

LP1052

LP1050

LP1051

LP701

§ ̈¦10

LP859

LP859

LP705

LP702

LP701

LP705

LP1

061

LP709

LP711

LP1042

LP1061

LP708

LP1049

LP104

LP

8

1047

LP1046

LP1045

LP708

LP1044

LP1043

LP711

LP458

LP998

LP997

LP452

LP455

LP464

LP464

LP1376

LP996

LP464

LP419

LP466

LP995

LP468

LP994

LP993

LP991

LP991

LP990

LP990

LP992

LP989

LP190

LP1014

LP218

LP1015

LP1016

LP470

LP470

LP207

LP1017

LP1019

LP1018

LP1032

(!72

£¤60

(!95

LP377

LP208

LP208

LP077

LP208

LP1063

LP1063

LP1063

LP1064

LP1065

LP1065

LP1070

LP1068

LP1069

LP1067

LP1067

Plomosa

Road

LP065

LP092

LP1072

LP049

LP045

LP089

LP1073

LP1075

LP1076

LP1073

LP053

LP1074

LP043

LP111

LP101

LP102

LP094

LP099

LP096

LP09

LP094

5

LP804

LP804

LP103

LP103

LP595

LP595

LP595

LP595

LP101

LP741

LP261

LP107

LP259

LP741

LP741

LP262

LP2539

LP768

LP267

LP267

LP249

LP255

LP267

LP25 93

LP2618

LP25 77

LP25 96

LP25 66

LP25 70

LP25 69

LP2541

LP2583

LP25 88

LP25 87

LP1127 LP25 32

LP1127

LP25 13

LP24 45

LP14 28

LP14 03

LP14 52

LP14 48

LP14 36

LP14 42

LP28 18

LP13 07

LP13 10

LP13 11

LP13 04

LP1290

LP1302

LP1142

LP1151

LP1150

LP1147

LP1145

LP1148

LP1146

LP1144

LP1135

LP1133

LP1132

LP1131

LP1129

LP28 08

LP28 06 LP28 01

LP28 03

LP28 02

LP28 09 LP28 05

LP27 98

LP2822

LP27 71

LP094

LP27 81

LP27 88

LP27 84

LP2811

LP2790

LP27 50

LP1073

LP27 76

LP27 55

LP27 59

LP27 68

LP27 58

LP27 37

LP27 08

LP24 66

LP23 39

LP2349

LP2352

LP22 75

LP23 50

LP23 48

LP23 40

LP22 95

LP23 00

LP23 04

LP23 14

LP22 80

LP1123

LP1026

LP1118

LP1119

LP1108

LP1110

LP1104

LP711

LP1860

LP1113

LP1106

LP1107

LP17 77

LP17 87

LP1105

LP16 01

LP1117

LP1122

LP1101

LP10 94

LP10 93

LP16 93

LP1695

LP1638

LP1638

LP1579

LP19 67

LP20 17

LP19 98

LP19 99

LP17 63

LP16 04

LP16 05

LP14 68

LP14 85

LP14 91

LP13 63

LP1350

LP1479

LP1432

LP1427

LP1435

LP1426

LP14 06

LP14 23

LP14 16

LP13 82

LP13 83

LP14 88

LP16 00

LP1632

LP1624

LP999

LP14 75

LP15 13

LP1439

LP1461

LP15 08

LP15 14

LP14 84

LP1381

LP1387

LP1438

LP13 32

LP13 70

LP14 40

LP1493

LP1490

LP1349

LP901

LP12 59

LP12 60

LP1262

LP2216

LP23 19

LP23 77

LP28 23

LP24 01

LP23 75

LP23 75

LP23 69

LP23 20

LP23 98

LP2421

LP2404

LP24 19

LP24 35

LP24 23

LP24 09

LP24 03

LP24 54

LP24 75

LP24 79

LP24 98 LP24 94

LP24 83

LP24 70

LP24 80 LP24 82

LP24 81

LP24 69

LP2489

LP25 06

LP28 49

LP25 16

LP25 50

LP25 60

LP25 30

LP25 61

LP2556

LP2574

LP26 24 LP2613

LP2673

LP28 36

LP26 52

LP2667

LP26 33

LP2655

LP2665

LP14 99

LP2549

LP27 62

LP23 21

LP23 31

LP12 57

LP12 69

LP701

LP595

LP208

LP101

LP081

LP094

LP102

LP420

LP089

LP099

LP779

LP775

LP079

LP859

LP407

LP100

LP462

LP285

LP103

LP466

LP219

LP804

LP418

LP432

LP386

LP092

LP051

LP190

LP266

LP107

LP702

LP225

LP415

LP120

LP209

LP713

LP422

LP424

LP714

LP716

LP708

LP421

LP706

LP416

LP244

LP464

LP189

LP425

LP250

LP361

LP709

LP858

LP091

LP456

LP265

LP123

LP465

LP438

LP267

LP761

LP457

LP439

LP262

LP816

LP469

LP095

LP096

LP076

LP810

LP1701

LP710

LP861

LP801

LP758

LP256

LP467

LP193

LP463

LP388

LP391

LP052

LP452

LP773

LP097

LP800

LP750

LP090

LP707

LP762

LP454

LP781

LP210

LP704

LP703

LP715

LP755

LP390

LP751

LP257

LP423

LP764

LP766

LP098

LP753

LP435

LP757

LP712

LP748

LP260

LP763

LP818

LP050

LP258

LP765

LP710

LP420

LP419

LP420

LP100

LP417

LP595

LP419

LP1931

LP716

LP207

LP249

LP421 LP1234 LP1234 LP1234

LP1234 LP1234

LP1220

LP1220

LP1220 LP1

220

LP2431

LP2431

LP2843

LP1537

LP1537

LP094 LP094

YE1049

LP1323

LP2748

LP23 49

LP1127

YE1181

LP1272

LP2764

LP2774

LP1592

LP2489

LP1538

LP1290

LP

LP1118

LP28 49

LP2345

LP1101

LP1921

LP1970

LP2613

LP2799

LP2661

LP1325

LP2594

LP2495

LP2559

LP1272

LP2736

LP875

LP1402

LP1220

LP1120

LP1474

LP1387

LP10 96

LP2795

LP900

LP1690

LP2491

LP1373

LP25 06

LP1139

LP1089

LP1486

LP1140

LP1381

LP2666

YE1036

LP1110

LP24 19

LP1254

LP2710

LP2673

LP27 50

LP781

LP2751

LP1246

LP2732

LP2780

LP2584

LP1459

LP27 98

LP2815

LP2688

LP2712

LP1263

LP2520

LP2528

LP1868

LP24 39

LP2530

LP2618

LP2791

YE

LP2490

YE206

LP27 73

LP2796

LP26 23

LP1095

LP2739

LP24 85

LP1977

LP23 68

LP26 03

LP2743

LP2575

LP25 57

LP2335

LP2749

LP26 28

LP2543

LP1534

LP2576

LP2765

LP26 50

LP27 00

LP1483

LP1458

LP2551

LP1091

LP1037

LP2678

LP1518

LP2473

LP2567

LP2413

LP1272

LP1211

LP1369

YE1213

LP1116

LP12 92

LP2509

LP1121

LP2477

LP2581

LP2367

LP24 54

LP1262

LP27 08

LP27 63

LP25 47

LP2500

LP2510

LP1088

LP2680

LP1288

LP25 37

LP43 9

LP2334

LP2684

LP052

LP1348

LP2756

LP27 04

LP2807

LP2606

LP2464

LP2544

LP1287

LP2546

LP2812

LP2548

YE1013

LP1114

LP2709

LP1265

LP1300

LP2735

LP435

LP2579

LP2797

LP13 47

LP1955

LP2580

LP1124

LP1533

LP24 22

LP2525

LP1404

LP2769

LP2431

LP27 93

LP1329

LP14 73

LP1396

LP1631

LP1245

LP25 78

LP2518

LP2604

LP17 48

LP2467

YE1211

LP23 95

LP2669

LP1756

LP2779

LP2328

LP1102

LP24 28

LP1298

LP773

LP23 36

LP2643

LP18 78

LP1342

LP2744

LP1312

LP1271

LP13 05

LP25 85

LP2662

LP1394

LP2521

LP27 03

LP18 35

LP2356

LP1637

LP1609

LP090

YE974

LP2391

LP1682

LP1282

LP1683

LP26 79

LP2365

LP2478

LP22 83

LP09 5

LP878

YE1 217

LP24 29

LP25 58

LP2553

LP1291

LP1296

LP23 33

LP1277

YE1 056

LP2782

LP27 33

LP1412

LP2346

LP12 41

LP2702

LP10 90

LP1407

LP16 33

YE123

LP2059

LP1322

LP23 87

LP2644

LP2740

LP1303

LP1465

LP1294

LP1092

LP24 27

LP21 09

LP2820

LP2564

LP13

58

LP23 92

LP2753

LP1301

LP13 89

LP1877

LP2760

LP1826

LP27 54

LP1386

LP19 75

LP2563

LP1492

LP1401

LP16 52

LP2450

LP28 10

LP1351

LP15 93

LP23 80

YE210

LP2358

LP1353

LP25 99

LP23 72

YE1227

LP27 67

LP12 84

LP25 01

LP2542

LP13 14

LP1444

LP27 46

LP1276

LP16 47

LP1

141

LP1143

LP25 40

LP24 31

LP25 07

LP1136

LP25 29

LP14 30

LP14 66

LP1293

LP25 36

LP10 97

LP13 06

LP2554

LP26 59

LP19 24

LP25 45

LP1273

LP2202

LP27 16

LP23 44

LP14 47

LP2632

LP27 47

LP15 53

YE1229

LP2110

LP19 73

LP2499

LP1270

LP1274

LP1429

LP1264

YE

LP2000

LP25 15

YE

LP2800

LP25 08

LP18 03

LP25 02

LP23 17

LP13 09

LP27 86

LP15 11

LP1213

LP18 67

YE1 048

LP15 54

LP1129

LP26 39

LP23 32

LP25 34

LP1099

LP25 68

LP13 40

LP17 95

LP422

LP27 52

LP13 77

LP24 93

LP24 65

LP27 92

LP12 81

LP27 70

LP2347

LP13 15

LP26 14

LP2

8 14

LP12 61

LP14 78

LP17 34

LP27 61

LP24 31

YE1157

LP12 18

YE1 246

LP12 75

LP25 87

LP24 49

LP24 71

YE1190

LP12 89

LP12 68

LP18 97

LP19 78

LP12 79

LP25 65

LP12 30

LP25 17

LP12 49

LP27

05

LP1128

LP27 72

LP10 42

LP24 57

LP1137

LP27 38

LP13 33

LP16 03

LP24 20

LP12 50

LP13 84

LP1109

LP12 85

LP12 86

LP1103

LP12 83

LP24 32

LP17 46

LP15 30

LP16 48

LP27 57

LP13 08

LP17 08

LP2425

LP23 94

LP13 92

LP17 00

LP27 01

YE1 228

LP13 54

LP14 37

LP23 79

LP1138

LP23 55

LP13 44

LP14 25

LP23 26

LP28 04

LP27 94

LP27 77

LP28 19

LP16 06

LP23 38

LP23 60

LP1134

LP25 32

LP12 97

LP13 17

LP24 63

YE1 225

LP17 07

LP26 48

LP1100

LP28 5

LP17 51

LP18 37

LP12 52

LP27 75

LP14 94

LP12 66

LP19 95

Y

LP25 52

LP25 27

LP23 03

LP14 77

LP17 43

LP12 02

YE1 230

LP25 38

LP15 00

LP24 17

LP13 93

YE9 90

YE6 62

LP15 65

LP14 15

LP14 55

LP14 51

LP12 51

LP1111

LP13 20

LP12 78

LP27 85

LP23 51

LP18 55

LP14 45

LP12 99

LP14 33

LP20 51

LP12 10

LP27 18

YE1167

LP14 14

LP14 21

LP12 58

LP23 29

LP24 47

YE0 06

LP24 46

LP22 36

LP24 40

LP14 17

YE1188

LP1

4 34

LP20 61

LP25 72

LP12 95

LP14 23

LP18 32

LP27 41

LP27 89

YE9 71

LP13 39

LP13 13

LP15 94

LP12 56

LP14 64

LP12 80

QUARTZSITE

113°52'30"W

113°52'30"W

114°0'0"W

114°0'0"W

114°7'30"W

114°7'30"W

114°15'0"W

114°15'0"W

114°22'30"W

114°22'30"W

113°45'0"W

33°52'30"N

33°52'30"N

33°45'0"N

33°45'0"N

33°37'30"N

33°37'30"N

33°30'0"N

33°30'0"N

33°22'30"N

33°22'30"N

33°15'0"N

33°15'0"N

33°7'30"N

33°7'30"N

Map TMA-2: La Posa Travel Management Area

1 0 1 2 3

Miles ¬

The Bureau of Land Management makes no

warranties, implied or expressed, with respect

to information shown on this map.

1 0 1 2 3

Kilometers

YUMA FIELD OFFICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

R 21 W

!

^(Phoenix Yuma

Planning

Area

A R I Z O N A

1:74,500

Inset Map #1

R 20 W R 19 W R 18 W R 17 W R 16 W R 15 W R 14 W

T

7

N

T

6

N

T

5

N

T

4

N

T

3

N

T

2

N

T

1

N

T

1

S

T

2

S

T

3

S

La Paz County

Yuma County

New Water

Mountains

Wilderness

KOFA National

Wildlife

Refuge

KOFA Refuge

Wilderness

Colorado River

Indian Reservation

Old

LaPazValley Road

Yuma

Roa

d

LP

LP

§ ̈¦10

LP2067

LP1887

LP1805

LP1812

LP1822

LP1608

LP1323

LP1411

LP1447

LP1493

LP1559

LP595

LP1850

LP561

LP2092

LP2078

LP2122

LP1887

LP2122

LP1510

LP1323

LP2067

LP1608

LP2249

LP1467

LP2003

LP1991

LP1470

LP1408

LP2163

LP1822

LP1817

LP1623

LP386

LP2120

LP1916

LP1571

LP1572

LP1441

LP1547

LP2186

LP1476

LP1469

LP1938

LP1424

LP1515

LP1495

LP1409

LP2177

LP1526

LP1582

LP1419

LP2125

LP2209

LP1502

LP1399

LP1611

LP1815

LP1949

LP1745

LP1509

LP1904

LP1585

LP1677

LP1811

LP1861

LP1805

LP1411

LP2848

LP1884

LP1899

LP1726

LP1445

LP1833

LP1581

LP1880

LP1838

LP1498

LP1456

LP1487

LP1997

LP1398

LP1843

LP1992

LP1870

LP1454

LP1804

LP2285

LP1755

LP1463

LP2220

LP2010

LP1807

LP1944

LP1602

LP1716

LP1800

LP2121

LP1890

LP1957

LP1443

LP2210

LP1862

LP1546

LP1480

LP2066

LP1854

LP1996

LP1694

LP2041

LP1813

LP950

LP1620

LP1856

LP1453

LP1733

LP1680

LP1698

LP1908

LP1966

LP2208

LP2006

LP1476

LP18 42

LP1736

LP1460

LP1462

LP1806

LP1814

LP1612

LP1808

LP13 95

LP1876

LP2056

LP1379

LP1391

LP2181

LP1759

LP2033

LP1552

LP2034

LP2054

LP625

LP1785

LP1881

LP2837

LP18 09

LP21 61

LP2250

LP1976

LP22 39

LP18 20

LP22 33

LP1482

LP18 19

LP18 63

LP22 41

LP21 87

LP22 60

LP22 53

LP18 66

LP2025

LP16 17

LP13 97

LP14 49

LP20 12

LP14 00

LP13 85

LP22 37

LP13 88

LP14 20

LP18 94

LP14 46

LP21 68

LP22 18

LP28 38

LP14 72

LP14 31

LP20 32

LP14 57

LP14 81

LP14 89

LP18 74

LP14 10

LP18 21

LP21 82

LP595

LP227

LP625

LP417

LP356

LP625

LP384

LP356

LP629

LP619

LP229

LP356

LP595

LP356

LP228

LP629

LP284

LP357

LP554

LP392

LP391

LP282

LP351

LP394

LP228

LP553

LP392

LP399

LP386

LP229

LP549

LP630

LP227

LP628

LP62 9

LP63 0

LP933

LP407

LP928

LP927

LP922

LP595

LP921

LP927

LP963

LP961

LP918

LP1062

LP595

LP930

LP966

LP929

LP931

LP923

LP384

LP933

LP385

LP669

LP385

LP382

LP382

LP383

LP383

LP938

LP939

LP669

LP934

LP93

LP936

5

LP937

LP935

LP938

LP946

LP944

LP943

LP381

LP933

LP933

LP380

LP950

LP366

LP366

LP377

LP948

LP947

LP949

LP366

LP375

LP376

LP941

LP941

LP945

LP942

LP366

LP343

LP951

LP374

LP952

LP953

LP370

LP372

LP373

LP371

LP654

LP369

LP371

LP369

LP375

LP654

LP934

LP379

LP366

Chol a

Road

LP657

LP654

LP655

LP656

L

LP650

P343

LP366

LP340

LP333

LP738

LP341

LP339

LP339

LP350

LP652

LP921

LP350

LP368

LP367

LP365

LP365

LP366

LP366

LP369

LP368

LP350

LP955

LP954

LP956

LP957

LP364

LP363

LP364

LP342

LP350

LP342

LP343

LP338

LP344

LP338

LP362

LP321

LP333

LP333

Dome

Rock

Road

LP350

LP921

LP324

LP324

LP633

LP330

LP738

LP335

LP337

LP336

LP336

LP332

LP332

LP331

LP331

LP324

LP637

LP638

LP639

LP324

L

LP329

P330

LP327

LP325

LP325

LP326

LP285

LP285

LP273

LP281

LP284

LP285

LP284

LP282

LP286

LP286

LP282

LP286

LP297

LP293

LP293

LP287

LP287

LP289

LP299

LP282

PL282

LP299

LP30

LP3

0

00

LP303

LP282

LP302

LP300

LP301

LP300

LP291

LP734

LP282

LP282

LP282

LP304

LP282

LP733

LP305

LP306

LP305

LP307

LP307

LP305

LP305

LP305

LP282

LP305

LP310

LP310

LP305

LP312

LP308

LP309

LP32

L

0

P318

LP29

L

6

P297

LP295

LP294

LP308 LP308

LP292

LP308

LP317

LP318

LP311

LP731

LP731

LP315

LP730

LP315

LP314

LP313

LP316

LP315

LP316

LP313

§ ̈¦10

£¤95

LP2212

LP946

LP384

LP1645

LP1674

LP1642

LP2835

LP1675

LP1676

LP1733

LP1635

LP1595

LP1686

LP1721

LP1635

LP1747

LP1910

LP1871

LP351

LP352

LP1635

LP1966

LP1944

LP1733

LP1954

LP2100

LP1680

LP1741

LP1697

LP2211

LP2174

LP1126

LP1517

LP2249

LP2184

LP384

LP1698

LP1517

LP1659

LP1721

LP1548

LP2393

LP1691

LP946

LP2221

LP1595

LP1628

LP2234

LP1623

LP1951

LP1713

LP2055

LP1578

LP1946

LP1771

LP2169

LP335

LP938

LP1608

LP1686

LP1754

LP1661

LP1687

LP1642

LP1775

LP289

LP1669

LP1786

LP1613

LP1540

LP1831

LP744

LP1779

LP1709

LP2260

LP2153

LP2297

LP2258

LP1789

LP2264

LP2265

LP950

LP1688

LP1596

LP2128

LP1636

LP1531

LP1772

LP1759

LP1757

LP1711

LP376

LP1907

LP1885

LP1862

LP1495

LP1668

LP1620

LP1728

LP1932

LP2414

LP1982

LP1879

LP2065

LP2279

LP1829

LP1619

LP1512

LP2022

LP1678

LP2411

LP1714

LP1612

LP1651

LP2242

LP1519

LP1736

LP2223

LP1654

LP1742

LP625

LP1653

LP1915

LP1760

LP2014

LP1956

LP1768

LP2287

LP1882

LP1525

LP2251

LP1750

LP1587

LP1889

LP325

LP2101

LP2341

LP944

LP1610

LP1864

LP1641

LP1764

LP1640

LP1560

LP1667

LP2074

LP1662

LP1730

LP337

LP1883

LP1664

LP1673

LP2281

LP1516

LP287

LP1732

LP1791

LP1618

LP2123

LP362

LP1909

LP2253

LP1774

LP1903

LP2298

LP1737

LP2361

LP1681

LP1655

LP2004

LP1980

LP1963

LP2834

LP1712

LP1689

LP1896

LP1663

LP1962

LP1696

LP1621

LP1562

LP1671

LP2248

LP2231

LP1769

LP2386

LP1630

LP1550

LP1614

£¤§ ̈¦10 95

LP233

LP234

LP234

LP234

LP285

LP269

LP270

LP274

LP273

LP282

LP233

LP233

LP282

LP282

LP282

LP236

LP235

LP238

LP237

LP241

LP23

LP

4

240

LP239

LP283

LP284

LP284

LP282

LP285

LP271

LP272

LP270

LP251

LP232

LP274

LP232

LP276

LP277

LP277

LP273

LP281

LP280

LP278

LP737

LP277

LP285

LP284

LP256

LP255

LP254

LP262

LP321

LP252

LP255

LP253

LP273

LP275

LP253

LP253

LP255

LP257

LP267

LP255

LP230 LP1077 LP1077

LP1077

LP1126

LP2411

LP1128

LP2415

LP737

LP232

L P2 39 0

LP1126

LP1077

LP2354

LP2397

LP2418

LP2315

LP2359

LP2323

LP2249

LP2249

LP2455

LP1127

LP2453

LP2343

LP2459

LP2411

LP2342

LP2426

LP2260

LP2816

LP2473

LP2357

LP2396

LP2363

LP2817

LP2370

LP2383

LP2414

LP2285

LP2416

LP2381

LP2468

LP2366

LP2284

LP2443

LP2385

LP2405

LP2253

LP2436

LP2264

LP2297

LP2337

LP275

LP2389

LP2341

LP2485

LP2282

LP2337

LP2373

LP2374

LP2250

LP 2 2 90

LP206 7

LP253

L P 2 36 2

LP2 324

LP23 99

LP 24 0 2

LP1022

LP1031

LP1030

LP1022

LP1025

LP1026

LP1025

LP1024

LP1022

LP1029

LP1022

LP1027

LP470

LP1

037

LP

1037

LP1039

LP470

LP1038

LP1040

LP470

LP470

LP1041

LP462

LP459

LP459

LP48

LP

8

458

LP458

LP1038

LP1017

LP1018

LP1018

LP1022

LP1023

LP1020

LP1

020

LP1017

LP1021

LP1017

LP1017

LP1017

LP1017

LP1033

LP1034

LP1035

LP1846

LP2215

LP2214

LP1918

LP2224

LP1112

LP2008

LP1037

LP1900

LP2275

LP1914

LP1934

LP1965

LP1830

LP2213

LP1030

LP1020

LP1979

LP1933

LP2002

LP1901

LP2228

LP2238

LP1000

LP1087

LP190

LP1013

LP193

LP1011

LP1012

LP1011

LP1009

LP100

LP

8

1010

LP1008

LP1007

LP1007

LP1001

LP1002

LP1001

LP193

LP193

LP1004

LP1005

LP1003

LP1006

LP1003

LP1004

LP1936

LP1878

LP1941

LP1095

LP2015

LP1858

LP1835

LP1993

LP1922

LP1919

LP1895

LP1955

LP1947

LP1690

LP2016

LP293

LP744

LP293

LP293

LP742

LP741

LP747

LP743

LP745

LP746

LP742

LP746

LP747

LP746

LP2437

LP2467

LP744

LP2464

LP2452

LP2474

Yuma Proving Grounds

LP215

LP217

LP207

LP207

LP1085

LP1079

LP1078

LP1078

LP1080

LP1080

LP1082

LP1081

LP216

LP217

§ ̈¦10

LP2825

LP2270

LP2272

LP2267

LP2271

LP2277

LP2299

Inset Map #2

Inset Map #3

Inset Map

#4

Inset

Map

#5

Inset Map

#6

Inset Map

#7

Inset Map #1

Inset Map #2

Inset Map #3

Inset Map #4

Inset Map #5

Inset Map #6

Inset Map #7

T

4

S

T

5

S

T 4 N

T 3 N

R 20 WR 19 W

T 4 N

T 3 N

T 4 N

T 3 N

w:\projects\yfo_rmp\trans_rec\Route Inventory La Posa Map 33x56.mxd

Vicksburg Road

Dripping Springs OHV Closed Area

La Paz Valley OHV Closed Area

La Paz Valley OHV Closed Area

Bureau of Land Management

Yuma Field Office

April 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Legend

Routes Yuma Field Office Boundary

County Lines

Township and Range

Major Washes

Freeways

Primary Route - Paved

Primary Route - Unpaved

Secondary Route - Paved

Secondary Route - Unpaved

Rivers and Lakes

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Reclamation

Tribal Lands

Military

State

State Wildlife

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

USFWS Wilderness

Private

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

LP1184

LP1158

LP1142

LP881

LP881

LP881

LP1142

LP1

142

LP1

158

LP1184

LP1170

LP1174

LP1167

LP1168

LP1188

LP1173

LP1159

LP1178

LP1182

LP1

152

LP1189

LP1169

LP434

LP1194

LP1156

LP1166

LP1183

LP1179

LP1161

LP1187

LP1192

LP1180

LP1165

LP1164

LP1163

LP1154

LP1162

LP1157

LP1153

LP1155

LP1181

LP1175

LP1160

LP2845

LP1186

LP1185

LP1172

LP432

LP1190

LP1171

LP1177

LP1176

LP430

LP1191

LP429

LP022

LP434

LP431

LP433

LP432

LP430

LP2658

LP2654

LP2729

LP2722

LP2675

LP2591

LP2646

LP2726

LP079

LP078

LP081

LP077

LP073

LP077

LP875

LP081

LP080

LP077

LP076

LP080

LP079

LP1071

LP081

LP2722

LP2591

LP2592

LP2675

LP2658

LP2661

LP2682

LP2646

LP2715

LP2657

LP2726

LP2681

LP2654

LP2714

LP2696

LP2729

LP2690

LP2697

LP2724

LP2699

LP2694

LP2727

LP2723

LP2717

LP2698

LP2691

LP2720

LP2670

LP2656

LP2695

LP2693

LP2590 LP2687

LP2719

LP2683

LP2731

LP2647

LP2685

LP2736

LP2689

LP2595

LP2649

LP2664

LP2663

LP2634

LP2721

LP2622

LP2707

LP2686

LP2692

LP2730

LP2712

LP2676

LP2731

LP2725

LP2688

LP2728

LP2672

LP2726

LP2734

LP2378

LP2378

LP2438

LP2456

LP2495

LP2496

LP2451

LP2638

LP2571

LP2488

LP775

LP875

LP077

LP078

LP875

LP817

LP778

LP777

LP2488

LP2378

LP2406

LP2456

LP2592

LP2496

LP2523

LP2438

LP2448

LP244

LP2512

LP2635

LP2571

LP2495

LP2503

LP2441

LP2476

LP2573

LP2489

LP2451

LP2603

LP2484

LP2531

LP2375

LP2642

LP2424

LP2476

LP2469

LP2444

LP2460

LP2537

LP2461

LP2658

LP2585

LP2458

LP2638

LP2407

LP2492

LP2589

LP2462

LP2412

LP2651

LP2434

LP2384

LP2582

LP2522

LP2624

LP2637

LP2590

LP2661

LP2430

LP2640

LP2382

LP2597

LP2617

LP2408

LP2478

LP2543

LP2540

LP2677

LP2612

LP2670

LP2621

LP2657

LP2514

LP2422

LP2526

LP2529

LP2442

LP2671

LP2562

LP2668

LP2410

LP2843

LP2843 LP2843

LP917

LP908

LP916

LP918

LP913

LP407

LP923

LP922

LP418

LP417

LP2843

LP1328

LP1357

LP1331

LP1409

LP1334

LP1234

LP1380

LP1318

LP2842

LP1321

LP1335

LP1336

LP1319

LP1359

LP1355

LP1364

LP1347

LP1408

LP1411

LP1325

LP1374

LP1348

LP2844

LP1343

LP1379

LP1341

LP1346

LP1352

LP1342

LP1316

LP1365

LP1375

LP1338

LP1356

LP1326

LP1366

LP1324

LP1367

LP1345

LP1371

LP1368

LP1372

LP1385

LP1378

LP1390

LP1410

LP1360

Inset Map

#11

Inset Map

#9

Inset Map #9

Inset Map #10

Inset Map

#10

Inset Map #8

Inset Map #11

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

Inset Map

#8

LP921

LP2198

LP2111

LP2036

LP921

LP323

LP321

LP320

LP320

LP2111

LP2198

LP2036

LP2157

LP2133

LP2174

LP2203

LP2200

LP218

LP

8

2206

LP2190

LP2180

LP2068

LP2149

LP2199

LP2117

LP2076

Inset Map #12

Inset

Map

#12

0 500 1,000

Meters

LP1226

LP1227

LP881

LP1220

LP1234

LP1207

LP1207

LP096

LP881

LP1197

LP1205

LP881

LP888

LP884

LP886

LP887

LP881

LP885

LP883

LP428

LP420

LP436

LP096

LP1207

LP1220

LP1205

LP1215

LP1234

LP1227

LP1226

LP1229

LP1209

LP1240

LP096

LP1214

LP1193

LP1216

LP1199

LP1188

LP1232

LP1198

LP1211

LP1243

LP1208

LP1219

LP1224

LP1203

LP1237

LP1217

LP1223

LP1239

LP1241

LP885

LP1222

LP1238

LP1212

LP1235

LP1200

LP1142

LP1233

LP2821

LP1231

LP1221

LP1206

LP2847

LP1244

LP1201

LP1195

LP1228

LP1194

LP1242

LP1196

LP1236

LP1225

LP1204

LP1215

0 500 1,000

Meters

Inset Map #13

Inset Map

#13

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

Travel Management

Area Boundaries

Preferred Alternative

OHV Closed Areas

14-Day Camping

Area/Long-term

Routes Too Dense to Visitor Area

Individually Label

Primitive Route

Railroad

Digitized Linear Feature **

Non-Motorized Route

These digitized linear features were drawn

from aerial photos and digital topographic

maps. These linear features have not been

field checked. Therefore, some of these

linear features may not exist.

** Note:
Map TMA-3:

§ ̈¦10

YE001

YE004

YE00

YE0

7

08

YE009

YE010

YE011

YE013

YE003

YE012

YE016

YE005

YE022

YE001

YE024

YE044

YE025

YE032

YE028

YE027

YE009

YE014

YE047

YE049

YE050

YE078

Y

E072

YE080

YE051 YE052

YE072

YE264

YE013

YE267

YE268

YE271

Y

YE276

E275

YE273

YE272

YE269

YE274

YE270

YE266

YE281

YE049

YE293

YE059

YE289

YE290

YE006

YE286

YE282

YE284

YE032

YE285

YE287

YE288

YE020

YE020

YE416

YE405

YE415

YE020

YE416

YE408

YE006

YE025

YE006

YE006

YE407

YE425

YE426

YE382

YE043

YE398

YE380

YE336

Y

E332

YE329

YE328

YE3

Y

30

E33

YE

1

333

YE335

YE334

YE025

YE010

YE043

YE230

YE063

YE252

YE251

YE244

YE249

YE250

YE244

YE245

YE246

YE247

YE063

YE245

YE249

YE248

YE413

YE412

YE410

YE006

YE242

YE241

YE008

YE238

YE236

YE235

YE089

YE233

YE234

YE237

YE006

YE065

YE386

YE240

YE211

YE223

YE385

YE387

YE385

YE383 YE089

YE427

YE001

YE001

YE077 YE077

YE035

YE033

YE033

YE079

YE080

YE081

YE082

YE

073 YE074

YE075

YE037

YE226

YE225

YE428

YE093

YE093

YE092

YE085

YE090

YE089 YE088

YE086

YE086

YE087

YE091

YE090

YE094

YE037

YE095

YE095

YE202

YE203

YE210

YE209

YE207

YE208

YE215

YE214

YE212

YE205

YE204

YE206

YE213

YE089

YE219

YE220

YE201

YE097

YE221

YE223

YE200

YE099

YE098

YE001

YE072

YE076

YE070

YE029

YE429

YE430

YE003

YE025

YE056

YE031

YE004

YE004

YE069

YE064

YE229

YE031

YE060

YE227

YE325

YE324

YE323

YE322

YE321

YE321

YE320

YE319

YE315

YE025

YE397

YE318

Y

E3

Y

16

E

031

YE432

YE431

YE058

YE061

YE06

YE

3

226

YE065

YE066

YE068

YE067

YE059

YE062

YE3

YE312 11

YE310

YE049

YE301

YE051

YE300

YE051

YE303

YE306

YE051

YE299

YE307

YE010

YE304

YE308

YE053

YE305

YE310

Y

E213

YE214

YE310

YE052

YE308

YE010

YE423

YE417

YE416

YE416

YE418

YE008

YE025

YE025

YE069

YE043

YE047

YE083

YE077

YE077

YE081

YE079

YE089

YE067

YE014

YE012

YE014

YE014

YE012

YE016

YE016

YE008

YE065

YE043

YE008

YE390

YE393

YE396

YE394

YE395

YE392

YE389

YE009

YE009

YE009

YE433

YE044

YE457

YE450

YE456

YE450

YE452

YE453

YE451

YE451

YE450

YE454

YE455

YE450

YE458

YE459

YE460

YE461 YE461

YE47

Y

1

E470

YE472

YE472

YE473

YE504

YE516

YE533

YE087

YE535

YE540

YE541

YE537

YE539

YE537

YE538

YE069

YE542

YE553

YE556

YE077

YE562

YE571 YE571

YE574

YE581

YE583

YE582

YE025

YE589

YE590

YE591

YE595

YE599

YE599

YE598

YE598

YE598

YE598

YE598

YE010

YE408

YE598

YE049

YE600

YE213

YE600

YE049

YE601

YE213

YE053

YE051

YE052

YE052

YE606

YE607

GR376

GR377

YE616

YE768

YE709

YE709

YE709

YE709

YE709

YE709

YE709

YE750

YE750 YE750

YE750

YE738

YE738

YE738

YE738

YE738

YE742

YE742

YE742

YE742

YE416

YE416

YE416

YE416

YE626

YE626

YE626

YE701

YE701

YE701

YE710

YE710

LP1537

YE632

YE632

YE708

YE708

YE707

YE707

YE743

YE743

YE1079

YE1079

YE043

YE043

YE720

YE639

YE740

YE638

YE611

YE610

YE448

YE633

YE742

YE776

YE778

YE621

YE643

YE631

YE1049

YE828

YE650

YE736

YE408

YE1239

YE716

YE532

YE744

YE1253

YE1251

YE753

YE630

YE1

181

YE089

YE622

YE652

YE1054

YE673

YE1097

YE739

YE025

YE320

YE766

YE733

YE1150

YE752

YE877

YE642

YE680

YE387

YE777

LP1058

YE612

YE627

YE637

YE748

YE1247

YE1247

YE1247 YE737

YE623

YE728

YE665

YE083

YE1050

YE628

YE794

YE1107

YE640

YE636

YE1236

YE675

YE676

GR109

YE773

YE713

YE663

YE1044

YE669

YE695

YE641

YE772

YE685

YE711

YE705

YE75

YE

1

1248

YE1248

YE863

YE679

YE821

YE634

YE1054

YE664

YE049

YE698

YE768

YE058

YE1032

YE882

LP1373

YE803

YE715

LP1089

YE647

LP1486

YE667

YE860

YE869

YE1252

YE651

YE902

YE1036

YE687

YE697

YE769

GR340

YE646

YE894

YE765

YE761

YE732

YE083

YE668

YE615

YE712

YE683

YE884

YE654

YE755

YE1201

YE729

YE1249

YE1160

YE717

YE003

YE875

YE655

YE764

GR110

YE1255

YE719

YE1035

GR332

GR364

YE206

YE012

YE834

YE681

YE703

GR335

YE730

YE1142

YE1147

YE964

YE595

YE804

YE1101

YE734

YE081

LP1483

YE950

YE653

YE1255

YE818

YE722

YE933

YE1006

YE614

YE1252

GR346

YE677

YE595

YE1088

YE858

YE853

GR371

YE861

LP1369

YE1213

YE645

YE1007

YE1146

YE799

YE718

YE644

YE461

YE1034

YE725

YE625

YE1143

LP1868

YE1250

YE1250

YE856

YE595

YE1042

YE968

YE812

YE1191

YE770

YE1223

YE624

YE666

YE970

GR359

YE819

YE735

YE079

YE1013

YE981

YE754

YE885

YE1072

YE862

YE699

YE1204

YE867

YE892

YE1029

YE1012

GR374

YE676

YE1119

GR349

GR012

LP1404

YE7

67

YE619

YE904

YE1127

YE078

YE1086

YE775

YE1051

LP1

631

GR351

YE936

YE985

GR334

YE678

YE1211

YE774

YE888

GR331

YE851

YE1219

YE906

YE670

LP1756

YE1045

YE929

YE275

YE684

YE826

YE724

YE975

YE999

YE827

YE236

YE1027

YE1126

YE727

YE816

GR367

YE868

YE781

YE806

YE974

YE486

YE574

YE836

GR107

YE823

YE249

YE1235

YE802

YE1217 YE1217

GR357

GR365

YE801

YE1233

YE789

YE686

YE938

YE690

YE454

YE796

YE901

YE1056

LP1405

YE1076

YE837

YE900

YE958

YE706

YE1028

LP1090

LP1407

YE982

YE1139

YE746

YE920

YE1231

YE871

YE865

YE1067

YE014

YE576

GR355

YE672

YE635

YE783

YE1

011

YE849

YE629

YE962

YE954

GR372

YE1025

YE1198

YE790

YE1199

YE880

YE1141

LP1386

YE850

YE1058

LP1492

LP1471

LP1401

LP1652

YE798

YE1024

LP1351

LP1593

YE857

YE987

YE749

YE832

YE210

YE723

YE848

LP1353

YE1041

YE1080

YE830

YE083

LP1468

YE1227

YE1135

YE1177

YE1016

YE661

YE1001

YE762

YE847

YE1094

YE1129

YE859

LP1350

YE1009

LP1647

YE866

YE825

YE1071

YE1245

YE671

GR358

YE959

YE996

YE1026

YE1010

LP1479

YE891

GR354

YE994

YE1052

YE1187

YE842

YE797

YE

808

GR338

YE696

YE788

YE978

YE846

YE1043

YE813

YE1068

YE903

YE793

YE841

YE864

YE1053

YE1113

YE852

YE1003

LP1763

YE1203

GR010

YE843

YE016

YE1095

GR369

GR373

YE1229

YE1118

YE776

YE714

YE893

YE1116

YE951

YE674

YE760

YE556

YE845

YE662

YE1242

YE003

LP1432

YE1098

YE983

YE1019

YE1133

YE013

YE1037

YE782

YE704

YE835

YE984

YE838

YE779

YE918

LP1569

YE1144

GR345

YE822

YE1132

YE879

YE824

YE731

YE809

YE909

YE1048

LP1605

YE927

YE876

GR344

LP16

04

YE943

YE874

YE741

YE662

YE264

YE648

YE811

YE1030

GR337

GR368

YE051

YE928

YE839

YE792

LP1734

YE1157

GR339

YE923

YE965

YE1246

YE1243

YE1190

YE1179

YE1031

YE785

YE991

YE773

YE1018

YE800

YE814

YE1023

YE872

YE1038

YE700

YE771

YE1022

YE795

YE537

YE1149

YE989

YE695

YE649

YE1256

YE1140

YE973

LP1648

GR356

LP1708

YE1194

YE737

YE745

YE992

YE308

YE1228

LP1354

YE1137

YE921

YE805

YE1106

YE956

YE1020

GR352

YE1202

LP1425

YE961

YE1128

YE945

YE1225

YE986

YE791

LP1751

YE977

YE1014

YE997

YE308

YE1017

YE1057

YE1117

YE268

YE1122

GR366

YE969

YE914

YE1230

YE960

YE972

GR333

YE905

YE702

YE787

LP1393

YE990

YE931

YE1120

YE886

YE1002

YE1073

YE1115

LP1579

YE854

GR343

YE949

YE899

YE896

YE820

YE1035

YE1078

YE1123

GR348

YE1033

GR347

YE1121

YE895

YE1066

YE1112

YE1070

YE924

LP1363

YE1069

YE1064

GR112 YE1063

YE1075

YE780

GR360

YE106

Y

5

E1062

YE013

YE1082

GR361

YE897

YE1083

YE1167

YE1077

YE915

LP1491

LP1362

YE006

YE786

YE833

GR362

YE1111

YE1212

YE1138

YE993

YE995

YE1110

YE1015

LP1361

LP1695

YE855

YE1188

GR353

YE1060

YE1108

YE1109

YE930

YE1124

YE963

YE1047

GR330

GR341

YE948

YE1238

YE980

YE957

YE1005

YE807

YE971

YE844

YE784

YE025

GR350

GR375

YE1240

YE988

YE250

GR370

YE1009

YE1097

YE1130

YE1131

YE1244

YE881

YE883

YE887

YE1247

YE633

YE721

YE726

YE810

YE870

YE878

YE1257

113°15'0"W

113°15'0"W

113°22'30"W

113°22'30"W

113°30'0"W

113°30'0"W

113°37'30"W

113°37'30"W

113°45'0"W

113°45'0"W

113°52'30"W

113°52'30"W

33°37'30"N

33°37'30"N

33°30'0"N

33°30'0"N

33°22'30"N

33°22'30"N

33°15'0"N

33°15'0"N

33°7'30"N

33°7'30"N

33°0'0"N

33°0'0"N

Yuma East Travel Management Area

1 0 1 2 3

Miles ¬

The Bureau of Land Management makes no

warranties, implied or expressed, with respect

to information shown on this map.

1 0 1 2 3

Kilometers

YUMA FIELD OFFICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

R 16 W

1:80,000

YE005

§ ̈¦10

YE024

YE003

YE003

YE446

YE024

YE451

YE015

YE003

YE450

YE448

YE043

YE449

YE034

YE035

YE435

YE003

YE003

YE437

YE017

YE436

YE434

YE019

YE001

YE001

YE014

YE019

YE016

YE014

YE026

YE025

YE024

YE040

YE020

YE447

YE445 YE439

YE439

YE440

YE438

YE039

YE038

YE038

YE037

YE02

YE022

1

YE023

YE447

YE443

YE44

YE44

1

2

YE1218

YE680

YE035

YE1176

YE1201

YE1160

Y

E1171

YE1090

YE688

YE1158

YE689

YE682

YE1219

YE118

5

YE1153

YE1175

YE1170

YE1195

YE448

YE1184

YE690

YE1164

YE1199

YE116

6

YE1180

Y

E12

0

8

YE1148

YE1134

YE434

YE1173

YE682

YE1071

YE1151

YE1206

YE1168

YE1104

YE1145

YE 1186

YE018

YE1156

226

YE1178

YE1152

YE1 085

YE439

YE1172

YE1092

YE1089

Y

E1096

Y

E1102

YE1083

Y

E1103

YE1084

Y

E1091

YE1087

YE1081

YE1165

Y

E1093

YE1099

YE1154

YE1237

YE1174

YE1105

YE1189

Y

E1100

YE1205

YE682

YE1207

YE1155

YE1159

YE1169

YE444

YE1163

YE1162

YE1161

YE1182

YE1183

YE1220

YE1221

YE1224

YE1222

YE1200

YE1196

YE1210

YE1214

YE1215

YE488

YE488

YE499

YE485

YE486

YE486

YE020

YE028

YE006

YE476

Y

E4

81

YE476

YE476

YE020

YE416

YE020

YE424

YE488

YE487

YE484

YE482

YE028

YE487

YE486

YE490

YE491

YE492

YE493

YE494

YE497

YE496

YE488

YE487

YE020

YE501

YE604

YE1241

YE751

YE769

YE657

E933

YE955

Y

YE908

YE757

YE946

YE947

YE937

YE952

YE658

YE604

YE660

YE953

YE488

YE1254

YE911

YE922

YE759

YE756

YE916

YE912

YE758

YE656

YE495

YE490

YE941

YE925

YE917

YE907

YE898

YE939

YE961

YE657

YE935

YE450

YE450

YE052

YE072

YE456

YE456

YE259

YE258

YE263

YE262

YE070

YE261

YE609

YE253

YE609

YE608

YE608

YE608

YE255

YE256

YE070

YE256

YE257

YE257

YE1032

YE1039

YE1040

YE1046

Inset Map #1

Inset Map #2

Inset Map #3

Inset Map #3

Inset Map #2

Inset Map

#1

T 1 S

T 2 S

R 15 W R 14 W R 13 W R 12 W R 11 W R 10 W R 9 W

T

4

N

T

3

N

T

2

N

T

1

N

T

1

S

T

2

S

T

3

S

T

4

S

T

5

S

T

6

S

T 3 N

T 2 N

Gila River

La Paz County

Yuma County

Marico

pa C

o

unty

Eagletail Mountains Wilderness

New Water

Mountains

Wilderness

KOFA National

Wildlife

Refuge

KOFA Refuge

Wilderness

Vicksburg Road

w:\projects\yfo_rmp\trans_rec\Route Inventory Yuma East Map 33x44.mxd

Map

TMA-1

Map

TMA-2 Map

TMA-3

Map

TMA-4

Map

TMA-5

Index

Map

!

^(Phoenix Yuma

Planning

Area

A R I Z O N A Bureau of Land Management

Yuma Field Office

April 2008

Legend U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Yuma Field Office Boundary

County Lines

Township and Range

Major Washes

Rivers and Lakes

Routes

Freeways

Primary Route - Paved

Primary Route - Unpaved

Secondary Route - Paved

Secondary Route - Unpaved

Railroad

Primitive Route

Non-Motorized Route

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

These digitized linear features were drawn

from aerial photos and digital topographic

maps. These linear features have not been

field checked. Therefore, some of these

linear features may not exist.

** Note:

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Reclamation

Tribal Lands

Military

State

State Wildlife

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

USFWS Wilderness

Private

Digitized Linear Feature **

Travel Management

Area Boundaries

Preferred Alternative

OHV Closed Areas
Map

TMA-1

Map

TMA-2 Map

TMA-3

Map

TMA-4

Map

TMA-5

Index

Map

Y

E025

YE083

YE077

YE077

YE081

YE079

E089

E546

YE077

YE562

YE571 YE571

YE572

YE576

YE583

YE582

YE025

YE589

YE590

YE591

YE4

16

92

YE594

YE594

YE596

GR001

GR003

GR003

GR004

GR002

GR005

GR010

GR007

GR008

GR007

GR011

GR006

GR012

GR013

GR027

GR027

GR027

GR016

GR014

G

R015 GR017

GR030

GR031

GR031

GR035

GR036

G

R036

GR036

GR036

GR037

GR038

GR0

GR039

38

GR040

GR041

G

R039

G

R032

GR033

G

R034

GR032

GR091

GR090

GR093

GR090

GR091

GR090

GR0

79

GR079

GR089

GR092

GR091

GR089

GR088

GR080

GR090

GR079

GR079

GR073

GR073

GR073

GR073

G

R081

GR080

GR068

GR081

GR

072

GR078

GR074

GR075

GR076

GR

077

GR055

GR067

GR065

GR064

GR060

GR063

GR062

GR061

GR066

G

R043

GR042

GR044

GR044

G

R054

§ ̈¦8

§ ̈¦8

GR074

GR074

GR074

GR074

GR074

GR096

GR029

GR098

GR076

GR099

GR100

GR078

GR101

GR082

GY030

GY059

GR313

GR317GR323

GR310

GR294

GR298

GR297

GR296

GR251

GR265

GY890

GR127

GR131

GR134

GR114 GR120

GR120

GR360

GR362

GR363

YE709

YE701

YE709

YE710

YE707

YE750

YE61

Y

3

E611

YE738 YE610

YE621

YE616

YE716

YE089

YE708

YE612

GR110

YE083

YE794

GR109

YE713

YE695

YE711

YE828

YE705

YE698

YE803

YE715

YE720 YE697

GY890

GY945

GR121

GR114

YE083

YE617

YE615

YE712

YE717

GR239

GR302

YE719

YE1247

GR364

YE416

YE703

GR314

YE804

YE081

YE721

GR104

GR108

GR293

YE614

YE595

GR371

YE799

YE718

GR307

YE812

GR115

YE620 YE618

GR054

GR169

GR246

GR359

YE079

GR323

YE699

GR105

GR374

YE722

GR349

GR116

GR012

GR130

GY753

YE619

GR268

GR216

GR310

GY574

GR367

GR137

GR321

YE806

YE816

GR135

YE574

GR311

GR106

GR107

GR314

YE802

GY547

GR357

GR365

YE801

YE1233

YE789

YE796

GR304

GR035

YE706

GY958

YE576

YE783

GR280

Y

GR372

E790

GR266

GY535

GR111

YE798

GR117

YE723

YE725

GR118

GY752

GR119

GR309

GR113

YE724

GR358

GR288

YE821

YE797

GR319

YE808

YE696

GY898

YE788

YE813

YE793

GR248

GR179

GR369

GY607

GR373

YE714

GR324

GR292

GR133

YE782

GR306

YE704

GR316

GY567

YE779

YE809

GR299

GR326

GR122

GR250

GR290

GY881

GR253

YE819

YE811

GR308

GR368

YE792

GR325

GR128

GR322

YE800

YE814

GR230

YE700

GR318

GY564

YE795

GR261

GR184

YE695

GR301

GR218

YE582

GR206

YE805

GR240

GY940

YE791

GR281

GR366

GY918

YE702

YE810

GR320

GR132

YE787

GR291

YE1234

GR213

GY936

GR112

GR233

GR129

GR252

GR231

GR361

YE817

GR295

GR315

GY954

YE786

GR279

GR126

GR305

GR125

GR256

GR244

GR124

GR123

YE1238

GY777

GR136

YE807

YE083

GR287

YE784

YE025

GY059

YE1232

GR237

GR375

GR254

YE595

GR377

GR272

GR312

GR257

GR370

GR376

GR255

GY978

GR241

YE815

GR303

YE574

YE781

YE581

YE580

GR381

DATELAND

113°15'0"W

113°15'0"W

113°22'30"W

113°22'30"W

113°30'0"W

113°30'0"W

113°37'30"W

113°37'30"W

113°45'0"W

113°45'0"W

113°52'30"W

113°52'30"W

114°0'0"W

114°0'0"W

33°0'0"N

33°0'0"N

32°52'30"N

32°52'30"N

32°45'0"N

32°45'0"N

32°37'30"N

32°37'30"N

Map TMA-4: Gila River Valley Travel Management Area

1 0 1 2 3

Miles

¬

The Bureau of Land Management makes no

warranties, implied or expressed, with respect

to information shown on this map.

1 0 1 2 3

Kilometers

YUMA FIELD OFFICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

R 18 W

!

^(

Yuma

Phoenix

Planning

Area

A R I Z O N A

1:75,000

R 17 W R 16 W R 15 W R 14 W R 13 W R 12 W

T

4

S

T

5

S

T

6

S

T

7

S

T

8

S

T

9

S

T

10

S

Gila River

KOFA National

Wildlife

Refuge

KOFA Refuge

Wilderness

R 11 W R 10 W R 9 W

Yuma Proving

Grounds

Barry M. Goldwater

Airforce Range

Yum

a

C

ounty

M

aricopa

C

ount

y

GR340

GR343

GR340

GR340

GR332

GR335

GR346

GR334

GR331

GR338

GR330

GR328

GR337

GR327

GR349

GR339

GR345

GR352

GR333

GR343

GR348

GR347

GR353

GR329

GR342

GR341

GR350

GR336

GR346

GR027

GR021

GR019

GR021

GR018

GR025

GR022

G

R023

GR024

GR028

GR020

GR023

Sears Point OHV Closed Area

Legend Routes Surface Management

Yuma Field Office Boundary

County Lines

Township and Range

Major Washes

Freeways

Primary Route - Paved

Primary Route - Unpaved

Secondary Route - Paved

Secondary Route - Unpaved

Primitive Route

Railroad

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Reclamation

Tribal Lands

Military

State

State Wildlife

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

USFWS Wilderness

Private

Rivers and Lakes

Travel Management Area Boundaries

Preferred Alternative OHV Closed Areas

Bureau of Land Management

Yuma Field Office

April 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

0 500 1,000

Meters

GR222

GR228

GR217

GR198

GR225

GR219

GR204

GR221

GR197

GR224

GR189

GR229

GR194

GR1

91

GR234

GR223

GR378

GR226

GR227

GR220

GR190

GR379

GR232

GR055

GR095

GR209

GR238

GR058

GR095

GR044

GR083

GR056

G

R097

GR055

GR059

G

R057

G

R055

GR071

G

R069

GR055

GR070

GR094

GR205

GR215

GR155

GR170

GR188

GR199 GR193

GR186

GR084

GR203

GR178

GR176

GR201

GR195

GR177

GR214

GR175

GR196

GR200

GR204

GR173

GR183

GR212

GR180

GR181

GR

191

GR168

GR197

GR192

GR194

GR211

G

R190

GR202

GR172

GR187

GR185

GR171

GR208

GR095

GR174

GR

182

GR207

GR083

GR094

GR084

GR102

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

GR155

GR140

GR159

GR142

GR150

GR157

GR149

GR161

GR143

GR167

GR158

GR152

GR156

GR160

GR165

GR163

GR148

GR138

GR162

GR164

GR145

GR083

GR154

GR141

GR139

GR166

GR151

GR146

GR147

GR144

GR153

GR083

GR085

GR088

GR086

GR087

GR087

G

R103

GR273

GR275

GR242

GR258

GR276

GR247

GR282

GR235

GR264

GR249

GR269

GR236

GR380

GR271

GR050

GR286

GR285

GR283

GR263

GR284

GR259

GR051

GR274

GR278

GR270

GR044

GR041

GR050 GR046

GR051

GR053

GR052

GR048

GR047

GR049

GR045

GR051

GR050

GR052

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

Inset Map

#5

Inset Map

#4

Inset Map

#3

Inset Map

#2

Inset Map

#1

Inset Map #2

Inset Map #1

Inset Map #3

Inset Map #4

Inset Map #5

These digitized linear features were drawn from

aerial photos and digital topographic maps.

These linear features have not been field

checked. Therefore, some of these linear

features may not exist.

** Note:

Digitized Linear Feature **

Non-Motorized Route
Map

TMA-1

Map

TMA-2 Map

TMA-3

Map

TMA-4

Map

TMA-5

Index

Map

GR0

§ ̈¦8

GR089

GR080

GY385

GY384

GY384

GY383

GY382

GY381

GY383

GY001

GY011

G

Y024

GY005

GY030

GY031

GY026

GY029

GY032

GY031

GY033

GY034

GY035

GY042

GY041

GY039

GY050

GY053

GY057

GY035

GY051

GY05

G

6

Y058

GY055

G

Y035

GY052

GY030

GY045

GY088

GY059

GY059

G

GY059

Y063

GY062

GY062

GY069

GY068

GY065

GY066

GY060

GY064

G

Y061

GY061

GY067

GY077

GY107

GY105

GY112

GY115

GY118

GY386

GY112

GY114

GY114

GY116

GY113

GY117

GY1

G

56

Y170

G

Y070

GY083

GY084

GY089

GY090

GY084

GY054

GY

G

086

Y087

GY085

GY204

GY087

GY086

GY084

GY085

GY181

GY223

GY220

GY085

GY084

GY224 GY054

GY284

GY303

GY30

G

0

Y298

£¤95

GY371

GY363

GY379

GY380

GY378

GY357

GY360

GY362

GY359

GY356

GY355

GY361

GY360

GY357

GY387

GY360

GY388

GY391

GY390

GY389

GY180

GY173

G GY200

Y200

GY195

GY197

GY201

GY196

GY203

GY392

GY201

§ ̈¦8

£¤95

GY394 GY395

GY395

Co. 24th Street

Co. 23th StreetAvenue F Avenue F

Avenue E

Avenue D

GY393

GY421

GY422

GY423

GY424

GY425

GY426

GY430

GY427 GY428

GY429

GY431

GY432

GY432

GY433

GY434

GY435

GY436

GY437

GY440

GY439

GY442

GY438

GY443

GY444

GY445

GY662

GY474

GY503

GY555

GY779

GY890

GY850

GY044

GY644

GY617

GY1084

GY460

G

Y454

GY514

GY1090

GY645

GY778

G Y 4 98

GY484

GY536

G

Y810

GY717

GY550

GY774

GY946

G

R169

GY508

GY769

G Y6 38

GY871

GY535

G

Y858

GY482

GR130

GY753

GY971

GY459

GY707

GY816

G

Y489

G

Y501

GY1086

GY1093

GY1242

GY544

GY932

GY651

GY574

GY519

G Y 465

GY682

GY1085

GY495

GY895

GY794

GY 922

GY468

GY547

GY487

GY656

GY470

GY899

GY764

GY564

GY949

GY1094

GY562

GY958

GY668

G

Y504

GY962

G Y 5 56

GY526

G

Y1092

GY483

G Y 7 10

GY469

GY766

GY471

GY687

GY502

GY752

G

Y531

G

R113

GY767

GY478

GY089

GY863

GY567

GY604

G

Y513

G

Y783

GY1 095

GY467

GY980

GY614

GY701

G

Y491

GY898

G Y 8 60

GY1034

GR179

GY557

GY607

GY524

GY466

GY477

GY488

GY787

G

R 1 33

GY494

GY1242

GY1005

G Y737

G Y528

GY755

G Y6 60

G Y6 11

G Y9 38

G Y 4 8 1

GY523

GY757

GY529

GY945

GY784

GY545

GY570

G Y 6 7 4

GY975

GY522

GY702

GY838

GY1091

GY591

GY533

GY881

GY615

GY111

GY809

GY532

GY952

GY585

GY542

GY476

GY475

GY552

GY473

GY919

GY511

GY486

GY671

GY763

GY768

GY696

GR122

GY873

GY880

GY728

GY642

GR184

GY681

GY936

GY759

GY540

GY959

GY560

GY548

GY515

GY669

GY756

GY465

GY859

GY928

GY941

GY793

GY1021

GY678

GY842

GY799

GY646

GY1089

GY600

GY472

GY738

GY652

GY1177

GY633

GY865

GY762

GY534

GY632

GY857

GY634

GY741

GY918

GY743

GY705

GY972

GY911

GY616

GY877

GR132

GY826

GY655

GY982

GY849

GY455

GY796

GY685

GY708

GY844

GY979

GY989

GY802

GY782

GY665

GR129

GY068

GY973

GY541

GY744

GR126

GY699

GR125

GY822

GY1231

GY493

GY788

GY1222

GR124

GY773

GY700

GY734

GY546

GY780

GY539

GY751

GR136

GY509

GY059

GY879

GY781

GY485

GY623

GY974

GY518

GY680

GY984

GY933

GY760

GY599

GY664

GY789

GY496

GY601

GY527

GY870

GY610

GY608

GY492

GY896

GY718

GY592

GY517

GY202

GY690

GY688

GY673

GY677

GY832

GY786

GY1011

GY1012

GY1023

GY775

GY035

GY772

GY770

GY771

GY765

GY014

GY635

GY679

GY670

GY661

GY736

GY195

GY761

GY730

GY725

GY749

GY747

YUMA

WELLTON

SAN LUIS

SOMERTON

114°7'30"W

114°7'30"W

114°15'0"W

114°15'0"W

114°22'30"W

114°22'30"W

114°30'0"W

114°30'0"W

114°37'30"W

114°37'30"W

114°45'0"W

114°45'0"W

114°52'30"W

114°52'30"W

33°0'0"N

32°52'30"N

32°52'30"N

32°45'0"N

32°45'0"N

32°37'30"N

32°37'30"N

32°30'0"N

32°30'0"N

Map TMA-5: Greater Yuma Travel Management Area

1 0 1 2 3

Miles ¬

The Bureau of Land Management makes no

warranties, implied or expressed, with respect

to information shown on this map.

1 0 1 2 3

Kilometers

YUMA FIELD OFFICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

R 19 E

!

^(

Yuma

Phoenix

Planning

Area

A R I Z O N A

1:79,080

Inset Map #1

R 20 E R 21 E R 22 E R 23 E R 24 E

T

5

S

T

6

S

T

7

S

T

8

S

T

9

S

T

10

S

T

11

S

Gila River

Fort Yuma

Indian

Reservation

Muggins

Mountain

Wilderness

KOFA National

Wildlife

Refuge

KOFA Refuge

Wilderness

Yuma Proving

Grounds

Barry M. Goldwater Airforce Range

Little

Picacho

Wilderness

Picacho

Peak

Wilderness

Cocopah

Indian

Reservation

Cocopah

Indian

Reservation

R 25 W

R 24 W

R 22 W R 21 W R 20 W R 19 W R 18 W R 17 W

MEXICO

MEXICO

CALIFORNIA

T

13

S

T

14

S

T

15

S

T

16

S

Red Township and Range is for the San Bernardino Meridian in California

Grey Township and Range is for the Gila and Salt River Meridian in Arizona

R 23 W

039

GY035

GY035

GY029

GY026

GY026

GY036

GY038

GY037

GY040

GY039

GY039

GY027

GY027

GY028

GY013

GY013

GY025

GY023

GY023

GY024

G

Y024

GY020

GY019

GY

018

GY014

GY012

GY009

GY004

GY007

GY013

GY011

GY008

GY010

GY010

GY015

GY015

GY021

GY017

GY016

GY014

GY002

GY011

GY002

GY007

GY004

GY003

GY005

GR080

GY005

GY001

GY036

GY006

GY022

GY013

GY002

GY037

GY889

GY458

GY778

GY935

GY841

GY897

GY812

G

Y824

GY886

G

Y851

GY905

GY827

G

Y848

GY846

G Y 944

GY980

GY935

GY831

GY904

GY798

G

Y947

GY805

G Y80 6

GY814

G

Y817

GY790

GY457

GY813

GY801

GY1228

GY823

GY9 37

GY940

GY815

GY882

GY819

GY955

GY948

GY811

GY907

GY936

GY845

GY012

GY818

GY892

GY931

GY888

GY938

GY914

GY821

GY821

GY1227

GY092

GY062

GY092

Old Highway 80

§ ̈¦8

GY070

GY074

GY068

GY062

GY070

GY062

GY069

GY062

GY062

GY095

GY095

GY072

GY093

GY091

G

Y078

GY080

GY077

GY081

GY082

GY082

GY099

GY096

GY077

GY101

GY098

GY102

GY101 GY097

GY092

GY079

GY072

GY072

GY076

GY072

GY070

GY109

GY110

GY105

GY105

GY107

GY108

GY095

GY108

GY107

GY077

GY077

GY095

GY106

GY077

GY104 GY077

GY108

GY077

GY077

GY095

GY077

GY075

GY075

GY071

GY073

GY071

GY062

GY069

GY107

GY078

GY092

GY092

GY097

GY103

GY099

GY099

GY

G

097

Y100

R 20 W

R 19 W

GY558

GY583

G

Y526

GY566

GY538

GY565

GY528

GY575

GY559

GY577

GY107

GY089

GY595

G Y543

GY568

GY605

GY537

GY569

GY602

GY563

GY571

GY590

GY579

GY549

GY589

OLD Highway

80

§ ̈¦I-8

GY141

GY109

GY143

GY141

GY142

GY109 GY109

GY109

GY109

GY12

G

2

Y109

GY127

GY130

GY139

GY140

G

GY144

Y141

GY144

GY144

GY145

GY142

GY140

GY139

GY121

GY127

GY122

G

Y125

GY125

GY123

GY126

GY128

GY129

GY096

GY099

GY127

GY090

GY133

GY137

GY134

GY134

GY

G

099

Y132

GY135

GY130

GY131

GY130

GY136

GY133

GY127

GY130

G

Y138

GY142

GY139

GY146

GY118

GY146

GY155

GY122

GY127

GY127

GY123

GY124

GY122

GY122

GY122

GY121

GY120

GY121

GY118

GY120

119

GY154

GY153

GY153

GY152

GY151

GY151

GY139

GY139

GY147

GY148

GY149

GY118

GY147

GY155

GY

GY

154

153

GY150

GY139

GY576

GY598

GY596

GY609

GY612

GY578

GY572

GY573

GY615

GY606

GY588

GY581

GY616

GY593

GY1223

GY587

GY124

GY111

GY594

GY613

GY644

GY 597

G Y128

GY184

GY181

GY181

GY182

GY184

GY182

GY182

GY183

GY159

GY162

GY162

GY163

GY164

GY166

GY167

GY160

GY167

GY164

GY163

GY165

GY162

GY161

GY160

GY156

GY160

GY156

GY178

GY158

GY156

GY162

GY156

GY156

GY156

GY157

GY170

GY169

GY168

GY167

GY

GY1

177

79

GY176

GY176

GY176

GY177

GY175

GY174

GY173

GY167

GY170

GY16GY1

8

72

GY172

GY167

GY171

GY168

GY584

GY580

GY582

GY225

GY226

GY250

GY246

GY249

GY246

GY242

GY247

GY248

GY245

GY244

GY243

GY241

GY242

GY241

GY239

GY239

GY238

GY237

GY230

GY235

GY235

GY230

GY229

GY228

GY228

GY227

GY231

GY225

GY232

GY233

GY234

GY224

GY253

GY227

GY252

GY254

GY227

GY227

GY258

GY257

GY256

GY240

GY236

GY230

GY237

GY238

GY243

GY244

GY225

GY225

GY226

GY255

GY251

GY251

GY250

GY255

GY260

GY260

GY226

GY226

GY226

GY262

GY263

GY263

GY264

GY256

GY

GY265

266

GY268

GY259

GY256

GY256

GY267

GY225

GY226

GY225

GY278

GY279

GY269

GY280

GY281

GY283

GY226

GY282

GY278

GY281

GY278

GY275

GY256

GY270

GY270

GY271

GY270

GY274

GY275

GY270

GY270

GY285

GY288

G

GY285 Y286

GY287

GY292

GY292

GY284

GY287

GY

272

GY273

GY275

GY272

GY271

GY272

GY275

GY277

GY275

GY276

GY275

GY275

GY277

GY277

GY302

GY284

GY272

GY289

GY291

GY285

Mittry Lake

Colorado

River

GY293

GY294

GY298

GY300

GY300

GY300

GY284

GY284

GY301

GY295

GY393

GY297

GY450

GY1056

GY1058

GY993

GY1081

GY1080

GY1077

GY1079

GY906

GY950

GY303

GY957

GY1025

GY1065 GY1069

GY1068

GY960

GY939

GY961

GY1072

GY1084

GY1031

GY1020

GY1002

GY1075

GY988

GY1036

GY1063

GY1235

GY963

GY298

GY1046

GY1076

GY942

GY853

GY878

GY986

GY1022

GY983

GY1042

GY1082

GY1016

GY883

GY1026

GY994

GY966

GY1049

GY1041

GY1062

GY256

GY1052

GY1038

GY1054

GY1024

GY1030

GY902

GY1006

GY895

GY998

GY10 83

GY1032

GY1044

G

Y894

GY924

GY987

GY1085

GY1008

GY290

G

Y951

G

Y1059

GY1048

GY869

GY1045

G

Y1067

GY1073

GY926

GY1066

G Y1 0 61

GY1232

GY967

GY1009

GY1050

GY1074

GY985

GY1040

GY1060

GY855

GY1010

GY1019

GY1070

GY 9 2 9

GY1078

GY997

GY913

GY1071

GY930

GY912

GY992

GY965

GY876

GY1003

GY1037

GY1017

GY953

GY269

G Y8 39

GY976

GY1033

GY296

GY866

GY230

GY1043

GY10 13

GY861

GY1055

GY1004

GY829

GY872

GY1051

GY290

GY1039

GY1064

GY901

GY981

GY995

GY1029

GY996

GY239

GY1057

GY915

GY1000

GY1018

GY1053

GY225

GY1047

GY1234

GY97

GY304

GY284

GY324

GY328

GY322

GY327

GY325

GY324

GY324

GY323

GY315

GY314

GY313

GY306

GY309

GY314

GY307

GY308

GY312

GY322

GY319

GY318

GY305

GY325

GY315

GY320

GY1110

GY308

GY304

GY304

GY302

GY1098

GY311

GY321

GY311

GY1101

GY1109

G

Y1097

GY1104

GY1108

GY316

GY310

GY1105

GY1106

GY123

G

7

Y1107

GY317

GY1102

GY1111

GY1099

GY1103

GY1100

GY084

GY085

GY085

GY218

GY222

GY221

GY218

GY220

GY220

GY219

GY219

GY215

GY206

GY205

GY207

GY208

GY210

GY206

GY211

GY211

GY211

GY213

GY216

GY217

GY205

GY208

GY209

GY08

GY054

6

GY850

GY862

GY215

GY854

GY218

GY891

GY910

GY909

G

Y868 GY850

GY212

GY864

GY816

GY852

G Y908

GY875

GY850

GY835

GY836

GY867

GY1229

GY843

G Y893

G Y 9 3 2

GY847

GY903

G Y206

GY1241

GY952

GY887

GY900

GY369

GY368

GY363

GY369

GY373

GY373

GY373

GY373

GY371

GY371

GY371

GY373

GY373

GY373

GY377

GY376

GY375

GY375

GY374

GY369

GY357

GY357

GY363

GY363

GY

364

GY368

GY364

GY367

GY365

GY366

GY369

GY369

GY370

GY370

GY362

GY363

GY363

GY363

GY371

GY372

GY372

GY372

West Pond

Imperial

Reservoir

Colorado

River

GY371

GY371

(!24

GY396

GY397

GY398

GY399

GY400

GY401

GY402

GY403

G

G

Y404

Y405

GY406

GY407

GY408

GY408

GY409

GY410

GY411

GY413

GY412

GY415

GY414

GY416

GY417

GY418

GY419

GY420

GY184

GY184

GY185

GY187

GY188

GY189

GY189

GY193

GY192

GY190

GY191

GY186

GY

185

GY187

GY188

GY184

GY190

GY192

GY192

GY194

GY591

GY600

GY608

Inset Map #1

Inset Map #2

Inset Map #3

Inset Map #4

Inset Map #7

Inset Map #10

Inset Map #9

Inset

Map

#2

Inset Map

#3

Inset

Map

#4

Inset Map

#5

Inset Map #6

Inset Map #5

Inset Map

#6

Inset Map

#7

Inset Map

#8

Inset Map

#9

GY339

GY341

GY338

GY336

GY338

GY336

GY337

GY3

31

GY333

GY334

GY333 GY332

GY331

GY330

GY329 GY324

GY324

GY328

GY322

GY327

GY336

GY335

GY344

GY338

GY344

GY347

GY346

GY344

GY345

GY344

GY341

GY342

GY343 GY338

GY348

GY338

GY338

GY354

GY338

GY353

GY349

GY350

GY350

GY352

GY351

GY1173

GY1169

GY1176

GY1132

GY1158

GY1240

GY1116

GY1132

GY11 42

GY1173

GY1176

G

Y1239

GY1197

GY1207

GY1171

GY1188

GY1131

GY1123

GY1162

GY1168

GY1216

GY1144

GY1186

GY1157

GY1170

GY1140

GY1238

GY462

GY1117

GY1151

GY1189

GY1154

GY1212

GY113 7

GY461

GY1180

GY1149

GY46 3

GY464

GY1127

GY1164

GY1191

GY1181

GY1122

GY1214

GY1129

GY1161

GY1172

GY1190

GY1198

G

Y1196

GY1211

GY1160

GY1218

G

Y1213

GY1 215

GY1145

GY1112

GY1139

GY1111

GY1133

G

Y 1238

GY1155

GY1209

GY1113

GY1204

GY1183

GY1163

GY1134

GY1184

GY1195 GY1167

GY1239

G Y 11 3 5

GY11 93

G Y11 78

G Y1118

GY114

G

7

Y1146

GY1175

GY1119

GY1166

GY1200

GY1174

GY1130

GY1219

GY1240

GY1179

GY1125

GY1153

GY1110

GY1124

GY1210

GY1205

GY1152

GY1206

GY1187

GY1141

GY1208

GY1185

GY1182

G Y1201

GY1120

GY1148

GY1126

GY1203

GY1236

GY1143

GY1115

GY1121

GY1220

GY1136

GY1194

GY1114

GY1202

GY1199

GY1217

G Y119 2

GY1128

GY1109

Inset Map #8

Inset Map

#10

GY005

GY030

GY041

GY046

GY045

G

Y049

GY048

GY043

GY640

GY657

GY658

GY627

GY6 41

GY1224

GY620

GY622

GY636

GY659

GY618

GY626

GY6 48

GY049

GY448

GY628

GY621

GY625

GY695

GY639

GY643

GY663

GY754

GY1225

GY624

Inset Map #11

Inset Map #11

GY715

GY724

GY722

GY727

GY729

GY723

GY726

GY706

GY731

G

Y728

GY694

GY704

GY698

GY721

GY703

GY200

GY392

Inset Map #12

Inset Map

#12

Travel Management Area Boundaries

Preferred Alternative OHV Closed Areas

Legend

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Reclamation

Tribal Lands

Military

State

State Wildlife

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

USFWS Wilderness

Private Yuma Field Office Boundary

County Lines

Township and Range

Major Washes

Rivers and Lakes

Routes too dense to

individually Label

Muggins Mountain OHV Closed Area

Fortuna Wash

OHV Closed Area

Bureau of Land Management

Yuma Field Office

April 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Routes

Freeways

Primary Route - Paved

Primary Route - Unpaved

Secondary Route - Paved

Secondary Route - Unpaved

Primitive Route

Railroad

Hiking Trail

0 250 500

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 1,000 2,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 500 1,000

Meters

0 250 500

Meters

Digitized Linear Feature **

Non-Motorized Route

These digitized linear features were drawn from

aerial photos and digital topographic maps.

These linear features have not been field

checked. Therefore, some of these linear

features may not exist.

** Note: